Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms

[Peter Gluck]

I will ask them, DGTG analytical studies need much work,
anyway they see transmutation and nucleosynthesis.
Very solid and reliable data, still far from complete interpretation.
Peter

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

> is it coherent with DGT claims about isotopic anomalies ?
>
>
> 2012/8/24 Axil Axil 
>
>>  The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not
>> consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products.
>> These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so
>> on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements.
>>
>> Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid.
>>
>> PS: a top of the line presentation.
>>
>>
>> Cheers:  Axil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of
>>> what starts the cold fusion reaction.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/
>>>
>>> I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco
>>> California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up
>>> to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in
>>> the Redwoods and edit lots more video.
>>>
>>> As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm
>>> going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to
>>> this thread.  Is that illegal on Vortex?
>>>
>>> I am having alot of fun making these videos.
>>> Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie.
>>>
>>> Enjoy!
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> Ruby Carat
>>>
>>> r...@coldfusionnow.org
>>> United States 1-707-616-4894
>>> Skype ruby-carat
>>> www.coldfusionnow.org
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms

[Alain Sepeda]

is it coherent with DGT claims about isotopic anomalies ?

2012/8/24 Axil Axil 

>  The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not
> consistent to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products.
> These reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so
> on, together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements.
>
> Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid.
>
> PS: a top of the line presentation.
>
>
> Cheers:  Axil
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby  wrote:
>
>>
>> I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what
>> starts the cold fusion reaction.
>>
>>
>> http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/
>>
>> I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco
>> California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up
>> to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in
>> the Redwoods and edit lots more video.
>>
>> As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going
>> to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this
>> thread.  Is that illegal on Vortex?
>>
>> I am having alot of fun making these videos.
>> Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Ruby Carat
>>
>> r...@coldfusionnow.org
>> United States 1-707-616-4894
>> Skype ruby-carat
>> www.coldfusionnow.org
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms

[Peter Gluck]

And it is also not consistent with the Defkalion analyses.
It is a complex issue.
Peter

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent
> to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These
> reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on,
> together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements.
>
> Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid.
>
> PS: a top of the line presentation.
>
>
> Cheers:  Axil
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby  wrote:
>
>>
>> I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what
>> starts the cold fusion reaction.
>>
>>
>> http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/
>>
>> I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco
>> California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up
>> to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in
>> the Redwoods and edit lots more video.
>>
>> As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going
>> to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this
>> thread.  Is that illegal on Vortex?
>>
>> I am having alot of fun making these videos.
>> Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Ruby Carat
>>
>> r...@coldfusionnow.org
>> United States 1-707-616-4894
>> Skype ruby-carat
>> www.coldfusionnow.org
>>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms

[Axil Axil]

 The Nuclear reactions that ED Storms thinks is happening is not consistent
to what Rossi and Piantelli see as nuclear reaction products. These
reaction products include copper, cobalt, zinc, iron, calcium, and so on,
together with a mix of the first 19 of the lightest elements.

Yes, Rossi's info is questionable by Piantelli info is solid.

PS: a top of the line presentation.


Cheers:  Axil




On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Ruby  wrote:

>
> I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of what
> starts the cold fusion reaction.
>
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/
>
> I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco
> California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then up
> to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp out in
> the Redwoods and edit lots more video.
>
> As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm going
> to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to this
> thread.  Is that illegal on Vortex?
>
> I am having alot of fun making these videos.
> Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie.
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
>  --
> Ruby Carat
>
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> United States 1-707-616-4894
> Skype ruby-carat
> www.coldfusionnow.org
>

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

Axil, thanks for the response. 

However, I believe researchers  have found out that current flows predominantly 
on the outermost tube of a MWNT, not the innermost tube.  So, in fact, the 
doping of Nickel on the outermost tube is probably the reason why they are 
getting superconductive behavior.  

In my theory, nickel would not be needed.  We are aiming for straight p + p 
fusion.  No need to complicate with Ni + p fusion.



I have not read the paper so I will not proclaim any judgement yet.  Give me 
some time to digest this paper.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 1:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King



  http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf

  The above paper attempts to prove that carbon nanotubes are superconductive 
at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel nanoparticles in the outside wall 
of a multi walled nanotube and detecting magnetic changes produced by 
superconductivity.

  This idea may be repurposed in terms of LENR. This technique might be also 
well suited at precisely positioning nickel nanoparticles at the optimum 
nano-metric distance from a charged nanotube to cancel the coulomb barrier at 
the surface of the nickel nanoparticle.
  From the paper:

  Purified MWCNT mat samples (Catalog No. PD15L520) from Nanolab were 
synthesized by chemical vapor deposition under catalyzation of Fe 
nanoparticles. The average outer diameter is about 15 nm and the average inner 
diameter is about 10 nm.

  In detail, in this nanotube configuration, if nickel nanoparticles are doped 
on the outer surface of the MWNT, the particle would always be 5 NM from the 
inner tube, and the current on inner tube would be protected from the nickel.

  Restating it again, if the outer wall of the MWNT is doped with nickel 
nanoparticles, these particles maybe well positioned to be within the coulomb 
screening range of the superconductive electron current on the surface of the 
inner tube of the MWNT.

  This nanotube/nanoparticle arrangement would precisely simulate what happens 
in the cracks that Ed Storms believes causes LENR effects.




  Cheers:   Axil



  On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

Jones,  I kept asking myself that if something like this were even remotely 
true, that someone would have seen this is as some anomalous heating.  So, in 
fact, I was thinking of doing what you are suggesting.

Then it hit me, many of the labs doing CNT research would NOT have seen 
this.  There was at least one missing ingredient. 

In field emission testing, while they are creating current along the CNT, 
they were not doing this in a H2 envelope.  They do their emissions in a 
vacuum.   So, they had a missing ingredient.

In the oxidation of CNTs and purification process, many labs were exposing 
CNTs to High pressure H2, but they were not sparking it.  Hence, they would not 
be getting H+ ionized gas and they would not have electrons flowing.

I searched for a situation that they had all the ingredients: e.g., 
Metallic SWNT, Opened tips nanohorns,  High pressure H2 Envelope, Electric 
Current on CNT via Sparking, and residence time to allow H2 to enter nanohorns 
and the closest situation I could think of is Arc Discharge creation of CNTs 
under H2 environment.  However, in such an environment, they are not saturating 
the CNT with High pressure H2, they use low pressure.  They do not have opened 
CNTs, so H2 would not diffuse into the CNT.  And they are using such high temps 
and arc power that any fusion occuring would not be easy to measure and thus 
would be missed. Because CNTs in this process are few, sparse, not ordered, not 
uniform and contaminated by metal catalyst particles, and they use Low pressure 
H2, it would be logical to conclude that there would be very little fusion (if 
any) that will likely happen and any such event would be missed in a high 
energy arc process where power in the range of 2000 watts are discharged onto 
the tips of 2 small electrodes.





But, putting this aside, what is your opinion about the theoritical basis 
of my theory.  Do you see anything that would make this an impossible process?  
Do you have a stronghold argument why this process could not possibly happen?

  


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King




  From: Jojo Jaro 



  Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 
gas.   A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and 
would almost be trapped there …



  Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all 
of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for 
hydrogen storage. Over the recent

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

Jones, did some back of  the napkin calculations.

Assuming a fusion event releases 18 MeV (I don't know exactly how much energy a 
p + p fusion event would release but I think 18 MeV is a good number to use.) 
The energy anomaly would be equal to 0.0002883919194 J.  Meaning, there 
has to be 346750353505 fusion events to occur in one second to equate to 1 watt 
of energy. 

I don't believe this much fusion events will likely happen in an s Arc 
discharge creation of CNTs.  There is just too much variables in that process 
to create uniform CNTs to allow this to happen.

CNTs have to be created in a mat, vertically aligned with their tops chopped 
off and H2 allowed to diffuse into them and sparks of low power need to be 
applied to prevent the CNT from "exploding" open before they can confine the H+ 
ions long enough to fuse.

Jojo





  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King


   

  From: Jojo Jaro 

   

  Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 
gas.   A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and 
would almost be trapped there .

   

  Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of 
the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for 
hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR 
articles like this:

   

  http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp

   

  Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy 
anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have been 
overlooked?

   

  The initial response is sure - anyone could overlook a little extra heating, 
if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small amount, but not a 
lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release the hydrogen on demand 
involves adding heat.  Of course extra heat is what we want to see, but is a 
factor which would screw up their goals. 

   

  Using this practical approach, the inquiry will eventually gets narrowed down 
to what - in addition to nanotubes and high pressure hydrogen, will convert a 
storage device into an energy device? i.e. another ingredient.

   

  I would think that it is probably worth your time to email a number of these 
researchers and ask them if anything which was suspicious has been noticed in 
thermal heating with various formulations.

   

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Axil Axil]

http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/17002.pdf

The above paper attempts to prove that carbon nanotubes are superconductive
at very high temperatures by imbedding nickel nanoparticles in the outside
wall of a multi walled nanotube and detecting magnetic changes produced by
superconductivity.

This idea may be repurposed in terms of LENR. This technique might be also
well suited at precisely positioning nickel nanoparticles at the optimum
nano-metric distance from a charged nanotube to cancel the coulomb barrier
at the surface of the nickel nanoparticle.
>From the paper:

Purified MWCNT mat samples (Catalog No. PD15L520) from Nanolab were
synthesized by chemical vapor deposition under catalyzation of Fe
nanoparticles. The average outer diameter is about 15 nm and the average
inner diameter is about 10 nm.

In detail, in this nanotube configuration, if nickel nanoparticles are
doped on the outer surface of the MWNT, the particle would always be 5 NM
from the inner tube, and the current on inner tube would be protected from
the nickel.

Restating it again, if the outer wall of the MWNT is doped with nickel
nanoparticles, these particles maybe well positioned to be within the
coulomb screening range of the superconductive electron current on the
surface of the inner tube of the MWNT.

This nanotube/nanoparticle arrangement would precisely simulate what
happens in the cracks that Ed Storms believes causes LENR effects.




Cheers:   Axil

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Jojo Jaro  wrote:

> **
> Jones,  I kept asking myself that if something like this were even
> remotely true, that someone would have seen this is as some anomalous
> heating.  So, in fact, I was thinking of doing what you are suggesting.
>
> Then it hit me, many of the labs doing CNT research would NOT have seen
> this.  There was at least one missing ingredient.
>
> In field emission testing, while they are creating current along the CNT,
> they were not doing this in a H2 envelope.  They do their emissions in a
> vacuum.   So, they had a missing ingredient.
>
> In the oxidation of CNTs and purification process, many labs were exposing
> CNTs to High pressure H2, but they were not sparking it.  Hence, they would
> not be getting H+ ionized gas and they would not have electrons flowing.
>
> I searched for a situation that they had all the ingredients: e.g.,
> Metallic SWNT, Opened tips nanohorns,  High pressure H2 Envelope, Electric
> Current on CNT via Sparking, and residence time to allow H2 to enter
> nanohorns and the closest situation I could think of is Arc Discharge
> creation of CNTs under H2 environment.  However, in such an environment,
> they are not saturating the CNT with High pressure H2, they use low
> pressure.  They do not have opened CNTs, so H2 would not diffuse into the
> CNT.  And they are using such high temps and arc power that any fusion
> occuring would not be easy to measure and thus would be missed. Because
> CNTs in this process are few, sparse, not ordered, not uniform and
> contaminated by metal catalyst particles, and they use Low pressure H2, it
> would be logical to conclude that there would be very little fusion (if
> any) that will likely happen and any such event would be missed in a high
> energy arc process where power in the range of 2000 watts are discharged
> onto the tips of 2 small electrodes.
>
>
>
>
>
> But, putting this aside, what is your opinion about the theoritical basis
> of my theory.  Do you see anything that would make this an impossible
> process?  Do you have a stronghold argument why this process could not
> possibly happen?
>
>
>
>
> Jojo
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King
>
>  ** **
>
> *From:* Jojo Jaro 
>
>  
>
> Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2
> gas.   A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe
> and would almost be trapped there …
>
> ** **
>
> Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all
> of the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for
> hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR
> articles like this:
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp
>
> ** **
>
> Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy
> anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have
> been overlooked?
>
> ** **
>
> The initial response is sure – anyone could overlook a little extra
> heating, if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small
> amount, but not a lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release
> the hydrogen on demand involves adding heat.  Of course extra heat is what
> we want to see, but is a factor which would screw up their goals. 
>
> ** **
>
> Using thi

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

Jones,  I kept asking myself that if something like this were even remotely 
true, that someone would have seen this is as some anomalous heating.  So, in 
fact, I was thinking of doing what you are suggesting.

Then it hit me, many of the labs doing CNT research would NOT have seen this.  
There was at least one missing ingredient. 

In field emission testing, while they are creating current along the CNT, they 
were not doing this in a H2 envelope.  They do their emissions in a vacuum.   
So, they had a missing ingredient.

In the oxidation of CNTs and purification process, many labs were exposing CNTs 
to High pressure H2, but they were not sparking it.  Hence, they would not be 
getting H+ ionized gas and they would not have electrons flowing.

I searched for a situation that they had all the ingredients: e.g., Metallic 
SWNT, Opened tips nanohorns,  High pressure H2 Envelope, Electric Current on 
CNT via Sparking, and residence time to allow H2 to enter nanohorns and the 
closest situation I could think of is Arc Discharge creation of CNTs under H2 
environment.  However, in such an environment, they are not saturating the CNT 
with High pressure H2, they use low pressure.  They do not have opened CNTs, so 
H2 would not diffuse into the CNT.  And they are using such high temps and arc 
power that any fusion occuring would not be easy to measure and thus would be 
missed. Because CNTs in this process are few, sparse, not ordered, not uniform 
and contaminated by metal catalyst particles, and they use Low pressure H2, it 
would be logical to conclude that there would be very little fusion (if any) 
that will likely happen and any such event would be missed in a high energy arc 
process where power in the range of 2000 watts are discharged onto the tips of 
2 small electrodes.





But, putting this aside, what is your opinion about the theoritical basis of my 
theory.  Do you see anything that would make this an impossible process?  Do 
you have a stronghold argument why this process could not possibly happen?

  


Jojo

 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:46 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King


   

  From: Jojo Jaro 

   

  Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 
gas.   A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and 
would almost be trapped there .

   

  Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of 
the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for 
hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR 
articles like this:

   

  http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp

   

  Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy 
anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have been 
overlooked?

   

  The initial response is sure - anyone could overlook a little extra heating, 
if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small amount, but not a 
lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release the hydrogen on demand 
involves adding heat.  Of course extra heat is what we want to see, but is a 
factor which would screw up their goals. 

   

  Using this practical approach, the inquiry will eventually gets narrowed down 
to what - in addition to nanotubes and high pressure hydrogen, will convert a 
storage device into an energy device? i.e. another ingredient.

   

  I would think that it is probably worth your time to email a number of these 
researchers and ask them if anything which was suspicious has been noticed in 
thermal heating with various formulations.

   

[Vo]:video: An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms

[Ruby]

I have uploaded an interview with Edmund Storms on his new theory of 
what starts the cold fusion reaction.


http://coldfusionnow.org/an-explanation-of-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-by-edmund-storms/

I'll be on the road, in my truck, headed to the Bay area (San Francisco 
California region for you non-left-coasters) for another interview, then 
up to Humboldt County to visit my storage unit (next to Hiro's), camp 
out in the Redwoods and edit lots more video.


As such, I won't be monitoring comments on Cold Fusion Now, and I'm 
going to send any individuals interested in discussing the work here to 
this thread.  Is that illegal on Vortex?


I am having alot of fun making these videos.
Especially now that I've discovered the Zoom text on iMovie.

Enjoy!


--
Ruby Carat

r...@coldfusionnow.org 
United States 1-707-616-4894
Skype ruby-carat
www.coldfusionnow.org 

[Vo]:New Lattice Energy presentation focused on hi-temp superconductivity

[pagnucco]

"Speculation: evanescent 'exotic' superconductivity (some form of HTSC) in
heavy-electron 'patches'?

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-hightemperature-superconductivity-in-patchesaug-23-2012

- also examines resistance fluctuations possibly correlated with LENR events


Also interesting, perhaps relevant, is today's press release:
"Superconductor 'flaws' could be key to its abilities"

Subtitle: Many researchers studying superconductivity strive to create a
clean, pure, perfect sample, but a team of physicists found that some
flaws might hold the key to a material's unique abilities.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-superconductor-flaws-key-abilities.html

-- Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:Curiouser and curiouser

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:15:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Dead moving pixies?
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2192008/Are-Martian-overlords---just-dead-pixels-camera-Images-beamed-Curiosity-lead-talk-UFOs-Mars.html
>
>T
..surely if they were dead pixels they would be at the same position relative to
the frame in each image?

Clearly that is not only not the case, but pixels there were "dead" in one image
are suddenly "live" again in the next

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:29:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

With such a device you can leave the fuel in a long time, burning up most of the
actinides. Reprocessing implies extracting the little that remains, and adding
it to the fresh fuel, so that over the long term there is no Pu "anything".

>Such a concept is not possible politically. Pu239 breeding is not
>acceptable both to the government of the US and the current head of the
>NRC. The thorium based U232/U233 fuel cycle produced by a fusion/fission
>hybrid may be acceptable as proliferation resistant because of the high
>level of U232 that is generated by fusion.
>
>High U232 content in U233 provides 6 barriers to proliferation, compared to
>none for Pu239.
>
>George Miley is a supporter of the fusion/fission hybrid.
>
>Hans A. Bathe was the originator of the idea
>
>http://www.marcobresci.it/docs/fusione_ibrida.pdf
>
>Fusion bred U233 has a very high U232 content due to the 2n and 3n
>reaction. This provides U233 with 6 barriers to proliferation, compared to
>none for Pu239. U233 can also be denatured with U238. This mix is also
>proliferation resistant.
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Puppy Dog's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:21:13 +0300:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >After fusion in the ball of plasma is completed, the fusion ash and the
>> left over tritium and deuterium find its way into a diverter that removes
>> it from the burn chamber. The high energy neutrons produced by fusion fly
>> out in all directions. It will be these neutrons that will make U233 in the
>> thorium blanket that will eventually surround the burn chamber.
>> >
>> Surely, if D-T is used, then the neutrons are fast enough to fission U238
>> directly, and no breeding is needed. That allows you to use the current
>> large
>> stockpile of DU as fuel. Actually just about any heavy element or isotope
>> will
>> serve, allowing you to burn up all the actinide wastes currently in
>> storage too.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:57:39 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>www.nasa.gov/pdf/636883main_FDR_talk_NIAC_2012_final.pdf
[snip]
There is a drawing of solar panels attached to a fusion rocket. Has it not
occurred to them, that energy is not a problem when you have fusion power?  :)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Jojo Jaro 

 

Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2
gas.   A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe
and would almost be trapped there .

 

Jojo - One practical approach you might consider is to contact any or all of
the various Labs that have been experimenting with carbon nanotubes for
hydrogen storage. Over the recent years there have quite a number of PR
articles like this:

 

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/January/26011103.asp

 

Many hits on google. Of course these Labs were NOT looking for energy
anomalies, per se, but if there were any strong anomalies, could they have
been overlooked?

 

The initial response is sure - anyone could overlook a little extra heating,
if they were not looking for it. They could overlook a small amount, but not
a lot of thermal gain since part of the process to release the hydrogen on
demand involves adding heat.  Of course extra heat is what we want to see,
but is a factor which would screw up their goals. 

 

Using this practical approach, the inquiry will eventually gets narrowed
down to what - in addition to nanotubes and high pressure hydrogen, will
convert a storage device into an energy device? i.e. another ingredient.

 

I would think that it is probably worth your time to email a number of these
researchers and ask them if anything which was suspicious has been noticed
in thermal heating with various formulations.

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Jeff Berkowitz]

I don't know, but there was a Fredrick's of Hollywood ad on the page.
Coincidence? I think not. ;-)
Jeff

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:26 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> from Jed:
>
> ...
>
> > ...
> ...
> >
> http://www.modellismo.net/forum/statico-kits-info-e-varie/92217-info-caproni-ca-60-noviplano.html
>
> Yeah, but dang! It sure looks impressive! Do those wings flap?
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[James Bowery]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> It would be like buying a thousand expensive integrated circuits without
> having independent evaluation of them, and without working with a
> development kit with one of them.
>

No its not.  Its like doing a systems test rather than a component test
when you are purchasing a system.

That's not the most cautious way of going about things but its not
something that will get most CEO's sued for breach of fiduciary
responsibility if they allow for most purposes.

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

I meant to say,  "And his thermionic catalyst would NOT help the situation 
also."

Why?, because thermionic catalyst emissions are inherently uncontrollable.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King


  WOW, this paper is a gold mine, and most of it went over my head.  This 
quantum mechanical concepts are way past my paygrade.   Maybe Jones, Fran or 
Axil  and others can chime in.  Our resident expert who is "trained" in 
relativity is also welcomed to chime in.

  What I found interesting is this conclusion:

  "It was found that when we put an external particle (read: H+ ion) on a 
metallic nanotube, the electric charge of the particle is screened by internal 
electrons due to the long-range Coulomb interaction between the particle and 
internal electrons.  The Coulomb interaction is strong as compared with the 
energy scale of the kinetic Hamiltonian.  This fact makes the quantum 
mechanical screening complete. " 

  "The Screening length is given by about the diameter of a nanotube in regard 
to the long-range Coulomb potential."


  Now, I don't pretend to fully understand all the ramifications of this 
statement, but if this is saying what I think it is saying,  this seems to 
confirm my suspicions, as well as the confirm the "Horny Theory of LENR".

  Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 
gas.   A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and 
would almost be trapped there.   I found out that very little H2 would permeate 
the nanohorn walls.  Most of the H2 molecule would stick to the walls and not 
permeate the walls.  Now, you have a bunch of H2 molecules inside the pipe.   
Now, apply a high voltage along the axis of the nanohorn.  This would cause a 
significant current flow enough to ionize the H2 molecules inside the tube.  
Then, the H+ ions charge will be screened by the electrons flowing on the 
nanotube.  Since the screening distance is given by the diameter of the 
nanotube, this means that all the H+ ions inside the tube are completely 
screened.  Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic 
movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the 
fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion 
anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide.

  Instant p + p fusion.  Success!!!

  And the nice thing about this is that the size of the CNT appears to be 
irrelevant.  If the screening distance is about the diameter of the nanotube, 
this means that whatever diameter CNT you happen to have will always screen 
whatever H+ ions it has inside it.  Hence, no need to engineer the correct size.

  What do you guys think?  Am I on the right track here?  Could this be the 
mechanism at work in a metal crack.  Ed storms believes that the reaction is 
primarily p + p.  Could charge screening be the mechanism that causes the 
magic?  

  And BTW, this would also happen on Rossi's tubercles.  Charge screening by 
electrons flowing on his tubercules.  But because his tubercules are not 
uniform, he would understandably have control issues.  And his thermionic 
catalyst would help the situation also.

  Guys, those true expert colleagues we have here in Vortex should take this 
Carbon nanostructures seriously.  I need help in understanding many quantum 
mechanical concepts.




  Jojo









- Original Message - 
From: ChemE Stewart 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King


http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf 


On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

  Does anyone have access to this paper?

  "Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes".

  I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon 
nanotube.


  Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

WOW, this paper is a gold mine, and most of it went over my head.  This quantum 
mechanical concepts are way past my paygrade.   Maybe Jones, Fran or Axil  and 
others can chime in.  Our resident expert who is "trained" in relativity is 
also welcomed to chime in.

What I found interesting is this conclusion:

"It was found that when we put an external particle (read: H+ ion) on a 
metallic nanotube, the electric charge of the particle is screened by internal 
electrons due to the long-range Coulomb interaction between the particle and 
internal electrons.  The Coulomb interaction is strong as compared with the 
energy scale of the kinetic Hamiltonian.  This fact makes the quantum 
mechanical screening complete. " 

"The Screening length is given by about the diameter of a nanotube in regard to 
the long-range Coulomb potential."


Now, I don't pretend to fully understand all the ramifications of this 
statement, but if this is saying what I think it is saying,  this seems to 
confirm my suspicions, as well as the confirm the "Horny Theory of LENR".

Imagine a mat of Carbon nanohorns enveloped by high pressure molecular H2 gas.  
 A considerable amount of H2 molecules will enter the nanohorn pipe and would 
almost be trapped there.   I found out that very little H2 would permeate the 
nanohorn walls.  Most of the H2 molecule would stick to the walls and not 
permeate the walls.  Now, you have a bunch of H2 molecules inside the pipe.   
Now, apply a high voltage along the axis of the nanohorn.  This would cause a 
significant current flow enough to ionize the H2 molecules inside the tube.  
Then, the H+ ions charge will be screened by the electrons flowing on the 
nanotube.  Since the screening distance is given by the diameter of the 
nanotube, this means that all the H+ ions inside the tube are completely 
screened.  Now, given that you've just jolted these H+ into high speed kinetic 
movement due to the high temperature you just applied with your spark, add the 
fact that they are screened, meaning they don't have the coulomb repulsion 
anymore; guess what would happen when 2 of these H+ ions collide.

Instant p + p fusion.  Success!!!

And the nice thing about this is that the size of the CNT appears to be 
irrelevant.  If the screening distance is about the diameter of the nanotube, 
this means that whatever diameter CNT you happen to have will always screen 
whatever H+ ions it has inside it.  Hence, no need to engineer the correct size.

What do you guys think?  Am I on the right track here?  Could this be the 
mechanism at work in a metal crack.  Ed storms believes that the reaction is 
primarily p + p.  Could charge screening be the mechanism that causes the 
magic?  

And BTW, this would also happen on Rossi's tubercles.  Charge screening by 
electrons flowing on his tubercules.  But because his tubercules are not 
uniform, he would understandably have control issues.  And his thermionic 
catalyst would help the situation also.

Guys, those true expert colleagues we have here in Vortex should take this 
Carbon nanostructures seriously.  I need help in understanding many quantum 
mechanical concepts.




Jojo









  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King


  http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf


  On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Does anyone have access to this paper?

"Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes".

I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon 
nanotube.


Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

You Da man!  Mucho Thanks.

Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: ChemE Stewart 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King


  http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf


  On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Does anyone have access to this paper?

"Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes".

I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon 
nanotube.


Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[Axil Axil]

Corrrection:


Interestingly, George Miley is a supporter of the fusion/fission hybrid. See

http://fire.pppl.gov/aps06_manheimer.pdf


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Such a concept is not possible politically. Pu239 breeding is not
> acceptable both to the government of the US and the current head of the
> NRC. The thorium based U232/U233 fuel cycle produced by a fusion/fission
> hybrid may be acceptable as proliferation resistant because of the high
> level of U232 that is generated by fusion.
>
> High U232 content in U233 provides 6 barriers to proliferation, compared
> to none for Pu239.
>
> George Miley is a supporter of the fusion/fission hybrid.
>
> Hans A. Bathe was the originator of the idea
>
> http://www.marcobresci.it/docs/fusione_ibrida.pdf
>
> Fusion bred U233 has a very high U232 content due to the 2n and 3n
> reaction. This provides U233 with 6 barriers to proliferation, compared to
> none for Pu239. U233 can also be denatured with U238. This mix is also
> proliferation resistant.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Puppy Dog's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:21:13 +0300:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >After fusion in the ball of plasma is completed, the fusion ash and the
>> left over tritium and deuterium find its way into a diverter that removes
>> it from the burn chamber. The high energy neutrons produced by fusion fly
>> out in all directions. It will be these neutrons that will make U233 in the
>> thorium blanket that will eventually surround the burn chamber.
>> >
>> Surely, if D-T is used, then the neutrons are fast enough to fission U238
>> directly, and no breeding is needed. That allows you to use the current
>> large
>> stockpile of DU as fuel. Actually just about any heavy element or isotope
>> will
>> serve, allowing you to burn up all the actinide wastes currently in
>> storage too.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[Axil Axil]

Such a concept is not possible politically. Pu239 breeding is not
acceptable both to the government of the US and the current head of the
NRC. The thorium based U232/U233 fuel cycle produced by a fusion/fission
hybrid may be acceptable as proliferation resistant because of the high
level of U232 that is generated by fusion.

High U232 content in U233 provides 6 barriers to proliferation, compared to
none for Pu239.

George Miley is a supporter of the fusion/fission hybrid.

Hans A. Bathe was the originator of the idea

http://www.marcobresci.it/docs/fusione_ibrida.pdf

Fusion bred U233 has a very high U232 content due to the 2n and 3n
reaction. This provides U233 with 6 barriers to proliferation, compared to
none for Pu239. U233 can also be denatured with U238. This mix is also
proliferation resistant.




On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Puppy Dog's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:21:13 +0300:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >After fusion in the ball of plasma is completed, the fusion ash and the
> left over tritium and deuterium find its way into a diverter that removes
> it from the burn chamber. The high energy neutrons produced by fusion fly
> out in all directions. It will be these neutrons that will make U233 in the
> thorium blanket that will eventually surround the burn chamber.
> >
> Surely, if D-T is used, then the neutrons are fast enough to fission U238
> directly, and no breeding is needed. That allows you to use the current
> large
> stockpile of DU as fuel. Actually just about any heavy element or isotope
> will
> serve, allowing you to burn up all the actinide wastes currently in
> storage too.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Abd,

>> > And we need reporters who will look more carefully. Any volunteers?
>
>>I volunteer you.

> Great. Thanks. I accept, any idea about funding? 

I would suggest you contact Mr. Krivit and ask him how he funds his NET
reporting. Unfortunately, I don't think Mr. Krivit likes you.

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

Re: [Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[ChemE Stewart]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0112178.pdf


On Thursday, August 23, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

> **
> Does anyone have access to this paper?
>
> "Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes".
>
> I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon
> nanotube.
>
>
> Jojo
>

[Vo]:Topology is Key. Carbon Nanostructures are King

[Jojo Jaro]

Does anyone have access to this paper?

"Charge screening effect in metallic carbon nanotubes".

I think this paper may hold the key to engineering the right size carbon 
nanotube.


Jojo

Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations

[Jojo Jaro]

Nice model Dave.

Now, try it if the output temperature remains steady at 1200C as Rossi claims.  
This implies very little positive feedback.  What COP would he achieve?


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 7:54 AM
  Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations


  I have been fiddling with one of my models of the ECAT and just wanted to let 
the group have a peek.   Rossi has been active on his journal and suggested 
that his device has certain characteristics which my model tends to support.  
It should be noted that any model of Rossi's device is going to be lacking at 
this point in time since very little reliable information is available.

  My objective in this case is to reveal that a relatively simple model does in 
fact give results that are reasonably consistent with what he claims.  Please 
realize that these results are at best speculative and should be considered 
educational but not accurate.

  With this disclaimer, I will proceed with the disclosure.

  The model consists of a power drive source that supplies heat to a device 
that internally generates excess heat that is proportional to the second order 
of the absolute temperature within.  The net heat is thus the sum of the drive 
power plus the contribution of the internally generated heating process.  Since 
the internally generated heat energy is defined as E = k * T * T, very little 
shows up until you approach the operating region.  I have experimented with 
various heat output functions, such as exponential, linear or third order in 
the past.  Each of these has an interesting behavior and I plan to investigate 
further.

  The model I am discussing in this report behaves a great deal like what Rossi 
mentions in his journal.  For one thing, there exists a well defined 
temperature where the device goes into a positive feedback self sustaining 
mode.  Unfortunately, once that happens, it is difficult to control unless a 
form of active cooling is incorporated into the design which quickly drains 
heat from the device.  In this model, I am assuming that there is no such 
process available.

  So, to keep things sane, I allow the output power to reach a peak power that 
is 90% of the self sustaining level.  When the temperature of that state is 
reached, the input power is reduced to zero.  At power levels that are less 
than the self sustaining point the device immediately begins to cool and will 
eventually cease to generate excess heat.  An interesting note is that the 
closer one drives the unit to self sustaining, the longer is the initial time 
constant before the heat rapidly declines.  This characteristic allows Rossi to 
push the device harder if necessary to achieve a higher COP.

  Now, my model allows me to reapply input power after the internal heating has 
declined to the point that I desire.  In the real world this function could be 
achieved by using a temperature sensor driving a control network.  In my 
current example I find that a drive duty cycle of 41 % seems to fit Rossi's 
description relatively well.  The average power output of the system divided by 
the average power input required to obtain this result is 6.028.  This figure 
is very much in line with his standard 6.0.

  The ratio of the peak system power output to the peak power input is 
approximately 2.7.  One of Rossi's answers to a blog question states that he 
drives the unit with a 3 to 1 ratio by my interpretation.  In the same context, 
he states that his duty cycle is 50% which is a bit higher than my model 
results.

  In my opinion this simple model seems to add support to the description given 
by Rossi and that is interesting.  I would expect the behavior of the real ECAT 
to be more complex by far than the simple model that I used, but there seems to 
be correlations.

  So, I suggest that you guys file this report away in the reaches of your 
minds, with the understanding that there might actually be substance to what 
Rossi is telling us.

  Dave

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Andre Blum]

On 08/23/2012 07:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

At 09:39 AM 8/23/2012, Andre Blum wrote:

Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too.


We don't know that. Generally, in his post, Mr. Blum made a number of 
statements, as if they were fact, that are not from independent 
sources. [etc, etc.]



First, please call me Andre.

Second: Presenting these statements as facts was by choice. Sometimes 
you have to take a position. This is completely in line with what Jed 
did, which is exactly what I wanted to point out.


We all know that *everything* related to Rossi is based on what the man 
says himself. They are not fact. Likewise, not all Jed's statements on 
the ugly plane are fact ('hopeless', 'of no value for aviation', '1918 
experts had the knowledge to see that it wouldn't fly'), nor are his 
views on commercial readiness of Rossi's and Celani's devices.


None of these are facts.They are just positions we take on an 
uncertainty scale.


If you believe in Rossi 'somewhat' (as Jed apparently does), so you take 
something of an uncertain halfway position on that scale, you cannot 
easily make very strong arguments. His statement on commercial 
availability was rather worthless, really, because it was just grabbed 
from the air. Mine were grabbed at least from a source, a primary source 
even, albeit a very unreliable one. Rossi.


The same is true for my statement on the plane. It crashing by bad 
design is grabbed from the air by Jed. I see no facts supporting it. In 
reality it flew (once, short),  if rather unstable (which would not have 
been so uncommon in that era), requiring it to carry a lead ballast. It 
is said that this ballast shifted, causing a nose drop and the crash. 
This too is from a very unreliable source on the internet, but at least 
it is from a source.


Andre

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[James Bowery]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> Actually, I don't think it's useful to ridicule Rossi, but pointing out
> how his business strategy, if he actually has functioning E-Cats in the 10
> KW range or so, is preposterous, isn't ridiculing him. It's pointing to the
> obvious.
>

Preposterous is as arithmetic says.  Or, as the late, great John McCarthy
said: He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense."

(firstunit*units^(1-rate))/(1-rate) =  Total cost of rollout

Choose a "rate" for your industrial learning curve -- say 10% improvement
for each doubling in volume -- and do the arithmetic.

Choose a price for the first unit.

Choose a number of units to be replicated.

For a composite unit, consisting of a number of identical subunits, you can
start to talk sense.


So far, I don't think anyone has tried to talk sense about Rossi's business
strategy.

[Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations

[David Roberson]

I have been fiddling with one of my models of the ECAT and just wanted to let 
the group have a peek.   Rossi has been active on his journal and suggested 
that his device has certain characteristics which my model tends to support.  
It should be noted that any model of Rossi's device is going to be lacking at 
this point in time since very little reliable information is available.

My objective in this case is to reveal that a relatively simple model does in 
fact give results that are reasonably consistent with what he claims.  Please 
realize that these results are at best speculative and should be considered 
educational but not accurate.

With this disclaimer, I will proceed with the disclosure.

The model consists of a power drive source that supplies heat to a device that 
internally generates excess heat that is proportional to the second order of 
the absolute temperature within.  The net heat is thus the sum of the drive 
power plus the contribution of the internally generated heating process.  Since 
the internally generated heat energy is defined as E = k * T * T, very little 
shows up until you approach the operating region.  I have experimented with 
various heat output functions, such as exponential, linear or third order in 
the past.  Each of these has an interesting behavior and I plan to investigate 
further.

The model I am discussing in this report behaves a great deal like what Rossi 
mentions in his journal.  For one thing, there exists a well defined 
temperature where the device goes into a positive feedback self sustaining 
mode.  Unfortunately, once that happens, it is difficult to control unless a 
form of active cooling is incorporated into the design which quickly drains 
heat from the device.  In this model, I am assuming that there is no such 
process available.

So, to keep things sane, I allow the output power to reach a peak power that is 
90% of the self sustaining level.  When the temperature of that state is 
reached, the input power is reduced to zero.  At power levels that are less 
than the self sustaining point the device immediately begins to cool and will 
eventually cease to generate excess heat.  An interesting note is that the 
closer one drives the unit to self sustaining, the longer is the initial time 
constant before the heat rapidly declines.  This characteristic allows Rossi to 
push the device harder if necessary to achieve a higher COP.

Now, my model allows me to reapply input power after the internal heating has 
declined to the point that I desire.  In the real world this function could be 
achieved by using a temperature sensor driving a control network.  In my 
current example I find that a drive duty cycle of 41 % seems to fit Rossi's 
description relatively well.  The average power output of the system divided by 
the average power input required to obtain this result is 6.028.  This figure 
is very much in line with his standard 6.0.

The ratio of the peak system power output to the peak power input is 
approximately 2.7.  One of Rossi's answers to a blog question states that he 
drives the unit with a 3 to 1 ratio by my interpretation.  In the same context, 
he states that his duty cycle is 50% which is a bit higher than my model 
results.

In my opinion this simple model seems to add support to the description given 
by Rossi and that is interesting.  I would expect the behavior of the real ECAT 
to be more complex by far than the simple model that I used, but there seems to 
be correlations.

So, I suggest that you guys file this report away in the reaches of your minds, 
with the understanding that there might actually be substance to what Rossi is 
telling us.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[mixent]

In reply to  Puppy Dog's message of Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:21:13 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>After fusion in the ball of plasma is completed, the fusion ash and the left 
>over tritium and deuterium find its way into a diverter that removes it from 
>the burn chamber. The high energy neutrons produced by fusion fly out in all 
>directions. It will be these neutrons that will make U233 in the thorium 
>blanket that will eventually surround the burn chamber.
>
Surely, if D-T is used, then the neutrons are fast enough to fission U238
directly, and no breeding is needed. That allows you to use the current large
stockpile of DU as fuel. Actually just about any heavy element or isotope will
serve, allowing you to burn up all the actinide wastes currently in storage too.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:What a self-sustaining demonstration by Celani might accomplish

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:51:32 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>I do not think there is evidence that this reaction can run away, or 
>that it needs input to keep going or to prevent runaway. It needs input 
>to trigger the reaction, and to keep the present cell at operating 
>temperature, 

Any reaction with COP > 1 that produces heat shouldn't need to have extra heat
added to keep the reaction going.unless of course it's actually based on
Mills catalysts that need "rejuvenating" periodically. IOW the heat to
rejuvenate the catalysts is not required until after the catalysts are "used up"
and no longer capable of providing heat. The rejuvenation process may also
require a higher temperature than that available while they are producing power,
which might explain why one device can't be used to supply the rejuvenation heat
to another, and the rejuvenation energy needs to be supplied from an external
source.
(Though one ought to be able to supply it via thermal->electrical conversion).

>however both this reaction and the electrochemical one seem 
>to work fine in the absence of input.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:UFO found on mars by new lander?

[LORENHEYER]

It is more than highly likely that Advanced Civilizations have thoroughly 
achieved a SRC (spinning rotor center) that spins within a SHOE at least 
60,000 RPM's (1,000 RPS's). 
 


While it's been about 10 plus years since NASA had achieved a sustained 
spinning of a Rotor at 60,000 RPM's, I would tend to think that was only the 
beginning!. In fact I would say that possibly 5 X's that or more has already 
been thoroughly achieved by advanced civilizations, and it plays a vital role 
in achieving the ultimate speed limit.  
 It's very possible 
that a good percentage of the Light Speed has been obtained?  The  RTOS (rapid 
timing order sequence) obviously determines at what rate the Force is let 
out, but how exactly does this work in sync with the RPM's or RPS's?.  

IF someone knows how to figure this, could you please elaborate, 
because it's what makes or breaks/brakes the system. While I am mathematically 
challenged and/or altogether illiterate,,, I can still multiply 1 X's 1,000 
and come up with 5,000, and/or multiply 1 X's 5,000 and come up with 25,000 
 (close enough).  The SRC has to be  compensated with electromagnetic 
attraction-force in order for it to spin very fast and in a smooth or uniform 
manner. 
 Also, 
there's a little matter of how to apply HENR to this System, to power up 
and/or down accordingly as manueuvers are performed and/or speed is obtained. 
Now, what ever you may think, please don't think that I don't know that 
building this Craft and/or Systems will demand a feat of engineering skills the 
likes of which we will not likely ever possess, however, IF we did somehow 
manage to grab the Bull By The Horns, and take this endeavor on, then the 
sooner we'll avoid getting trampled over by the overwheming unforgiving Masses. 
 

You see, Growth 
doesn't necessarily require that we reproduce in large numbers, but rather by 
the ever increased complexity and/or sophistication of the technology we 
produce.  As the population of earth continues to grow, it will force or drive 
us to  develope the Technology that can someday adequately replace this 
biologically dependent world with an altogether different mode of functionality 
and/or being. 
  Ultimately, the technology will inevitably be 
developed that will preserve the essence of our soul but allows for an all new 
entirely different kind of life to be thoroughly lived,  that is wholy 
independent of this naturally dibilitating one.  In the far distant future, one 
being will be able to operate in at least 1 million X's the capacity as 
anyone of us  Yep, thats progress!.Lets see now,  a Craft w/ 10 very 
highly capable crew members will likely cost about $100,000,000,000.oo.  If you 
ask me now, that is a steal of a deal, but only IF you act now!.  If you 
wait until 10 million years from now, it'll run you considerably more at say, 
oh, $100,000,000,000,000.oo.

Re: [Vo]:What a self-sustaining demonstration by Celani might accomplish

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:29:06 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Yes, it might be possible to control the device by limiting the fuel as you 
>suggest.  Once you sense something and use that information to adjust the 
>fuel, you have enclosed the positive feedback inside a negative feedback loop. 
> Are you thinking of running the device effectively open loop by fixing the 
>amount of fuel supplied?  If you do it this way I would expect it to behave 
>pretty much as I first discussed.  It would be quite difficult to achieve 
>perfect balance for long stable operation.

As you suggest, achieving *continuous* control would be difficult (but perhaps
not impossible), however that may also not be necessary. You could supply the
fuel in small rapid pulses none of which are large enough to allow the device to
destroy itself, and control power production by controlling the pulse rate &/or
duration. In a sense this is what Rossi is already doing, but perhaps, if the
rate were increased, and the pulse size reduced, it would give an outward
appearance of continuous power output. Actually more than an appearance since
the thermal mass of the device would effectively smooth the pulses into a
continuous thermal output. The smaller and faster the pulses, the more effective
the smoothing would be (just as a fixed size capacitor is better at smoothing
higher frequencies than lower ones).
And of course, as you suggest, also control the cooling.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:24 PM 8/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

In my opinion we should not even consider using cold fusion for 
commercial or practical purposes before we are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it 
can be fully controlled, and it does not produce dangerous 
radiation. Not at start up, not in an accident, not ever. Until that 
has been PROVED by hundreds of experts it would be crazy to sell 
reactors. What will happen if a reactor blows up, or irradiates 
someone? It could set back the field for years. An accident might 
even lead overzealous regulators and people opposed to technology to 
ban the use of cold fusion. And for what?!? What possible benefit 
could there be to selling the thing now? If Rossi needs money, I am 
sure I could raise a hundred million dollars for him practically 
overnight. All he has to do is start acting like a sane businessman.


Jed is likely correct. The plan would involve Rossi allowing the 
investors to independently verify the technology. Because no 
consortium of investors, which is what it would probably take, will 
invest $100 million without that.


Rossi, however, we may defend him, will think that they will steal 
his technology. That is a defense that depends on Rossi's paranoia 
being sane. Yes, there are risks. Rossi, before allowing independent 
verification, should certainly consult the best legal counsel. But 
the idea that such a plan can't be done safely is ... crazy.


The other problem with those investors is that they would certainly 
want their cut. Rossi may also be ... greedy. In any case, he 
believes he can do it without them. So far, all indications are he's 
headed for a fall. He's out on a limb, increasingly desperate.


Now, maybe he's not. Maybe *it just looks that way.*

Sometimes things are the way they look, sometimes not. What do we 
routinely rely upon? 

Re: [Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

I meant to say:

As often happens, someone suggested GOVERNMENTS may use regulation as an
excuse to suppress the technology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:52 AM 8/23/2012, James Bowery wrote:
While the Capronismo is humorous (did they envision ground effect?) 
the comparison really isn't fair.  Rossi's 1MW heat plant is low 
complexity and makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of 
industrial learning curve:


Base it on a standard unit of replication with a minimal connecting 
infrastructure so that you can get the volume advantages.


Anyone buying something like this would want to know about the 
performance of that "standard unit of replication."


It would be like buying a thousand expensive integrated circuits 
without having independent evaluation of them, and without working 
with a development kit with one of them. Companies that do that kind 
of thing ("to save time") often go out of business quickly.


Only if there are substantial economies of scale in the core unit 
does it make sense to increase its size.


The volume of sales of larger units would be far lower. There is a 
sweet spot, for sure, for a mature technology. This is not a mature technology.



If you want to ridicule Rossi, find another way to do it.


Okay. He looks like a complete clown.

Actually, I don't think it's useful to ridicule Rossi, but pointing 
out how his business strategy, if he actually has functioning E-Cats 
in the 10 KW range or so, is preposterous, isn't ridiculing him. It's 
pointing to the obvious.

Re: [Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Investigational devices, sold with appropriate warnings, etc., would not
> need to meet those requirements.
>

That's true. For that matter, devices provided to UL and to the safety
agencies will not need to meet the requirements, but you cannot charge for
them.


If these companies are serious about licensing the technology, the first
> step would be to sell investigational devices. They could immediately
> become profitable.
>

Probably.

The topic of licensing and safety came up in the last day of ICCF17, during
the "commercialization" session. As often happens, someone suggested
comments may use regulation as an excuse to suppress the technology. I
responded as I always do with two points:

1. The public will put enormous pressure on governments to allow this
technology because it will save the average family of four ~$8000 a year.
corporations will put pressure on the government because they will want to
sell this as quickly as possible, to earn billions and put their
competition out of business. The political pressure generated by such
enormous amounts of money are powerful enough to disturb the orbit of Mars.

2. This is the 21st century. No government and no consumer will allow
nuclear fusion reactors in houses and automobiles without first
exhaustively testing them to be certain they cause no harm.

I would add that it is an Ayn Rand fantasy to imagine that stalwart
individuals will build these things secretly for their own use. Cold fusion
reactors will always be high-tech devices that require precision
manufacturing, similar to NiCad batteries or Prius hybrid engines.

Some people have objected to the cost and the delay imposed by testing.
That is silly. Cold fusion will save roughly $1 billion per day. The total
cost of every safety test by every agency on Earth for the rest of history
will be paid for the first day this technology is deployed. Kvetching about
this cost would be like winning $100 million in the lottery and complaining
because you had to pay a buck for the lottery ticket.

This resembles automobile crash safety testing, which requires companies to
smash up hundreds of test vehicles. No sane person complains about the
cost. Yes, this adds a few dollars to the cost of the automobile. But it
saves thousands of lives in accidents; it prevents hundreds of thousands of
severe injuries, and it saves billions of dollars in insurance costs.

As for delays, I'm sure there will be many others for various reasons,
mainly poor business decisions. Rossi himself has probably managed to delay
progress for longer than all future regulators combined. He is well on his
way to destroying his own business prospects. Apparently his strategy is to
dither and keep changing his plans until Celani and others surpass him, and
render his technology obsolete. This was the same plan the Wright brothers
followed from 1905 to 1908. Another year or two of that and no one would
have recognized their achievements, or paid them a dime in royalties.
Fortunately, some venture capitalists took them in hand and persuaded them
to act like sane businessmen. These were the same V.C.s who set up IBM and
sold battleships to sovereign nations worldwide, so they knew a thing or
two about making money. I wish Rossi would listen to such people, but I
doubt he will.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:39 AM 8/23/2012, Andre Blum wrote:

Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too.


We don't know that. Generally, in his post, Mr. Blum made a number of 
statements, as if they were fact, that are not from independent 
sources. Like the claim that the 1 MW E-cat is "industrially 
certified." By what agency? Where is the evidence of that? While 
preliminary certifications may be secret (I think), to be useful in 
actual commercial practice, they must be verifiable.


(And a safety certification may be completely irrelevant to actual 
function. Something that absolutely doesn't work might get a safety 
certification.)


 It is a pretty sound, safe and useful idea to scale up energy 
devices by running my of them in parallel.


That's a way of creating a larger application, but it assumes, to be 
sane, the existence of smaller devices that are at least 
statistically reliable. To delay the release of valuable smaller 
devices, in order to first build something scaled-up, is insane.


If you have the smaller products, you could immediately sell them, at 
higher markup than the larger device.



 This idea helped him to (1) lend more credibility to his invention;


That failed. Rossi has very low credibility. Only among "believers," 
people who are willing to believe Rossi's claims without having 
adequate evidence, are his pronouncements accepted, any more. He had 
higher credibility at the first announcements, until the details of 
his demonstrations came out, and until it became known how actively 
he was resisting even supervised testing by people like Jed.


Jed was, and might remain, a "believer" that Rossi has found 
something, but at the same time, he's been totally discouraged by 
Rossi's behavior. If Rossi wanted that, he got what he wanted. If he 
wanted to look like a con artist, he succeeded brilliantly. So now he 
lives with the consequences of his own business plan. That's fair. He 
created it.


Rossi is not the "victim" of some vast conspiracy to suppress his 
technology. It can be credibly claimed that he was some kind of 
victim in the past, with Petrolgragon. But Rossi had plenty of 
opportunity to gain wide support, and rejected it.


None of this means that he doesn't have anything real. He might. But 
he has arranged things so that only a fool is likely to investigate 
seriously. Maybe he wants exactly that. However, it means that he 
created a fool magnet, as we've seen many times, from people who have 
less information than someone like Jed.


(Jed has confidential information, he's said many times. The problem 
with that is that Jed, while very knowledgeable, is not infallible -- 
nor would he claim to be. There is public information, such as the 
K&E testing, that, conveyed privately, might look really solid, but 
that was later seen to be seriously flawed. It is terribly easy to 
get it wrong, and if the inventor is managing things, the risks get 
even worse. Inventor lifts the output hose in the middle and works 
that toward the drain, then pulls the hose from the drain, and shows 
steam coming out the end. See? No water, just steam. But if one 
really thinks about that, why did the inventor walk that hose the way 
he did? It's obvious. To remove water that he knew from experience 
would be there, so it wouldn't blow out on people. Now, was that 
water from condensation of pure steam, or was it overflow water, thus 
blowing the calorimetry out of the ... water? From the claimed steam 
generation rates, the steam shown was seriously wimpy, as many later 
pointed out. The appearance is then strong: the test shown was not 
generating much steam, and *might* be overflowing with unboiled 
water. While the inventor claimed it was generating steam and wasn't 
mentioning overflow as a possibility. And then it got worse)


 (2) come up with a useful product for the market which can be 
tapped soonest, because of lighter certification requirements.


Nonsense. He could sell small devices that are industrially 
certified, more easily and more quickly and in high volume. Indeed, 
that certification would probably apply automatically to the larger 
assembly. He could simply sell someone a pile of smaller devices, 
with instructions to assemble them, or, alternative, he could offer 
the thing assembled.


As Jed pointed out, he'd buy a small E-cat, almost certainly, but 
without having his hands on one to test first, he would never 
consider buying a megawatt worth. 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:48 PM 8/23/2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ha! … LOL we have talked about this marvel 
before ­ and as being the perfect

> “Rossi metaphor”.

Looks reliable to me:

3 engines, 9 wings, 27 windows, seating 81,

someone had a trinity fetish


Googling it comes up with a lot of images. All 
show the airplane sitting in the factory or in 
the water. None show it flying, though I think it did fly briefly. (?).


And then there is the picture of it all smashed up. Oops.

Over-reaching. Making a big one before making smaller models that approach it.

Or, hey, maybe they were just unlucky. I don't 
want to buy the "Italian grandiosity" story too 
thoroughly. That's ... well, "racist" doesn't 
exactly express it, but it's gross prejudice 
based on national origin and cultural expectations. 

[Vo]:Editor needs an editor

[Jed Rothwell]

I have rewritten my ICCF17 presentation from my scintillating
conversational style into boring academese. I crammed it into the ICCF17
template. I would appreciate it if someone would volunteer to read through
it, especially to look for things like missing words caused by voice input
and sloppy typing.

I just used the TextAloud utility to read it with the AT&T Anjali16-bit
Indian Accent. That makes it sound oh-so cosmopolitan. It is a good way to
catch typos.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:39 PM 8/23/2012, ChemE Stewart wrote:
I agree with Jed on safety.  In the US these devices would need to 
pass ASME, NFPA,  OSHA,  UL certifications as well as NRC guidelines 
which I have no familiarity with but I am sure will apply based upon 
the preliminary results DGT is showing of transmutations, low level 
radiation, heat & operating pressures and temperatures.


Investigational devices, sold with appropriate warnings, etc., would 
not need to meet those requirements.


If these companies are serious about licensing the technology, the 
first step would be to sell investigational devices. They could 
immediately become profitable.


Electronics companies do it with stuff they sell. They sell 
development kits, allowing demonstration circuit boards to be built. 
They make money on those kits, and are advertising their product at 
the same time.


If they accurately represent the kits, don't oversell them, stand 
behind them (like by replacing inoperable devices), they could sell 
even unreliable devices.


However, this strategy would require being quite open about what 
capabilities they really have.


My general conclusion, so far, is that they don't have reliability 
down. That could, of course, change at any time. 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:30 PM 8/23/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

After a very thorough analysis of the status of CF reporting was
summed up by Abd, he concludes with:

> And we need reporters who will look more carefully. Any volunteers?

I volunteer you.


Great. Thanks. I accept, any idea about funding? It's been suggested, 
by someone I greatly respect, that I might get some support in 
attending the next ICCF, and I'll be preparing a proposal for that. 
I've been writing for over three years without any outside funding. I 
went to two MIT conferences at my own expense. I'm not complaining, 
it was fun and it didn't cost much, because I have a friend who lives 
close, and because I could drive there.


In that time, I gained the general trust of the cold fusion research 
community, including some with whom I occasionally debate assertively.


(I'm not afraid to be wrong. Indeed, being wrong is the fastest way 
to learn, as long as we don't get attached to being right.)


I did get help (from a Wikipedia editor) in setting up the SPAWAR 
neutron detection replication kit project, which is currently 
inactive, but which I intend to start up again (and would start up 
immediately if interest ramps up, I do have all the materials 
needed). That's separate, though, from the writing.


I actually function, with people, far more effectively, face-to-face, 
I'm finding. It is possible that I could address a room full of 
nuclear physicists, for 10-15 minutes, and many would walk away 
thinking, "Maybe there is something to this " I can address their 
issues, I'm sympathetic, at least in a way.


I'm still trying to figure out how all this cold fusion stuff could 
be a big mistake. I'm failing at that. Lots of pseudoskeptics have 
tried to relieve me of my illusions, but, unfortunately, perhaps, I 
can read scientific papers and do understand the issues.


(Okay, okay, I can't read Takahashi very well, just enough to get 
what he's getting at, roughly what he's doing. Anyone here who can 
follow Takahashi *in detail*, verifying his math? I'd love to 
communicate with you!)


Yes, I know precisely why so many thought cold fusion was impossible. 
It did require "extraordinary evidence." That evidence was supplied.


"Extraordinary evidence" does not mean a truck that drives through 
your living room, mowing everything down, to prove that trucks exist. 
It does mean, quite simply, the preponderance of the evidence, beyond 
coincidence and reasonable error. It requires independent 
verification, in ways that eliminate or make preposterously unlikely 
"unknown artifact." And that work was done before 2000, with nothing 
since then casting doubt upon it.


(With PdD, that is. NiH is a New World.) 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> Looks reliable to me:
>
> 3 engines, 9 wings, 27 windows, seating 81,
>
> someone had a trinity fetish
>

I missed that! That's hysterical.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[Axil Axil]

I have changed my opinion about the prospects for non-light water reactor
development since I wrote that naïve engineering assessment of FRC hybrid
fusion technology. There are insurmountable regulatory obstacles that block
the path of any “non-standard” nuclear reactor development. From a
scientific and engineering standpoint, many of these maverick reactor
designs are superior to the standard reactor doctrinaire but they have no
chance to see the light of day.



First, any small sized outlying nuclear based electric generation project
is doomed to failure because of the sure and certain resistance that will
be presented by the light water reactor industry.



Several international companies are making billions from current solid
nuclear fuel supply contracts. Those contracts are directly threatened by
any new nuclear technology. The NRC is the gate keeper for and sponsors of
the light water reactor (LWR) industry and will reject anything that is
unlike that (LWR) technology.

Electrical utilities in the western world have made huge investments in LWR
technology that they will protect fiercely.  A case in point is the pebble
bed reactors rejected by the Chicago's Exelon Corp., This new reactor type
violated their economies of scale requirement.



Furthermore IMHO, it's the current reactor plant suppliers and fuel
manufacturers that will certainly be the active and vigorous opponents.

Second, the NRC is pay as you go. No pay means no go. If there is no money
forthcoming, nobody at the NRC will not even give you the time of day let
alone write anything down.

Specifically, new nuclear license applicants are reluctant to get too
specific too early with the NRC - as soon as discussions move past general
questions, the NRC requires the project to be docketed. That starts the
billing clock and puts the applicant on the hook for paying the government $259
for every regulator
hour-
with no ability to control the number of hours expended. Yes. You must
give the NRC a blank check. Expect to pay a minimum of $10 billion with no
guaranties. Unlike a commercial interaction, willingness and ability to pay
for the government service does not necessarily result in any additional
resources for a given project - the money that the NRC receives from its
licensees and docketed applicants gets deposited into the US Treasury. The
agency can only spend the money that has been appropriated through the
normal fiscal budgeting process.

If the NRC got deluged with new applicants and started billing those
applicants today, the commission would not get an increase in its
appropriated budget until at least a few years hence if at all. Few new
government employees or contractors could be added to improve services
until the newly budgeted money actually arrived. This system is a gift of
the Reagan Administration, which implemented it for the NRC during an era
when there was little expectation of a large influx of new reactor
applications and when David Stockman was tasked with devising creative user
fees to replace the need for new taxes.

The system has another weakness - the general lack of accounting standards
and practices within the US Government. Investors and businessmen have a
natural reluctance to pay for services that they are not sure they are
getting.

To circumvent this bottleneck, nuclear system developers will go to the US
military or the Chinese. Bill Gates has entered into discussions to develop
his reactor in China. But the risk is that China will take your
intellectual property. The thorium reactor is in development in China, and
so is the pebble bed reactor.



New types of nuclear energy have no prospects in the US. Let us hope that
the LENR technology can bypass this sad state of affairs.
Dr. John Slough, the developer under discussion from the University of
Washington has just receive $500K to develop a NIAC PhaseII award to
develop a fusion driven rocket motor.


See



www.nasa.gov/pdf/636883main_FDR_talk_NIAC_2012_final.pdf



For an overview and links see



http://www.msnwllc.com/index_tech.html





 Cheers:Axil






On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Puppy Dog  wrote:

> Axil,
>
> What ever happened in the field of FRC? You predicted the fruit of efforts
> would ripen in 2013 and be ready for harvesting.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Puppy Dog (AKA DD or Detective Dog)
>
> <<< Axil wrote:
>
> The answer to the energy revolution is an old idea whose time has come. It
> is best to configure a “system” of reactors in which one type produces
> fuel, a clean fuel, a pure fuel, and another that consumes this fuel. This
> is analogous to a bakery that bakes bread for a populace that hungrily
> consumes its loaves as they are baked.
>
> Hans Bethe played an important role in the development of the larger
> hydrogen bomb, though he had originally joined the project with the hope of
> proving it could not be made. His scientific research never ceased even

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ha! … LOL we have talked about this marvel before – and as being the perfect
> “Rossi metaphor”.

Looks reliable to me:

3 engines, 9 wings, 27 windows, seating 81,

someone had a trinity fetish

T

Re: [Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi

[ChemE Stewart]

I agree with Jed on safety.  In the US these devices would need to pass
ASME, NFPA,  OSHA,  UL certifications as well as NRC guidelines which I
have no familiarity with but I am sure will apply based upon the
preliminary results DGT is showing of transmutations, low level radiation,
heat & operating pressures and temperatures.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery has it wrong. I am not actually making fun of Caproni and his
> Ca-60 Transaereo. This was tragic case. Caproni was a gifted aircraft
> designer. During WWI he made over 400 heavy bombers; the largest aircraft
> outside of Russia. The biggest one was the Ca-43 triplane, 7 tons, 100 foot
> wingspan. The thing is, with the Ca-60 he overreached. He did not know his
> own limitations, or the limitations of the technology in 1918. As Bill
> Yenne wrote: "It was a true case of an airplane company that clearly should
> have known better . . ."
>
> There is a lesson here, and in other grandiose projects such as IBM's
> ill-fated "Future Systems" initiative in the 1970s. Don't overreach!
>
> Andre Blum  wrote:
>
>
>> Where you say: "equally close to commercialization", this of course is
>> not true. The 1 MW reactor is for sale now and has industrial certification.
>>
>
> I did not know it has industrial certification. I regard this as
> gross negligence on the part of the authorities who issued the certificate.
> I would not *think* of certifying that machine without 10,000 hours of
> intense testing in several different independent safety labs. I think it is
> lunacy to start using a nuclear fusion reactor that works by unknown
> principles without first testing it extensively.
>
> Anyway, the fact that it is for sale does not mean much, because evidently
> no one has bought it.
>
>
> (unless -- the usual caveat -- it is all a lie.
>
>
> Even if it is the truth, I regard this product as a useless white elephant
> that no sane customer would buy except to reverse engineer.
>
>
>
>> The comparision with the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo is unfair. That was an
>> early attempt to scale up a working product.
>
>
> It was an inept attempt. Totally hopeless. It contributed nothing to
> progress in aviation.
>
> If it had been done by amateurs it would be forgivable, but Caproni and
> his colleagues at the company had a track record of success. They were
> experts. They built 400 successful airplanes! Aviation was advanced enough
> by 1918 that any expert should have been able to look at that design and
> see it would not work.
>
>
> Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too. It is a pretty sound, safe
>> and useful idea to scale up energy devices by running my of them in
>> parallel.
>
>
> I disagree!
>
>
>
>> This idea helped him to (1) lend more credibility to his invention; . . .
>
>
> How can that be?!? No one has any idea whether the thing actually worked
> or not! He did not allow anyone to make independent measurements. For all
> we know it was a lot of noise and hot water from the generator.
>
>
>
>> (2) come up with a useful product for the market which can be tapped
>> soonest, because of lighter certification requirements.
>
>
> This is about as far from a "useful product" as the Ca-60 Transaereo was.
> Lighter certification for any cold fusion device would 9,800 hours of
> intense testing in 50 laboratories, instead of 10,000 hours in 60
> laboratories.
>
> In my opinion we should not even consider using cold fusion for commercial
> or practical purposes before we are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it can be fully
> controlled, and it does not produce dangerous radiation. Not at start up,
> not in an accident, not ever. Until that has been PROVED by hundreds of
> experts it would be crazy to sell reactors. What will happen if a reactor
> blows up, or irradiates someone? It could set back the field for years. An
> accident might even lead overzealous regulators and people opposed to
> technology to ban the use of cold fusion. And for what?!? What possible
> benefit could there be to selling the thing now? If Rossi needs money, I am
> sure I could raise a hundred million dollars for him practically overnight.
> All he has to do is start acting like a sane businessman.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

After a very thorough analysis of the status of CF reporting was
summed up by Abd, he concludes with:

> And we need reporters who will look more carefully. Any volunteers?

I volunteer you.

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

[Vo]:Giovanni Caproni compared to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery has it wrong. I am not actually making fun of Caproni and his
Ca-60 Transaereo. This was tragic case. Caproni was a gifted aircraft
designer. During WWI he made over 400 heavy bombers; the largest aircraft
outside of Russia. The biggest one was the Ca-43 triplane, 7 tons, 100 foot
wingspan. The thing is, with the Ca-60 he overreached. He did not know his
own limitations, or the limitations of the technology in 1918. As Bill
Yenne wrote: "It was a true case of an airplane company that clearly should
have known better . . ."

There is a lesson here, and in other grandiose projects such as IBM's
ill-fated "Future Systems" initiative in the 1970s. Don't overreach!

Andre Blum  wrote:


> Where you say: "equally close to commercialization", this of course is not
> true. The 1 MW reactor is for sale now and has industrial certification.
>

I did not know it has industrial certification. I regard this as
gross negligence on the part of the authorities who issued the certificate.
I would not *think* of certifying that machine without 10,000 hours of
intense testing in several different independent safety labs. I think it is
lunacy to start using a nuclear fusion reactor that works by unknown
principles without first testing it extensively.

Anyway, the fact that it is for sale does not mean much, because evidently
no one has bought it.


(unless -- the usual caveat -- it is all a lie.


Even if it is the truth, I regard this product as a useless white elephant
that no sane customer would buy except to reverse engineer.



> The comparision with the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo is unfair. That was an
> early attempt to scale up a working product.


It was an inept attempt. Totally hopeless. It contributed nothing to
progress in aviation.

If it had been done by amateurs it would be forgivable, but Caproni and his
colleagues at the company had a track record of success. They were experts.
They built 400 successful airplanes! Aviation was advanced enough by 1918
that any expert should have been able to look at that design and see it
would not work.


Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too. It is a pretty sound, safe
> and useful idea to scale up energy devices by running my of them in
> parallel.


I disagree!



> This idea helped him to (1) lend more credibility to his invention; . . .


How can that be?!? No one has any idea whether the thing actually worked or
not! He did not allow anyone to make independent measurements. For all we
know it was a lot of noise and hot water from the generator.



> (2) come up with a useful product for the market which can be tapped
> soonest, because of lighter certification requirements.


This is about as far from a "useful product" as the Ca-60 Transaereo was.
Lighter certification for any cold fusion device would 9,800 hours of
intense testing in 50 laboratories, instead of 10,000 hours in 60
laboratories.

In my opinion we should not even consider using cold fusion for commercial
or practical purposes before we are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it can be fully
controlled, and it does not produce dangerous radiation. Not at start up,
not in an accident, not ever. Until that has been PROVED by hundreds of
experts it would be crazy to sell reactors. What will happen if a reactor
blows up, or irradiates someone? It could set back the field for years. An
accident might even lead overzealous regulators and people opposed to
technology to ban the use of cold fusion. And for what?!? What possible
benefit could there be to selling the thing now? If Rossi needs money, I am
sure I could raise a hundred million dollars for him practically overnight.
All he has to do is start acting like a sane businessman.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:UFO found on mars by new lander?

[LORENHEYER]

For the sake of the Future of Ourkind, of which we will never get even a 
good idea of, let alone a glimpse of,,, I would like to briefly describe the 
Capabilities of a genuine UFO, as in an, Extremely Advanced Craft and/or the 
Crew Members that operate it.
First, IT is a *Very* 
sophisticated Craft and Thee Ultimate Vehicle or Dream Machine that is well 
beyond 
your wildest notion of what reality is,, that is to say that no doubt IS the 
result of an enormous amount of time developing Thee one & only process by 
which highly efficient materials/properties are produced or perfected, and as 
well the compatability into that immaculately perfected miraculously capable 
Craft, that is mostly Second to None.   

  Now lets say 
on-average that one of these extremely advanced Craft consists in size of  25 
in 
Dia. and a height of 10 ft., of which when/if viewed by 'Our' relatively 
disabled visual abilties might "appear" to weigh, say, 10 to 20 tons or so.  
Now, from my well-learned perspective after decades of persuing this rather 
mind boggling matter, I've determine that these phenomenally efficient highly 
capable Craft weigh much less, more like 1/10 th, or *only* a few tonnes

Secondly, the power source would have 
to consist of some highly developed form of HENR, to enable powering-up & 
down accordingly to the RTOS (rapid timing order sequence) And So, lets say 
a Craft has a OVW (overall vehicle weight) of 5-tons, which utilizes 
several Systems that can generate a TPF (total pulling force) of say 10 tons, 
of 
which, would enable you to accelerate at a rate in the 25 to 50 G range. So, 
the more TPF capacity over the OVW, the more acceleration rate increase 
and/or speed achieved (maybe?)  
 

It's likely that one of these typically advanced Craft can 
generate a TPF 10 X's that over the OVW, of which, could generate a G-force 
acceleration rate in the 50 to 100  range.  Naturally of course, a human 
being could not survive these conditions, so, all we have to do is to eliminate 
the  biologically dependent fraility aspect and/or build an altogether 
vastly improved compatable intelligent process that works hand in hand 
(instantly) with this whole complete 'other' highly advanced & sophisticated 
vehicle 
and/or the altogether powefully new capable energy-field that can enable 
star travel, w/o trouble or fail.   

If a trip to the nearest Star took several 
decades to complete, it wouldn't matter  IF you had acheived *absolute* 
perfection in the ultimate *only* means of technology, and the intelligence 
process 
which no longer is dependent upon air, nutrients, organs blood, flesh, and 
all the things that keep all us humans hopelssly confined to earth. Quite 
simply, there's *no* guess work when it comes to this whole complete 'other'  
system/vehicle.   

 If you can for a moment, imagine what is involved in producing an 
ultimate Craft that is made to within such exact specifications that *every* 
atom is fully accounted for.  The altogether extremely advanced 
Energy-Field (currently completely unknown by our science) being generated by 
one of 
these Craft is essentially tapped into and is enabling the deciphering of 
matter & energy that permeates thruout space/time in an unbelievably accurate 
detailed capacity, and/or is also being operated.  

In fact, I would go farther by saying that the process by which this (our?) 
Star World functions or exists is not only thoroughly known inside & out 
but also the intelligence process that makes up our very being or soul (if you 
don't mind, too terribly much?... talk about an  "invasion of privacy").

  Anyway, the whole 
complete 'other' extremely advanced capable 100% technological mode of being 
currently operating in the space above us IS directly involved and/or 
connected to eternity,,, and quite frankly, because that scares me to no end, I 
would prefer not to actually even come close to knowing about it (unl

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:08 AM 8/23/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Craig Brown wrote:

First of all, I would be ecstatic if Rossi's eCat was proven, but 
the constant regurgitative reportage of "Rossi Says this, Rossi 
says that" being pumped out by certain reporters has me reaching 
for the vomit bag on an almost daily basis.


Yup, it is silly. But why get upset about it? Just ignore it.


Well, people *do* get upset about it. Jed can ignore it because it 
doesn't occur to him as something to get upset about. It occurs that 
way to others.


I'll point out that there have been newsworthy events with the real 
science, totally ignored. Each event by itself may be unspectacular. 
Naturwissenschaften appoints a LENR editor.


If a reporter really knew the history of cold fusion, they know what 
a monumental shift that represents. If they knew the full details, 
the publication of Storms' review, in Naturwissenschaften, "Status of 
cold fusion (2010)," would be seen as a major event.


For a reporter to understand this, they will need to be actually 
informed, and, my guess, to be fully informed would take months of 
research, if, indeed, it can be done in that time. However, there are 
clues all over the place. The result of Robert Duncan's investigation 
of cold fusion, on behalf of CBS' Sixty Minutes, is a major one.


However, the pseudoskeptics had twenty years to develop a whole 
series of "impregnable arguments." It starts with a misrepresentation 
that is repeated, over and over again, in supposedly reliable 
publications. "The findings of Pons and Fleischmann were never reproduced."


You can interpret that in such a way as to make it true, and that 
interpretation ignores the forest by focusing on one tree. Pons and 
Fleischmann made a mistake. They reported neutrons that weren't 
there, it was the kind of instrumental error that someone not 
familiar with neutrons measurements could make. The physicists jumped 
all over it, ignoring the *fundamental finding" of Pons and 
Fleischmann: anomalous heat from highly loaded palladium deuteride.


And that fundamental finding has not only been reproduced thousands 
of times, by hundreds of research groups, it's been confirmed by 
correlation with the nuclear ash, helium.


There have been published, in peer-reviewed journals, over the last 
seven or eight years or so, sixteen reviews of cold fusion in 
peer-reviewed journals. The Naturwissenschaften review was merely the 
latest and most comprehensive. There are no reviews over that time 
which don't accept the reality of the effect discovered by Pons and 
Fleischmann.


Is the effect nuclear? The helium evidence is quite strong evidence 
-- I'd say conclusive -- that, yet, it's nuclear, because it is 
producing a nuclear product. But we still don't know what it is, as 
to mechanism. The fuel and ash, for the FPHE, are almost certainly 
deuterium and helium. The experimental work from which we can 
conclude that has not been seriously challenged, there is no 
substantial contrary experimental evidence, only a few quibbles about 
the exact value of the correlation. The preponderance of the evidence 
at this time is definitely that the reaction is *some kind of 
fusion,* i.e., a process which converts dueterium to helium.


But here is the problem. People in the field know that low-energy 
nuclear reactions are possible. That is not really in serious 
controversy any more, from those familiar with the research, the 
skepticism that remains is almost entirely from those who are 
ignorant of it. There may be a handful of exceptions from people who 
made a major commitment, years ago, to "there must be something wrong 
here." "There must be some error in the calorimetry." But I've never 
seen these people address the heat/helium correlation, which blows 
that argument out of the water. They maintain their skeptical 
position by focusing on the original reasons for rejection and 
excluding contrary evidence. People do this all the time. It's normal 
human behavior. But it is definitely not "scientific."


In any case, some of us are so accustomed to ignorant objection that 
we tend to defend LENR claims, knee-jerk. When Rossi news became 
widely known last year, I warned cold fusion researchers against 
appearing to confirm his work until and unless there was independent 
confirmation.


Rossi ran some demonstrations that *appeared* convincing, they 
convinced people who we might think of as experts, who observed the 
demonstrations. Later discussion showed that these "experts," who 
*were* experts in certain fields, had overlooked some problems and 
possibilities that, within reasonable possibility, could explain most 
or all of the apparent excess heat. It really became obvious, I'm not 
going to repeat all the evidence for this, Steve Krivit has done 
that. The point is not that it has been proven that the heat wasn't 
real, but that the demonstrations did not establish that.


Given that Rossi could easily address all these issu

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible

[ChemE Stewart]

James,

Agreed.  So far I have just been revising my document as I go instead of
posting new announcements, etc.  I am very new to blogging. I also cannot
figure out how to automatically add a signature/link to my blog
automatically to the bottom of my Gmail emails.  I am boldfacing any
changes to my document as I go with each revision.  I am on revision 11 and
have made 25 predictions based upon my theory.

In the CMNS newsgroup the largest opposition has been to my humor.  Their
is some consensus on differing degrees of "collapsed" states of matter due
to DDL, hydrinos, Rydberg, etc but there are also plenty of fusion related
theories.

Stewart
http://wp.me/p26aeb-4




On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear
>> Science.
>>
>
> To help increase the signal-to-noise ratio of your contributions to
> vortex-l I suggest you post here in two modes:
>
> 1) As a regular participant but with your signature hyperlinking to your
> best explanation of your "gremlin" theory AND hyperlinking to your
> newsgroup.
>
> 2) As an _occasional_ poster on significant advances/changes in the
> content of your current best explanation of your "gremlin" theory.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[James Bowery]

While the Capronismo is humorous (did they envision ground effect?) the
comparison really isn't fair.  Rossi's 1MW heat plant is low complexity and
makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of industrial learning curve:

Base it on a standard unit of replication with a minimal connecting
infrastructure so that you can get the volume advantages.

Only if there are substantial economies of scale in the core unit does it
make sense to increase its size.

If you want to ridicule Rossi, find another way to do it.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *From:* Jed Rothwell 
>
> ** **
>
> **Ø  **The megawatt reactor looks impressive to such people as well. To
> me, it looks like a gigantic white elephant. It is a distraction, and an
> absurd waste of time and effort… but I would no more crank up the whole
> thing than I would try to fly the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo 'Capronismo' --
> a similar product of grandiose Italian engineering
>
> ** **
>
> Ha! … LOL we have talked about this marvel before – and as being the
> perfect “Rossi metaphor”. 
>
> ** **
>
> For those who do not have the mental image, hold onto your hats – This is
> the mega-Cat with wings.
>
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/CaproniCa_60large.jpg*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

*  The megawatt reactor looks impressive to such people as well. To me, it 
looks like a gigantic white elephant. It is a distraction, and an absurd waste 
of time and effort… but I would no more crank up the whole thing than I would 
try to fly the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo 'Capronismo' -- a similar product of 
grandiose Italian engineering

 

Ha! … LOL we have talked about this marvel before – and as being the perfect 
“Rossi metaphor”. 

 

For those who do not have the mental image, hold onto your hats – This is the 
mega-Cat with wings.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/CaproniCa_60large.jpg

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> I am thinking about a new newsgroup for Evaporative Matter Nuclear
> Science.
>

To help increase the signal-to-noise ratio of your contributions to
vortex-l I suggest you post here in two modes:

1) As a regular participant but with your signature hyperlinking to your
best explanation of your "gremlin" theory AND hyperlinking to your
newsgroup.

2) As an _occasional_ poster on significant advances/changes in the content
of your current best explanation of your "gremlin" theory.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Andre Blum]

The difference between Celani's 21 W and Rossi's 16 kW is unimportant, 
in my opinion. They are equally close to commercialization. The 16 kW 
looks more impressive to people who do not understand the technical 
issues. The megawatt reactor looks impressive to such people as well. 
To me, it looks like a gigantic white elephant. It is a distraction, 
and an absurd waste of time and effort. A dangerous piece of junk. No 
one in his right mind would buy it. I might buy one of those boxes 
inside it, but I would no more crank up the whole thing than I would 
try to fly the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo 'Capronismo' -- a similar 
product of grandiose Italian engineering. Do a Google image search for 
"Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo" and you will see what I mean.
Where you say: "equally close to commercialization", this of course is 
not true. The 1 MW reactor is for sale now and has industrial certification.


(unless -- the usual caveat -- it is all a lie. In that case they are 
not equally close to commercialization, but that is not what you meant).


The comparision with the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo is unfair. That was an 
early attempt to scale up a working product. The attempt failed. Other 
attempts succeeded. Rossi's attempt to scale up did not fail, too. It is 
a pretty sound, safe and useful idea to scale up energy devices by 
running my of them in parallel. This idea helped him to (1) lend more 
credibility to his invention; (2) come up with a useful product for the 
market which can be tapped soonest, because of lighter certification 
requirements.


Andre

Re: [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes -- Fully reproducible

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Found this post in my outbox, it wasn't sent.

At 06:46 PM 8/17/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

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.


Aw, Axil, you should know better. The FPHE 
doesn't produce neutrons to any significant 
amount. That's the experimental evidence. The 
FPHE uses deuterium, PdD. The subject report is a 
different approach, only roughly analogous to the FPHE. I.e., TiD.


We have no evidence for neutrons with Rossi's 
approach. And it's not clear what evidence we have for neutrons from TiD.


The post pointed to papers that allege neutron production from TiD:

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.


I probably have some of these papers here, but I 
haven't looked. Okay, okay, so you twisted my 
arm. Menlove published some papers in J. Fusion 
Energy. So I have sources 3, 4 and 5.


None of Seeliger's papers are available through 
download from lenr-canr.org. Menlove source 1 is available from lenr-canr.org


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MenloveHOreproducib.pdf

Source 2 is not, nor is Mengoli's paper avaiable. 
However, there is a 1991 paper from Menlove available:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MenloveHOlowbackgro.pdf

That is after the other sources, so it might be 
more inclusive. I don't have time to read these today.


However, from the last Menlove paper (1991):
A wide variety of neutron detector systems have 
been used at various research facilities
to search for anomalous neutron emission from 
deuterated metals. Some of these detector
systems are summarized here together with 
possible sources of spurious signals from
electronic noise. During the past two years, we 
have performed experiments to measure
neutron emission from pressurized D2 gas mixed 
with various forms of titanium metal
chips and sponge. Details concerning the neutron 
detectors, experimental procedures, and
results have been reported previously. Our 
recent experiments have focused on increasing
the low-level neutron emission and finding a way 
to trigger the emission. To improve our
detection sensitivity, we have increased the 
shielding in our counting laboratory, changed
to low-background 3He tubes, and set up 
additional detector systems in deep underground

counting stations. This report is an update on this experimental work.


And from the summary:
Our overall detector efficiencies range from 20% 
to 44% for the four separate detector systems
that are operating in parallel experiments. Two 
of the detector systems are segmented to provide
separate signal outputs for a consistency check 
on the origin of the signals. Our coincidence
background depends on the detector and shielding 
location and ranges from 2 counts/h to less

than 0.5 counts/wk in the deep mine locations.
Only two of the 19 samples emitted excess 
neutrons during the current series of experiments;
however, the excess yields were observed in 
three independent detector systems (detectors 1, 2,
and 4). The neutron yield from sample DD-17 in 
detector 1 was several orders of magnitude
above the control-run background levels, and the 
yield was the largest that we have observed
during two years of experiments. This result was 
obtained in the low-background underground

laboratory at Los Alamos.
Our search for a trigger mechanism for the 
neutron emission has been unsuccessful and our
sample success rate is less now th

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

from Jed:

...

> The difference between Celani's 21 W and Rossi's 16 kW is unimportant, in my
> opinion. They are equally close to commercialization. The 16 kW looks more
> impressive to people who do not understand the technical issues. The
> megawatt reactor looks impressive to such people as well. To me, it looks
> like a gigantic white elephant. It is a distraction, and an absurd waste of
> time and effort. A dangerous piece of junk. No one in his right mind would
> buy it. I might buy one of those boxes inside it, but I would no more crank
> up the whole thing than I would try to fly the Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo
> 'Capronismo' -- a similar product of grandiose Italian engineering. Do a
> Google image search for "Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo" and you will see what I
> mean.
>
...
> http://www.modellismo.net/forum/statico-kits-info-e-varie/92217-info-caproni-ca-60-noviplano.html

Yeah, but dang! It sure looks impressive! Do those wings flap?

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

Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter

[ChemE Stewart]

I will also suggest that the dark matter around the sun  is consuming
hydrogen and radiating heat at up to 5.6×1032K
Dark Matter = Dark Gremlin
They come in different shades and sizes.
On earth as near the sun, best to feed them a steady diet of hydrogen else
you will end up with a mess of fission and fusion products along with
quantum goo
On Thursday, August 23, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote:

> Gremlins come in different colors:
>
> Brown dwarf ~  Brown Gremlin
> White dwarf ~   White Gremiln
> Black hole ~.Black Gremlin
> Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin
>
> The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their
> surroundings.
>
> On Thursday, August 23, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> Jones,
>>
>> I agree.  I believe this reaction starts with a collapse of matter
>> compressed within a crack or void.  As in the macro scale universe, the
>> degree of collapse may vary all the way down to a micro black hole, which
>> is the extreme case.  Any collapse should be instantly followed by a burst
>> of energy, as observed.
>>
>> It makes sense that Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter should be more
>> reactive since you can cram more mass into a given size void due to its
>> ultra-high densities.
>>
>> Add electrical charge, compression and the repulsion from the walls of
>> the crack/void and you get the correct environment for a further collapse
>> of matter.
>>
>> If the collapsed matter hangs around it should have extreme localized
>> blue-shifted radiation near it's surface to trigger fission and fusion
>> events with other atoms near its surface.  It may or may not evaporate
>> completely and in my opinion would be a bad actor if it hangs around.
>>
>> It would also create magnified quantum mechanical/uncertainty events in
>> its surroundings if it does hang around and behave like a super atom.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>>> The Rice/Kim paper below gives a pretty good introduction to the DDL or
>>> Deep
>>> Dirac Layer (put forth by Maly and Va'vra in Fusion Technology).
>>> Rice/Kim et
>>> al make a valiant effort to disprove, or at least cast doubt on the
>>> reality
>>> of the DDL, but the underlying assumptions in eq. 9,10,11 have problems
>>> of
>>> their own.
>>>
>>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
>>>
>>> Curiously Rice/Kim et al do not mention Miley & Holmlid's conception of
>>> IRH,
>>> or Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen. But they do mention Mills conception of
>>> deeply
>>> redundant ground states, but not accurately.
>>>
>>> At any rate - the main point of all this is the similarity of Mills,
>>> Miley &
>>> Holmlid and Maly & Va'vra - at least when all of their suggestions are
>>> taken
>>> together and mashed, so to speak; making a putative case for the
>>> identity of
>>> so-called dark matter. Perhaps one must cherry-pick amongst them to get
>>> the
>>> best details, but there seems to be something very intuitive in this
>>> correlation of dense-hydrogen to dark matter.
>>>
>>> All of them, and Mills is first in the chronology IIRC, suggest that this
>>> dense state of hydrogen can be the "ash" of reactions such as those which
>>> occur in the corona of our sun and most other starts, and which the end
>>> product consists of tightly bound hydrogen atoms with an extremely tight
>>> orbital. This has appeal in being the best way to account for the missing
>>> mass (dark matter) of the universe, since that mass is really nothing
>>> new at
>>> all, but is in effect another form of hydrogen. The electron orbit
>>> radius of
>>> the DDL is only ~ 5 fm.
>>>
>>> I mention this today since the group has been graced by the presence of
>>> the
>>> honorable Mark Gibbs, who may be looking for every science journalist's
>>> dream story - to not just report the little incremental advances in
>>> science
>>> - but to pick a winner of major importance and deep significance.  A game
>>> changer.
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Existence of 1,200C E-Cat Test Report Confirmed

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Brown wrote:

First of all, I would be ecstatic if Rossi's eCat was proven, but the 
constant regurgitative reportage of "Rossi Says this, Rossi says that" 
being pumped out by certain reporters has me reaching for the vomit 
bag on an almost daily basis.


Yup, it is silly. But why get upset about it? Just ignore it.

Rossi's statements about his business have often been unreliable. He 
claimed he cut a deal with a giant company that turned out to be 
Ampenergo. He claimed he sold and would soon ship the 1 MW monster 
reactor. It is still sitting there. His technical claims have a better 
track record. But who knows what to make of this latest one, about a 
1,200 deg C reactor? We will find out . . . or we won't find out.


Don't fret about it. The fate of cold fusion does not rest in Rossi's 
hands. I think Celani and others have replicated high power density 
Ni-H. Celani is a little sloppy at times but his overall credibility is 
orders of magnitude above Rossi's. He is a sane, cooperative person at a 
National Laboratory. Defkalion may also have a high power Ni-H reactor. 
I do not know. They have not revealed any details about calorimetry. 
People who have seen it are under strict NDA. Despite this, some details 
have been leaked. They are unimpressive.


The difference between Celani's 21 W and Rossi's 16 kW is unimportant, 
in my opinion. They are equally close to commercialization. The 16 kW 
looks more impressive to people who do not understand the technical 
issues. The megawatt reactor looks impressive to such people as well. To 
me, it looks like a gigantic white elephant. It is a distraction, and an 
absurd waste of time and effort. A dangerous piece of junk. No one in 
his right mind would buy it. I might buy one of those boxes inside it, 
but I would no more crank up the whole thing than I would try to fly the 
Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo 'Capronismo' -- a similar product of grandiose 
Italian engineering. Do a Google image search for "Caproni Ca-60 
Transaereo" and you will see what I mean.


https://www.google.com/search?q=Caproni+Ca-60+Transaero&hl=en&rlz=1C2CHFX_enUS399US456&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=iDY2UO7CHo-m8gT3oIGQDQ&ved=0CEwQsAQ&biw=1090&bih=1377#hl=en&rlz=1C2CHFX_enUS399US456&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Caproni+Ca-60+Transaereo&oq=Caproni+Ca-60+Transaereo&gs_l=img.3...48918.50586.0.51039.24.10.0.0.0.7.135.949.2j7.10.0...0.0...1c.Xe9JlcDSI3k&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e534b9eab2e20cd&biw=1090&bih=1377

See also:

http://www.modellismo.net/forum/statico-kits-info-e-varie/92217-info-caproni-ca-60-noviplano.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter

[ChemE Stewart]

Gremlins come in different colors:

Brown dwarf ~  Brown Gremlin
White dwarf ~   White Gremiln
Black hole ~.Black Gremlin
Micro black hole ~ Invisible Gremlin

The smaller they are the more elusive and more trouble they cause in their
surroundings.

On Thursday, August 23, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote:

> Jones,
>
> I agree.  I believe this reaction starts with a collapse of matter
> compressed within a crack or void.  As in the macro scale universe, the
> degree of collapse may vary all the way down to a micro black hole, which
> is the extreme case.  Any collapse should be instantly followed by a burst
> of energy, as observed.
>
> It makes sense that Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter should be more
> reactive since you can cram more mass into a given size void due to its
> ultra-high densities.
>
> Add electrical charge, compression and the repulsion from the walls of the
> crack/void and you get the correct environment for a further collapse of
> matter.
>
> If the collapsed matter hangs around it should have extreme localized
> blue-shifted radiation near it's surface to trigger fission and fusion
> events with other atoms near its surface.  It may or may not evaporate
> completely and in my opinion would be a bad actor if it hangs around.
>
> It would also create magnified quantum mechanical/uncertainty events in
> its surroundings if it does hang around and behave like a super atom.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> The Rice/Kim paper below gives a pretty good introduction to the DDL or
>> Deep
>> Dirac Layer (put forth by Maly and Va'vra in Fusion Technology). Rice/Kim
>> et
>> al make a valiant effort to disprove, or at least cast doubt on the
>> reality
>> of the DDL, but the underlying assumptions in eq. 9,10,11 have problems of
>> their own.
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
>>
>> Curiously Rice/Kim et al do not mention Miley & Holmlid's conception of
>> IRH,
>> or Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen. But they do mention Mills conception of
>> deeply
>> redundant ground states, but not accurately.
>>
>> At any rate - the main point of all this is the similarity of Mills,
>> Miley &
>> Holmlid and Maly & Va'vra - at least when all of their suggestions are
>> taken
>> together and mashed, so to speak; making a putative case for the identity
>> of
>> so-called dark matter. Perhaps one must cherry-pick amongst them to get
>> the
>> best details, but there seems to be something very intuitive in this
>> correlation of dense-hydrogen to dark matter.
>>
>> All of them, and Mills is first in the chronology IIRC, suggest that this
>> dense state of hydrogen can be the "ash" of reactions such as those which
>> occur in the corona of our sun and most other starts, and which the end
>> product consists of tightly bound hydrogen atoms with an extremely tight
>> orbital. This has appeal in being the best way to account for the missing
>> mass (dark matter) of the universe, since that mass is really nothing new
>> at
>> all, but is in effect another form of hydrogen. The electron orbit radius
>> of
>> the DDL is only ~ 5 fm.
>>
>> I mention this today since the group has been graced by the presence of
>> the
>> honorable Mark Gibbs, who may be looking for every science journalist's
>> dream story - to not just report the little incremental advances in
>> science
>> - but to pick a winner of major importance and deep significance.  A game
>> changer.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:IRH = DDL = Dark Matter

[ChemE Stewart]

Jones,

I agree.  I believe this reaction starts with a collapse of matter
compressed within a crack or void.  As in the macro scale universe, the
degree of collapse may vary all the way down to a micro black hole, which
is the extreme case.  Any collapse should be instantly followed by a burst
of energy, as observed.

It makes sense that Rydberg or inverted Rydberg matter should be more
reactive since you can cram more mass into a given size void due to its
ultra-high densities.

Add electrical charge, compression and the repulsion from the walls of the
crack/void and you get the correct environment for a further collapse of
matter.

If the collapsed matter hangs around it should have extreme localized
blue-shifted radiation near it's surface to trigger fission and fusion
events with other atoms near its surface.  It may or may not evaporate
completely and in my opinion would be a bad actor if it hangs around.

It would also create magnified quantum mechanical/uncertainty events in its
surroundings if it does hang around and behave like a super atom.





On Wednesday, August 22, 2012, Jones Beene wrote:

> The Rice/Kim paper below gives a pretty good introduction to the DDL or
> Deep
> Dirac Layer (put forth by Maly and Va'vra in Fusion Technology). Rice/Kim
> et
> al make a valiant effort to disprove, or at least cast doubt on the reality
> of the DDL, but the underlying assumptions in eq. 9,10,11 have problems of
> their own.
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RiceRAcommentsona.pdf
>
> Curiously Rice/Kim et al do not mention Miley & Holmlid's conception of
> IRH,
> or Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen. But they do mention Mills conception of
> deeply
> redundant ground states, but not accurately.
>
> At any rate - the main point of all this is the similarity of Mills, Miley
> &
> Holmlid and Maly & Va'vra - at least when all of their suggestions are
> taken
> together and mashed, so to speak; making a putative case for the identity
> of
> so-called dark matter. Perhaps one must cherry-pick amongst them to get the
> best details, but there seems to be something very intuitive in this
> correlation of dense-hydrogen to dark matter.
>
> All of them, and Mills is first in the chronology IIRC, suggest that this
> dense state of hydrogen can be the "ash" of reactions such as those which
> occur in the corona of our sun and most other starts, and which the end
> product consists of tightly bound hydrogen atoms with an extremely tight
> orbital. This has appeal in being the best way to account for the missing
> mass (dark matter) of the universe, since that mass is really nothing new
> at
> all, but is in effect another form of hydrogen. The electron orbit radius
> of
> the DDL is only ~ 5 fm.
>
> I mention this today since the group has been graced by the presence of the
> honorable Mark Gibbs, who may be looking for every science journalist's
> dream story - to not just report the little incremental advances in science
> - but to pick a winner of major importance and deep significance.  A game
> changer.
>
> Jones
>

RE: [Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[ny . min]

Puppy Dog,

Just a preview of the Chan dancing hydride ion (H-) locked into an 
orderly line by a magnetic field courtesy of "The Coil" and Ni/C nano 
structures, but oscillating to the beat of an RFG accelerant.


Reminds me of the recently proposed Noble Gas Engine theory where He- 
(Helium-electron adduct) attempts to do the same dance but falls apart 
with a reversal just before climax. Same initiator (Spark), same coil, 
same RFG but Noble Gas mix instead of Ni/C. I suspect that if one 
someone put a spoonful of Ni sponge into a Papps Engine a kiloton 
explosion would result. That's right, one engine did explode come to 
think of it.


Quickly

Reference:


[Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

Puppy Dog
Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:22:13 -0700
Axil,

What ever happened in the field of FRC? You predicted the fruit of 
efforts would ripen in 2013 and be ready for harvesting.


Cheers,

Puppy Dog (AKA DD or Detective Dog)

<<

[Vo]:Field Reversed Configuration

[Puppy Dog]

Axil,What ever happened in the field of FRC? You predicted the fruit of efforts would ripen in 2013 and be ready for harvesting.Cheers,Puppy Dog (AKA DD or Detective Dog)<<