Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
thanks for the data. anyway the results are much less replicated in volume than PdD electrolysis. However in Cold fusion, based on the huge LENr evidence with PdD, we should maybe stop treating LENR as fringe science, doubting of any even reputed scientist results... there are many claimed results by different, competing, scientists. it is a normal science domain, like superconduction, and when 4 scientist, with different protocols, claims high energy density with NiH, we can be confident. when we see industrial jumping on the bandwagon, we can expect they businessly lie, but (except rossi) that they dont lie totally... LENr is hard science. we shoul not keep our Stockholm syndrome. to be honest I'm even more skeptical than a corporate innovator I know... for him, all is clear, much clearer than many usual technologies with weaker claims. Nothing is sure in real life, and LENr existence is one of the most solid fact. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.* Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR experimental references down through the years. This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the Rothwell LENR library. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusionhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. 2. unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it. Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter. 3. Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged by negative results. The immediate impression created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, controversial, not scientifically established.) 4. Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where results notoriously fail to get replicated. And then they drive another nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related
*Celani is conducting experiments openly, but there are still undisclosed details* http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in/ Here on vortex, we have discussed how room temperature superconductivity is found in water soaked graphite grains. There will be a rush of large numbers of experimenters who will now try to characterize this effect. These workers will attempt to use this or similar methods to pave the way for a new generation of superconducting devices with unexpected benefits for society. This effect is an important component of the gas phase Ni/H cold fusion reaction as witnessed by the appearance of superconductivity when heat is produced during some recent LENR experiments. We must be watchful on this subject because of this little know conjunction between superconductivity and cold fusion. These condensed matter physicists will be doing a lot of our leg work for the field of cold fusion until they accidentally see excess heat coming from the superconductive cables that they will eventually fabricate. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:53 AM 9/13/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: See http://QuantumHeat.org for updates on the Celani cold fusion replication kit project Nicolas is spearheading. One of the reasons that this whole affair has dragged out so long is that both sides are crazy. The physics community is crazy because they should know what the scientific method is, and they abandoned it in 1989-1990, and firmly adhered, most of them, to that abandonment, becoming impervious to evidence, based on poorly-understood and poorly-applied theory. The pro-cold-fusion community is crazy because too many people jump to conclusions, going way beyond what is actually known and confirmed. This is from http://www.quantumheat.org/ There are a bunch of various recipes now that can produce massive amounts of energy without using anything nasty or expensive and without producing harmful residue or emissions. There have been many pet names given, but we think this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, we call it the New Fire. Problem is, the massive amounts of energy haven't been confirmed, if by massive we mean commercial level, which is the implication. This student is enthusiastic, but I would hope that he'd understand the difference between hope and knowledge. We can hope that Rossi is not as fraudulent as he looks. But it's very clear that there is still only the shadowiest of independent confirmations of Rossi's claims. For example, a writer, active on this list, has claimed that the certification established power levels for the 1 MW E-cat. He claimed that this was clear proof. However, those levels would almost certainly be simply what the inventor claimed, they were not the result of tests. The device was being certified to be able to handle up to 200 KW input, and 1 MW output. That was in no way a confirmation of a COP of 5. But once people believe something, they tend to continue with that belief, and every new piece of evidence is fit into that picture, it confirms it. The student has: http://www.quantumheat.org/**index.php/replicatehttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate With appropriate funding, we will show you the whole story, show you the tests being carried out and the results published live, we want to leave no shadow of doubt in peoples mind that they are right to get behind this revolution and clamour for it to deliver its benefits. I.e., give us some money and we will prove cold fusion to the world. I would not recommending giving anything to people who don't know how to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and what is confirmed and solidly established, from what is rumor and report. This student has no doubt that there are real, almost-ready technologies, he gives us a list: * https://www.youtube.com/**watch?v=HN4VK82Mngchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN4VK82MngcCelani's Wire Reactor, Can clearly show that the active component produces way more energy than can be explained by conventional means, it is economical to reproduce the equipment and has scaleability and wide areas for improvement and further study, things that https://www.youtube.com/** watch?v=gHpYuUykWw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHpYuUykWw0Celani himself welcomes. * http://world.std.com/%7Emica/**jet.htmlhttp://world.std.com/%7Emica/jet.htmlJet Energy NANOR, Using different technology, this can show large energy gains in a small package, is easy to transport and to run long term standardised tests. * http://www.brillouinenergy.**com/ http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin Energy Boiler, They could provide a number of small test configurations for replication. * http://www.ecat.com/Leonardo Corporations' E-Cat, A number of these
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related
Interesting, and it is possible that this phenomenon is different from PdD effect. or same... Link with superconduction is not surprising, since collective effect is needed to allow the 3 miracles. However what PdD results say on NiH is that we should apply usual research rules an prejudice to analyze those results ... be careful, but trust the good papers, understand IP problems, recognizing facts normally... making honest metaanalysis to confirm the method (not the pathoskeptics style). clearly nuclear reaction in condensed matter is possible, and if you have the alternative between assuming NiH is LENR or an Italian-Greek-canadian-US-swiss-UK-japan conspiracy, rationally you should assume it is a kind of LENR, until some proof arise... because LENR is basic science like fission, fusion, superconductivity, semiconduction, radioactivity... 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *Celani is conducting experiments openly, but there are still undisclosed details* http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in/ Here on vortex, we have discussed how room temperature superconductivity is found in water soaked graphite grains. There will be a rush of large numbers of experimenters who will now try to characterize this effect. These workers will attempt to use this or similar methods to pave the way for a new generation of superconducting devices with unexpected benefits for society. This effect is an important component of the gas phase Ni/H cold fusion reaction as witnessed by the appearance of superconductivity when heat is produced during some recent LENR experiments. We must be watchful on this subject because of this little know conjunction between superconductivity and cold fusion. These condensed matter physicists will be doing a lot of our leg work for the field of cold fusion until they accidentally see excess heat coming from the superconductive cables that they will eventually fabricate. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:53 AM 9/13/2012, Akira Shirakawa wrote: See http://QuantumHeat.org for updates on the Celani cold fusion replication kit project Nicolas is spearheading. One of the reasons that this whole affair has dragged out so long is that both sides are crazy. The physics community is crazy because they should know what the scientific method is, and they abandoned it in 1989-1990, and firmly adhered, most of them, to that abandonment, becoming impervious to evidence, based on poorly-understood and poorly-applied theory. The pro-cold-fusion community is crazy because too many people jump to conclusions, going way beyond what is actually known and confirmed. This is from http://www.quantumheat.org/ There are a bunch of various recipes now that can produce massive amounts of energy without using anything nasty or expensive and without producing harmful residue or emissions. There have been many pet names given, but we think this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, we call it the New Fire. Problem is, the massive amounts of energy haven't been confirmed, if by massive we mean commercial level, which is the implication. This student is enthusiastic, but I would hope that he'd understand the difference between hope and knowledge. We can hope that Rossi is not as fraudulent as he looks. But it's very clear that there is still only the shadowiest of independent confirmations of Rossi's claims. For example, a writer, active on this list, has claimed that the certification established power levels for the 1 MW E-cat. He claimed that this was clear proof. However, those levels would almost certainly be simply what the inventor claimed, they were not the result of tests. The device was being certified to be able to handle up to 200 KW input, and 1 MW output. That was in no way a confirmation of a COP of 5. But once people believe something, they tend to continue with that belief, and every new piece of evidence is fit into that picture, it confirms it. The student has: http://www.quantumheat.org/**index.php/replicatehttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/replicate With appropriate funding, we will show you the whole story, show you the tests being carried out and the results published live, we want to leave no shadow of doubt in peoples mind that they are right to get behind this revolution and clamour for it to deliver its benefits. I.e., give us some money and we will prove cold fusion to the world. I would not recommending giving anything to people who don't know how to distinguish what is known from what is not known, and what is confirmed and solidly established, from what is rumor and report. This student has no doubt that there are real, almost-ready technologies, he gives us a list: *
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
Hmm.. my edit about SGS certificate has held for 10 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_plans Sverre Haslund 2012/9/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:33 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 04:18 PM 9/14/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Well, very funny, Jed. However, Mr. Fletcher is essentially clueless as to what would be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. I looked about and didn't see where he was threatened with arbitration, which is weird. The last thing that the cabal wants is for their antics to go to arbitration, but, here, they'd win. Essentially, this would just go to Arbitration Enforcement -- which is not arbitration, it is where the community enforces arbitration decisions, in theis case Article Probation for cold fusion topics. 5 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_** Bardi_Quote_in_the_**Introductionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction If you continue to waste other editors time with your original research, the next step is arbitration enforcement Alan, do you know what arbitration enforcement is? Hint: it is not arbitration. Essentially, the editor threatened to ask that you be sanctioned for wasting other editor's time, which, pretty much, you were. That was rude, but the cabal is not polite, it's not their style. A functional community would educate you in what is okay and what is not. The cabal just wants you gone. *You* are the waste of time, for them, really, but they can't say that. But I didn't check on the specific editor. Do you know what original research means, and why it would be applied to what you wrote? Do you understand why primary sources are generally not usable, though sometimes it is allowed with consensus? Of course, is the E-cat cold fusion? Regarding Alanf777's 'bold' edit, I'll start by saying that this article isn't about LENR in general - Most of the material was off-topic, and David Hambling's opinions on the state of LENR research are of no relevence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:AndyTheGrumphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrumpAndyTheGrump (http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrumphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump **talk) 18:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Since the very first line says The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a purported cold fusion or Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) heat source -- supporting evidence for the progress in LENR is definitely allowable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:Alanf777http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777Alanf777 (http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/User_talk:Alanf777http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alanf777talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC) That's one of the problems with the E-Cat article! It assumes that it is properly categorized with cold fusion. It's not known if it is fusion at all. Cold fusion is really a popular name for LENR, but, in fact, it's been shown that the original discovered reaction is -- with very high likelihood -- some form of deuterium fusion, known from the heat/helium ratio. I've said high likelihood. It's not absolutely proven. AndyTheGrump's comment above is reasonable. You are now citing Wikipedia as a source Who says that the E-Cat is cold fusion or LENR. It might be. And it might not be. If the energy turns out to be real and sustainable, it could be ... LENR, but it could also be due to hydrinos, or something else. We wouldn't know if it is fusion until the ash is identified and shown to be correlated properly with the heat. The same with any LENR. Yup. It 'purports' to be a LENR device. A thing purports to be nothing. People create purport. Nobody but Rossi and his boosters claims it is. Except when he doesn't. Until independent sources support his claims, what is going in in verifiable LENR research is of no real relevance to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:AndyTheGrumphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrumpAndyTheGrump (http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrumphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump **talk) 20:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Again, Andy is correct. Now, the E-Cat is notable and there are reliable sources regarding it (which has little or nothing to do with truth.) I'm not necessarily supporting his content positions, but he was, as I recall, not the worst editor involved with the E-Cat. I think his name is appropriate, he's a bit grumpy. In a way, they are right. Someone who would persist at Wikipedia is a bit crazy. I remember now why I gave up in December last year. But I thought it was my turn to put in a shift or two at the coalface (or whatever). Here is what I did on Wikipedia. I had a long-term interest in community consensus process, and when I started to edit Wikipedia in 2007,
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - LENR related
Axil said [snip] This effect is an important component of the gas phase Ni/H cold fusion reaction as witnessed by the appearance of superconductivity when heat is produced during some recent LENR experiments.[/snip] Axil, are you referring to the gas phase CIHT Mills is claiming [power from water vapor] ?
[Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I do not see that implication. To me, massive amounts of energy refers to energy normalized to the mass of starting materials. For example, 50 MJ from a few grams of cathode material plus water. You may look at it that way . . . No other interpretation makes sense. The energy is not massive by an other standard. In a website like this, they cannot explain this in detail, but I am sure that is what they meant. , but the site has: this discovery represents humankind's greatest invention and since it essentially replaces fire, High energy density, which is what you are talking about, doesn't replace fire if that energy density is not reliable. Of course not, but that is a separate issue. It is a fact that both energy density and power density are very high in cold fusion. They are about the same as a fission reactor core. High temperatures should not be a problem either. There is a great deal of evidence that the reaction can be made reliable. If high energy density can be reliably created and sustained for substantial periods, it is then intrinsically scalable, and it could be that. It has been sustained for as long as 3 months, at ~100 W, by Fleischmann and Pons. See Roulette et al. If they can keep it stable for 3 months, people can learn to keep it stable indefinitely. That has definitely been confirmed. It is what we usually talk about in this field. The energy far exceeds the limits of chemistry. High energy density has been confirmed, but transiently. Incorrect. Experiments have run at stable power levels for weeks or months. That is not transient. Transient would be the longest and biggest plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL, which was 10 MW lasting 0.6 seconds. To be what this site is claiming, it must be not only high density, but reliable. Obviously. If the reaction were reliable, we would have prototype automobiles by now. We would not need this website. Reliability is the only thing missing. The purpose of this website is to raise money, conduct research, and make the reaction reliable and controllable. We do not yet know if LENR can be reliably generated and sustained at adequate levels for commercial application. Incorrect. We do know this, because it has been done, on a scale of 100 W. That is actually big enough for a large fraction of all real-world applications. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that cannot be scaled up. Anything that can be done once in the laboratory, even by accident, can be mastered, controlled and scaled up. The 100 W runs were not accidental. They were repeated many times. The existence of LENR, scientifically, is only a step toward that further development. Many other steps have been taken. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT nuclear physicist as dutch prime minister?
UFO's are?
On Thursday, September 13, 2012, Rob Dingemans wrote:
Hi,
On 13-9-2012 12:23, Teslaalset wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Andre Blum
andre_vor...@blums.nljavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'andre_vor...@blums.nl');
wrote:
On 09/12/2012 01:21 PM, Andre Blum wrote:
Please, please refrain from discussing dutch politics when it has
absolutely nothing to do with the subjects intended to be discussed in this
mailing list.
Kind regards,
Rob
RE: [Vo]:Bussard Ramjet
Fran, Let me clarify a couple of things. Because plain text does not show superscripts in vortex postings - when you see 2He, which should have the 2 as a superscript - that refers to the transient helium-2 nucleus, composed of two protons and no neutrons. It has slight negative binding energy (due to anti-aligned spins) - which is temporarily overwhelmed by strong force attraction - thereby making the fused helium isotope real, but instantly reversible - triggering QCD color change. The P+P reversible fusion reaction, on earth, probably requires Casimir cavity confinement or equivalent, as a substitute for a strong gravity field (in the solar model). This is the most common nuclear reaction in the universe by far - the reversible fusion of two protons and it has always been assumed to have no gain. Two protons can never fuse directly to deuterium - therefore the secondary reaction (beta decay) always must happen in fused 2He as a first step - to give the occasional deuteron - on which most of the heat of the sun depends, eventually. This process is the throttle that keeps the sun from burning up its mass rapidly. But there could be more to the thermal story, if there is asymmetry. As a result of the evolution of nanomagnetic theory by Ahern, myself and others - the focus has moved beyond suggesting that ZPE is the proximate energy source, but -yes- ZPE may be involved at a deeper level. The zero point field was always a kind of page-marker awaiting more careful analysis. If the hypothesis of PP reversible fusion holds, we may find that the strong force itself depends on ZPE, in another basic context - such as hydrogen mass regauging (thanks to Mark) . Whether or not a new kind of Bussard Ramjet (a Bastard Ramjet, so to speak :-) is possible, based on reversible diproton nuclear fusion asymmetry without beta decay - is just a guess - but it seems likely. In any event the fusion reaction is extremely short lived, immediately reverting to two protons. The reaction happens incessantly on the sun (or in the Casimir cavity) so much so that it is hard to distinguish from elastic collision - except for the few attoseconds of stickiness which invokes QCD. Elastic collisions are no gain. In the Nickel-hydrogen nanomagnetic theory - neither helium-3, helium-4 nor deuterium are seen to any substantial extent. This is where it departs from Storms and other who are suggesting deuterium and helium. We have a more tolerable leap of faith for explaining the gain in Ni-H, which does not depend on the extraordinary rarity of beta-decay - and is a strong force modality, not a weak force modality like WL, (which is not yet proved, but is falsifiable). This quasi-fusion reaction will be slightly asymmetric due to QCD color change following the transient fusion event. In both cases (on the Sun, or in the cavity on earth) the slight energy gain amounts to a tiny fraction of an eV, in the range of the Dirac h-bar equivalent. Small gain, yes but there can be lots of them sequentially, when protons are in confinement with relativistic virtual photons. QCD is the quantum theory which best models the strong force - and the color changes in QCD are generally not symmetric - thus opening the door for bosonic transfer of a bit of proton average mass, via magnons. Magnons are important in a confining structure which is ferromagnetic, since the transfer boson will supply the excess heat via magnetic induction of any ferromagnetic atom nearby. It is no accident that recently, strong apparent thermal gain with no gammas has been seen with cobalt and hydrogen. Nickel and cobalt are active, but iron is apparently not as active as the other two ferromagnetic candidates. The reason why is worth knowing, and it may related to what is called hydrogen embrittlement. Strong, or at least ductile, cavity porosity is required. From: Roarty, Francis X ... the prerequisite reaction for eventual solar conversion into 4He [no, not helium-4, we are talking about transient helium-2] attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/space159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
The first quoted sentence should be attributed to Abd. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/space159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Terry, The caveat of this is that it is mundane: all electrical discharges produce transmutation over time. That is the nature of QM tunneling. You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. Is Defkalion capable of doing this? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The first quoted sentence should be attributed to Abd. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/spa ce159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Bussard Ramjet
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Because plain text does not show superscripts in vortex postings - when you see 2He, which should have the 2 as a superscript When it is important to indicate a superscript, I suggest a caret: ^2He That is well known. Less often, an underline is used to indicate a subscript: H_2O - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I think the stellar analogy holds the answer, Jones. But, it is not the normal star like Sol that we should study. It is white dwarfs and neutron stars. Negative resistance in magnetized plasmas has been known to exist for decades. So we know there is an energy source. Degenerate matter is forming within these Storms Discontinuities, possibly relativistic as has been speculated here. Are we seeing Color Superconductors? At the limit of Chandrasekhar mass electrons and protons do form neutrons and neutrinos. Is the degenerate state simulating this limit? It was CE's black hole idea that got me thinking like this. I'll probably get over it. Or not. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Significant power production from a LENR reactor might simply come down to the number of nuclear reactions that happen per unit of time. If Defkalion can generate 10^^23 reactions per second, even if each of these separate reactions only produce a relatively small power contributions, their total can add to a large number. It’s simple arithmetic. A prolific reaction rate can make up for a poor fusion power production profile. This is what Peter means when he says that LENR+ works and LENR doen’t. It all boils down to the reaction production rate. The LENR production rate is small whereas the LENR+ power production rate is high. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry, The caveat of this is that it is mundane: all electrical discharges produce transmutation over time. That is the nature of QM tunneling. You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. Is Defkalion capable of doing this? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The first quoted sentence should be attributed to Abd. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/spa ce159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpghttp://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/space159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
No, they didn't. To be characterized as an ash proper, that is, as the main product of the reaction, it has to correlate with the output energy. They did't do that. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion do -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Agreed. Ni/H has been confirmed, in a sense, unless we are to quibble over the meaning of the word, in which case we must ask what it means for the Pd/D experiments to be confirmed where the Ni/H experiments are not. See sec. 4.5 of Ed Storms's book. Although there are fewer experiments reporting on Ni/H, there are enough to be able to adopt some working assumptions about the existence of the Ni/H reaction. As a side note, I notice that Storms concludes in this section that there must be something like capture of p or D or more complex species within nuclei that make up the different substrates (Pd, Ni, W, Ti, etc.) and in impurities that form in the substrates. There are several significant details that support this conclusion. They include a lack of radioisotopes that would be expected to linger around after the reaction shuts off if there were neutron capture going on, the shift in stable isotopes and the unexpectedly low correlation of neutrons with anomalous heat. Although catalyzed capture of D and p sounds like a crazy idea, on the basis of the reasonable objection that there is Coulomb repulsion to be dealt with, I suspect that Defkalion and Andrea Rossi will be vindicated in the end. I am not a betting man, but perhaps some of you would like to start up a pool? The helium seen in Pd/D systems seems compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decay occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H. It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. This is an important question -- are the transmutations just a peripheral effect, or can they be correlated with anomalous heat? My sense is that the jury is still out, and that the researchers haven't been paying close attention to this until more recently. (I do not see correlation of 4He with heat in Pd/D systems as a counter-argument, since it is possible that this is due to alpha decay, or that there is agglomeration of the kind that Terry hinted at.) It's actually pretty cool that transmutations are a well-known result of electric arc discharges, if this is true. Perhaps this has been LENR all along, staring back at us, but we wanted to build Tokamaks. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CCYQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Farchives%2Ffic%2FJ%2FJNE1N3.PDFei=5NhUUJcDpuvSAYaRgMADusg=AFQjCNHLzO1yj1a8km7ia4txRjAaseKw_Qsig2=GqC2L98oUVx6HKY5TpS9OQCoulomb This reference: “The developing technology of transmutation by Miley et al” addresses why your expectations regarding transmutation charactorization are excessive. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, they didn't. To be characterized as an ash proper, that is, as the main product of the reaction, it has to correlate with the output energy. They did't do that. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion do -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
T Thanks, I need all the support can get! I have been more research on my theory, I think if the reaction is along the lines of my theory we should be looking for Extremely Low Frequency(ELF) Radiation or ULF(ultra) in the 0-5 Hz range generated from the anomalous heat effect. Which BTW is also used to communicate with military subs... see OSHA http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/elfradiation/index.html ** On Saturday, September 15, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: I think the stellar analogy holds the answer, Jones. But, it is not the normal star like Sol that we should study. It is white dwarfs and neutron stars. Negative resistance in magnetized plasmas has been known to exist for decades. So we know there is an energy source. Degenerate matter is forming within these Storms Discontinuities, possibly relativistic as has been speculated here. Are we seeing Color Superconductors? At the limit of Chandrasekhar mass electrons and protons do form neutrons and neutrinos. Is the degenerate state simulating this limit? It was CE's black hole idea that got me thinking like this. I'll probably get over it. Or not. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
No, it doesn't address. There is just a list of elements that supposed transmuted, none of them with no error bars. Besides, what I want is to correlate the quantity of ash in time vs. output energy in time. This is the correlation. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com This reference: “The developing technology of transmutation by Miley et al” addresses why your expectations regarding transmutation charactorization are excessive. Cheers: Axi -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: In either case, we might have a peculiar state in which bulk material (e.g. Celani's wire) is intermittently (patchily) superconductive along the path of current flow. This might be observed as a sort of average, i.e. a decrease in resistance across the bulk material just as Celani is reporting. Abd noted a few months ago that there is often a marked decrease in resitivity in Pd/D experiments when anomalous heat is observed. The thread is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67322.html Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:40 AM 9/15/2012, Axil Axil wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION'S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. I'm going to repeat, *we* don't know what the ash is. That paper is inadequate to establish the ash, except as speculation from a single run. The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. What ash description? Ash would be material produced that was not there previously. Ash would be confirmed through correlation with heat, this can't be done with a single-point analysis. The report does show a before a test run and one after a test run, but 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. 2. There is no report of the energy generated. 3. In Miles' work with PdD, the samples were analyzed blind. There is no indication that any similar precautions were taken. 4. They claim that the analyses are of the NAE, which is Storn's term, and they distinguish between the NAE and the material, but they say nothing about how they manage to analyze the NAE without analyzing the material. Do they mean surface? 5. Surface composition of a material may shift as a result of hydrogen activity, without any transmutation at all. That is why correlation with heat is so important. Helium alone, in PdD experiments, would not be strong evidence of transmutation. It was correlation that made the identity of helium, as the ash, clear. We don't know the ash until reports are independently confirmed, and the paper states that this is not possible, essentially. Whatever tests are done must be done in Defkalion's lab, they say, under NDA. This is proprietary and confidential commercial activity, not science. Note that they have the right to do this. However, they, by the same token, have the right to operate outside of scientific protocols and the process of the development of scientific knowledge. There is more information in that paper than we had before, but it's all single-source information. They say they operated a cell for 6 weeks as the longest test protocol run with the same charge. Great. What was the heat performance of that cell? They don't say! They merely say that there wasn't any drop in performance. This is not a peer-reviewed paper, and I'd consider it inadequate to pass reasonable peer review. It's a company report, and it's heaviest on what the company knows least: theory. They know what they actually did, and they know what the actual results were, and they are not telling. They are speculating about theory, wandering off into Widom-Larsen, the solar corona, and other distractions to justify LENR, as if LENR needs justification. We don't need to know if LENR is real, we need to know if Defkalion has an approach that works reliably, and, for confirmation and the development of theory, we need to know the heat/ash ratios. (a working product will be its own proof, but we will still need, for the long term, to know the ash, and its relationship with energy, so that theories about mechanism can be vetted.) I found the paper at http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
At 05:03 AM 9/15/2012, Sverre Haslund wrote: Hmm.. my edit about SGS certificate has held for 10 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_planshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_plans Sverre Haslund Eek. Page history shows revert warring See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule. It's a bit tedious to figure this out exactly, but it looks like: TheNextFuture, 5RR. I predict a block any day for TheNextFuture. This is an SPA, likely the sock of a banned user. New users don't file AfDs in their first few edits. Once upon a time, there would have been somone all over TheNextFuture, like me. Insilvis, 5RR. block for revert warring likely. Good reverts is generally not a defense. Shaslund, 2RR. SPA, only five edits total, one edit in 2009 to Blacklight Power. Block not likely unless Sverre pushes this further. Shaslund is clearly not an experienced user, doesn't use edit summaries (very important when reverting, to explain). Given the insistent activity from editors (on both sides) clearly not following WP policy and guidelines, I predict that the article will be protected from editing. Semiprotection might not be adequate here. With less than this, and really only one revert warrior, Cold fusion was full-protected. All it takes is someone who knows how to file an RfPP. In any case, Shaslund's first attempt to insert the material lasted 53 minutes before being reverted by Insilvis. The second lasted 24 minutes. A third might get him blocked, a fourth would very, very likely result in a block if it's within 24 hours. The 3RR rule is a bright line, one must have a critical interest to cross it and survive, and an admin might block first and ask questions later. Something like illegal content or libel. I once survived a 3RR violation block because I was reverting blatant sock puppets. First entry in my block log reversed as soon as the admin took a closer look. I was new. Insilivis might make that claim here, TheNextFuture is so obvious.
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
Hi, It seems to me that Wikipedia will meets it's own damburster. The wait is for someone to drop the bouncing balls in the lake of the wikidam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron_RAF On 14-9-2012 22:16, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is why I say trying to reform Wikipedia is a waste of time. Regarding that analogy, of a dam starting to break, I may have mentioned this here before . . . _Spoiler Alert_ This clip from the movie Force 10 From Navarone shows how I hope things will work out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxYur1sqnK4 B.t.w. Not a Spoiler to me; it's a classic movie, which people already should know by now. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Wired UK article
Hi, It seems to me that Wikipedia will meets it's own dambuster. The wait is for someone to drop the bouncing balls in the lake of the wikidam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._617_Squadron_RAF On 14-9-2012 22:16, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is why I say trying to reform Wikipedia is a waste of time. Regarding that analogy, of a dam starting to break, I may have mentioned this here before . . . _Spoiler Alert_ This clip from the movie Force 10 From Navarone shows how I hope things will work out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxYur1sqnK4 B.t.w. Not a Spoiler to me; it's a classic movie, which people already should know by now. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 02:14 PM 9/15/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote: The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Agreed.  Ni/H has been confirmed, in a sense, unless we are to quibble over the meaning of the word, in which case we must ask what it means for the Pd/D experiments to be confirmed where the Ni/H experiments are not.  See sec. 4.5 of Ed Storms's book.  Although there are fewer experiments reporting on Ni/H, there are enough to be able to adopt some working assumptions about the existence of the Ni/H reaction. You can play with ideas all you want. The information in the subject article from Defkalion is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means. Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of what they actually did to collect it. Read the article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of course, maybe I missed something. That happens. As a side note, I notice that Storms concludes in this section that there must be something like capture of p or D or more complex species within nuclei that make up the different substrates (Pd, Ni, W, Ti, etc.) and in impurities that form in the substrates.  There are several significant details that support this conclusion.  They include a lack of radioisotopes that would be expected to linger around after the reaction shuts off if there were neutron capture going on, the shift in stable isotopes and the unexpectedly low correlation of neutrons with anomalous heat.  Although catalyzed capture of D and p sounds like a crazy idea, on the basis of the reasonable objection that there is Coulomb repulsion to be dealt with, I suspect that Defkalion and Andrea Rossi will be vindicated in the end.  I am not a betting man, but perhaps some of you would like to start up a pool? Storms is talking about low levels of transmutation, not about major levels. The ash does not cover all possible products of rare branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the main reaction. If fusion is taking place, even under conditions that usually produce no other transmutation, relatively rare secondary reactions are quite likely to occur. SPAWAR has reported very low levels of neutrons at about 14 MeV (and those produce proton tracks, plus rare triple tracks). That tells us practically nothing about the main reaction, the levels are so low. (As I recall, They theorize that the neutrons are from D-T fusion, perhaps from rare hot deuterons or the like.) The helium seen in Pd/D systems seems compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decay occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H.  It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic, confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results are difficult to distinguish from chemical damage. I personally think they might be produced by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the Hagelstein limit. Storms thinks that NiH is operating by the same mechanism, fed by protium and/or deuterium, but that's actually an explicit *assumption* of his. It might be correct, it might not be. I would compare what's in the before and after Defkalion charts, but basic details are missing: 1. Is this a before and after from the same material? 2. Or is it one material for before and a different material from after. 3. How are the error values determined? Is that variance from multiple analyses *of the same sample*? 4. What is the range of values for different samples from the same basic material? 5. Lastly, how does the analysis vary based on different levels of energy generated from the sample? As others have pointed out, there are multiple possible sources for anomalous elements. If high voltage discharges are used, these might produce transmutations themselves. Hence controls would be appropriate, probably many different kinds of controls. Only very primitive science is done with
Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
At 10:12 AM 9/15/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: If high energy density can be reliably created and sustained for substantial periods, it is then intrinsically scalable, and it could be that. It has been sustained for as long as 3 months, at ~100 W, by Fleischmann and Pons. See Roulette et al. If they can keep it stable for 3 months, people can learn to keep it stable indefinitely. Not necessarily. Probably. The difference is critical. Jed, you are claiming that PF sustained a reaction for 3 months, at 100W. However, it would be more accurate to say that they *observed* such a reaction. They didn't necessarily create it, keep it stable. Perhaps it *stayed* stable. There is, practically speaking, a huge difference. If they'd been able to do that reliably, I doubt that Toyota would have given up funding Technova. And this technology would have been transferred. No, the FPHE could be *inherently* unreliable. Or not. Basically, there is a lot of work to be done. Until the work is done, we are mostly speculating. There are clues that reasonably stable PdD reaction is possible, in the long-term Fleischmann accounts, but aren't those anecdotal? Suppose an experiment is like tossing a coin (or a series of coins). Run a lot of experiments, you might see a long series of some outcome. That doesn't mean that you can control this. Incorrect. Experiments have run at stable power levels for weeks or months. That is not transient. Transient would be the longest and biggest plasma fusion reaction in history at the PPPL, which was 10 MW lasting 0.6 seconds. Hot fusion is seriously transient, so far. I meant not sustained, and I was not using transient to refer to seconds. Days can be transient in the meaning I'm using. How long would a commercial cold fusion product need to operate reliably? It's possible that Rossi has zilch, but more likely he's setting up some reaction; and if this is not reliable, it would explain a great deal about Rossi's behavior. He'd think he'd manage to make it reliable any day now. Maybe if we make it hotter, it will become reliable. Etc. And maybe it will. But we have seen no proof, just tantalizing anecdotes, demonstrations that could be utterly bogus or seriously misinterpreted, etc. To be what this site is claiming, it must be not only high density, but reliable. Obviously. If the reaction were reliable, we would have prototype automobiles by now. We would not need this website. Reliability is the only thing missing. The purpose of this website is to raise money, conduct research, and make the reaction reliable and controllable. Actually, that's not what they say. That might be what you want, Jed, but what they talk about is making it known that LENR is real. We already know that, and if there is a real commercial product, as soon as that product is available for sale and within a very short time after that, it's all over. We don't need the web site to buy a 1 MW reactor in order to promote LENR. People will be scrambling to buy in, once there are independent tests. If the thing works. The web site appears to have been started by a student who imagines that the only problem is getting the news out. That's a problem, ignorance about LENR has certainly hampered research and research funding, but tossing an E-Cat fee at Rossi will have no impact at all. I'd be much more impressed by someone raising money for basic research, instead of feeding the proprietary technology monster. Brillouin, if they follow through with the plans to have SRI test their work, now that's interesting. Independent, reputable investigational lab. A good deal of what we actually *know* about cold fusion is from SRI. If someone wants to develop test kits so that people anywhere can verify cold fusion results, great. I've been looking at the radiation detectors from our own SPAWAR neutron confirmation attempt. More later, I assume, on that. It ain't necessarily easy. However, I've pointed out again and again that Rossi, or Defkalion, or Brillouin, for that matter, if they have something that *usually* works, could sell investigational kits. If those kits work, it's all over, again. The news will get out. Jed, you know there is some history related to this, I'm sure you know it a lot better than I do. How did it go? We do not yet know if LENR can be reliably generated and sustained at adequate levels for commercial application. Incorrect. We do know this, because it has been done, on a scale of 100 W. That is actually big enough for a large fraction of all real-world applications. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that cannot be scaled up. Anything that can be done once in the laboratory, even by accident, can be mastered, controlled and scaled up. The 100 W runs were not accidental. They were repeated many times. The existence of
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. This is an important question -- are the transmutations just a peripheral effect, or can they be correlated with anomalous heat? My sense is that the jury is still out, and that the researchers haven't been paying close attention to this until more recently. (I do not see correlation of 4He with heat in Pd/D systems as a counter-argument, since it is possible that this is due to alpha decay, or that there is agglomeration of the kind that Terry hinted at.) It's actually pretty cool that transmutations are a well-known result of electric arc discharges, if this is true. Perhaps this has been LENR all along, staring back at us, but we wanted to build Tokamaks. Eric
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:26 PM 9/15/2012, Jones Beene wrote: Terry, The caveat of this is that it is mundane: all electrical discharges produce transmutation over time. That is the nature of QM tunneling. You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. There is another example of the Gee Whiz, This Proves It, way of thinking. There are claims of radiation from light water electrolysis, see the work of Oriani and the attempted confirmation by Kowalski et al. So you stick some radiation detectors in a cell and you see some tracks on them. However, how often do we take plastic accumulating radiation detectors and hang them somewhere and develop them and see the range of what we get? To really confirm that an anomaly is taking place that is due to elecrolysis, one needs to run matched controls. For starters, we'd expect to see a correlation between electrolytic current (for constant-current experiments) and the radiation. Yet Oriani apparently saw no such correlation. Maybe there was an effect from electrolysis and maybe not. Kowalski reported replication failure, but he did see some unusual tracks. Maybe this was something and maybe not. This is why we really want to see correlated effects. All kinds of correlations can be tested, some demonstrate something about the nature of the effect, itself (such as heat/helium with PdD), some provide clues as to mechanism or necessary conditions (perhaps, with Pd/D, H/D ratio, current density, loading factor -- D/Pd ratio --, cathode prep and history, and, given Storms' theory, how about cathode deformation, bending stress?) Oriani reported the effect as replicable, supposedly, because he saw *something unusual* with every cell. However, cell protocol was all over the map. Kowalski basically picked one protocol and several people ran it. So Kowalski only tested one of Oriani's protocols. Entirely possible, then, that all the others worked and Kowalski happened to pick one that was punk. I must say, to me, it's more likely that the whole thing was artifact. Oriani's work did *not* show what was claimed, a reproducible experiment, because Oriani did not show a series of *reproduced* experiments. Oriani was doing investigational work, which is great, and commendable. The only problem was when reproducibility was claimed, without a showing of it. And, by the way, Kowalski is also to be commended, for attempting replication. That's too rare in this field, where so many have been scrambling to be the first to find the magic protocol.
Re: [Vo]:An interesting video from PESN - new Defkalion pics?
From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com Have you read their feasibility study here? It's clearer than what's presented in their website: http://lenrnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/LENR_CARS_NChauvin_ILENRS-12x.pdf If you scroll down to the Defkalion section there are two photos of the test rig which I don't recall seeing before. The drum is shown with a copper coil wrapped around it, and then it's shown in an insulated box, hooked up. That's probably from one of the public/NDA tests. Even Generation 1 needs a 45kW system with a COP of 40 (Defkalion is quoted as COP 32).
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Suppose an experiment is like tossing a coin (or a series of coins). Run a lot of experiments, you might see a long series of some outcome. That doesn't mean that you can control this. Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary.- Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. What Dr. Ramsey meant by revolutionary is that there would be a new scientific field opened up. Science is the art of public reproduciblity and we're pretty good at it by now. If the effect is real, the scientific arts will very likely make it not only reproducible but commensurate with the body of theory. At that point it is a matter of engineering to make it controllable and we're pretty damn good at engineering too.
Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They didn't necessarily create it, keep it stable. Perhaps it *stayed* stable. There is, practically speaking, a huge difference. You are wrong. The paper shows 3 out of 7 runs worked, but they did it several other times not shown in the paper. Before they they performed the boil-off experiment hundreds of times reliably. They ran 32 tests at at time. Every one of them worked. If they'd been able to do that reliably, I doubt that Toyota would have given up funding Technova. And this technology would have been transferred. The decision to end the program was political. It had nothing to do with the quality of the results. It was about money, greed and power. The scion of Toyota who started the program died of old age, and others who were determined to stop it won out. - Jed
[Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article
So, here is my vote on the matter: Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort(talk . contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012 Don't waste your time trying to edit the article as long as the current crew of trolls have control. It is best that it be left there for all to see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected transmutation rate at the energies we are speaking of I bet it would be too small to measure. Then again, I guess that we see significance evidence that standard physics is not working in the case of LENR devices. Another clue was overlooked and I bet there are many more. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
At 09:25 PM 9/15/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They didn't necessarily create it, keep it stable. Perhaps it *stayed* stable. There is, practically speaking, a huge difference. You are wrong. The paper shows 3 out of 7 runs worked, but they did it several other times not shown in the paper. Before they they performed the boil-off experiment hundreds of times reliably. They ran 32 tests at at time. Every one of them worked. If they'd been able to do that reliably, I doubt that Toyota would have given up funding Technova. And this technology would have been transferred. The decision to end the program was political. It had nothing to do with the quality of the results. It was about money, greed and power. The scion of Toyota who started the program died of old age, and others who were determined to stop it won out. Perhaps. However, while CF experiments are difficult, has that work by Pons and Fleischmann ever been replicated? If it was so reproducible, why not? I've seen an experimental series where a design seemed to work reliably. Then the researcher was later unable to reproduce it. Something had changed. What cuts through this kind of problem, as far as deepening investigation is concerned, is correlation. Heat/helium is not so much affected by this uncontrolled variability. If *all* experiments are no-heat, sure. Correlation doesn't help. But as long as some generate significant heat, heat/helium demonstrates the reality. To refer to something in another post, sure, we can be pretty good at engineering, but not necessarily when we don't understand how something is working. That's what has been missing: an understanding of the effect. Until we understand it, engineering is hit-and-miss. The pseudoskeptics deride cold fusion because of the common unreliability; however, that argument is demolished by correlation, specifically the correlation of heat with helium.
Re: [Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article
At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote: So, here is my vote on the matter: Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort(talk contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012 Don't waste your time trying to edit the article as long as the current crew of trolls have control. It is best that it be left there for all to see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such. The article was proposed for deletion by a Single Purpose Account (SPA) who is very likely the sock puppet of a banned editor. There is revert warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed that TheNextFuture has not only not been blocked, s/he has not even been warned about revert warring. Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. TheNextFuture probably knows exactly what s/he is doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block history and may not realize that you can be blocked for 3RR violation for making good reverts, in themselves. However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a banned editor. The guideline suggests not relying on this But nobody has attempted, as far as I can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery.
Re: [Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article
At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote: So, here is my vote on the matter: Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort(talk contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012 Don't waste your time trying to edit the article as long as the current crew of trolls have control. It is best that it be left there for all to see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such. The article was proposed for deletion by a Single Purpose Account (SPA) who is very likely the sock puppet of a banned editor. There is revert warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed that TheNextFuture has not only not been blocked, s/he has not even been warned about revert warring. Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. TheNextFuture probably knows exactly what s/he is doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block history and may not realize that you can be blocked for 3RR violation for making good reverts, in themselves. However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a banned editor. The guideline suggests not relying on this But nobody has attempted, as far as I can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected transmutation rate at the energies we are speaking of I bet it would be too small to measure. Then again, I guess that we see significance evidence that standard physics is not working in the case of LENR devices. Another clue was overlooked and I bet there are many more. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Moving from the vac tube end of the spectrum to larger sizes, there is scope for closer examination of heavy duty industrial processes. Welding RD literature could be a rich hunting ground for baffled asides citing annoying post-welding impurities. On the other hand, an ab initio fresh start on welding might commence with experimentation using hyper-pure raw materials of species having a single stable isotope, such as aluminium (http://www.webelements.com/aluminium/isotopes.html for example), with painstaking spectrographic analysis of good provenance before and after welding. It would be interesting to see what could arise as 'impurities' after welding with the huge range of different welding processes and, indeed, with variations on welding input parameters, both within and outside those conducive to production of a technologically sound weld. Even further along this spectrum we get into seriously heavy duty stuff such as electric-arc steel making, an introduction to which (probably long-term stable!) is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace My first viewing of the movie Alien, many years ago, brought the seemingly organic twitching and writhing of the power supply cables on such furnaces to mind, particularly during the process of melting down a fresh batch of cold steel scrap. But transmutation in the electric steel foundry never crossed my mind as a summer student first seeing this in 1957. Fortunately, I suppose, or I would have had a short and unhappy career. As for what actually goes on in weld pools and such like, the jury may not even be selected yet. I believe several other 20th Century theoretical works that don't seem to have been cited in CF/LENR literature have an essential part in providing a scale-invariant matter-wave basis for understanding the outcomes of condensed state interparticle encounters. If this is of interest I will provide such, and I'm happy to participate in any theorising, particularly if half-baked contributions are acceptable. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: 16 September 2012 02:39 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM, John Newman johnws.new...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: On the other hand, an ab initio fresh start on welding might commence with experimentation using hyper-pure raw materials of species having a single stable isotope, such as aluminium (http://www.webelements.com/aluminium/isotopes.html for example), with painstaking spectrographic analysis of good provenance before and after welding. It would be interesting to see what could arise as 'impurities' after welding with the huge range of different welding processes and, indeed, with variations on welding input parameters, both within and outside those conducive to production of a technologically sound weld. Interesting you should mention this: http://www.gizmag.com/honda-steel-aluminum-welding/24096/ Not a lot of information available; but, what did they learn? T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Jeff, you have pointed out some interesting papers that allowed me to reconsider the transmutation concept. Thus far I have placed most of these experiments in the same category as ghosts and other difficult spirits to capture. Like the other phenomena, it is impossible to accept unless I witness it several times myself. I and I assume many others have read the articles and placed them in the bin labeled Something must have gone wrong with that test! This type of physics might be relatively common but not accepted due to the lack of understanding. If it is real, then we have a great deal of new things to learn about the natural world. I honestly have no idea about the validity of these papers and my tendency is to assume that there are operator errors. As soon as that assumption is applied, we are back to normal physics where transmutations are not happening under these low energy conditions. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the main line physicists who refuse to waste time reading about LENR since it can not be true. I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected transmutation rate at the energies we are speaking of I bet it would be too small to measure. Then again, I guess that we see significance evidence that standard physics is not working in the case of LENR devices. Another clue was overlooked and I bet there are many more. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Pursuing transmutations due to the types of processes you list seems like an excellent idea. The high temperature effects could demonstrate that things which occur within liquids and solids are quite different than those within plasmas and gasses. We seem to observe these issues frequently in our research into LENR devices and of course are considered out of touch by most of the main physicists. Many of their operational theories were developed under much higher temperature conditions and at far less material density. It is difficult to imagine the equivalent pressure that a plasma would be subjected to if the gas nuclei were as close together as we obtain within the NAE of a solid. I guess it is up to us to figure out a theory that we can use to engineer our future products so that they are safe and reliable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Newman johnws.new...@blueyonder.co.uk To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: 'charlie barraclough' charlie.barraclo...@btconnect.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:47 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article Moving from the vac tube end of the spectrum to larger sizes, there is scope for closer examination of heavy duty industrial processes. Welding RD literature could be a rich hunting ground for baffled asides citing annoying post-welding impurities. On the other hand, an ab initio fresh start on welding might commence with experimentation using hyper-pure raw materials of species having a single stable isotope, such as aluminium (http://www.webelements.com/aluminium/isotopes.html for example), with painstaking spectrographic analysis of good provenance before and after welding. It would be interesting to see what could arise as 'impurities' after welding with the huge range of different welding processes and, indeed, with variations on welding input parameters, both within and outside those conducive to production of a technologically sound weld. Even further along this spectrum we get into seriously heavy duty stuff such as electric-arc steel making, an introduction to which (probably long-term stable!) is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace My first viewing of the movie Alien, many years ago, brought the seemingly organic twitching and writhing of the power supply cables on such furnaces to mind, particularly during the process of melting down a fresh batch of cold steel scrap. But transmutation in the electric steel foundry never crossed my mind as a summer student first seeing this in 1957. Fortunately, I suppose, or I would have had a short and unhappy career. As for what actually goes on in weld pools and such like, the jury may not even be selected yet. I believe several other 20th Century theoretical works that don't seem to have been cited in CF/LENR literature have an essential part in providing a scale-invariant matter-wave basis for understanding the outcomes of condensed state interparticle encounters. If this is of interest I will provide such, and I'm happy to participate in any theorising, particularly if half-baked contributions are acceptable. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: 16 September 2012 02:39 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
