RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
Actually, I think that this is one of the better slide presentations out there this year - in the entire field - despite a few controversial statements and being in need of massive editing. Hats off to Steven Jones to support the Davey device, even though that inventor was nutty - and the prior claims were heavy on anecdote. Both the Davey and Timothy Thrapp spherical hot water heaters have been demonstrated to be way overunity, and operate on what could be a similar principal, and also are the product of inventors who are their own worst enemies. Both tried to hide the role of nickel alloys, but there is also a geometry factor is the sphere or hemisphere, along with recombination (chemical asymmetry). Here is a Thrapp video, and you can probably see note that this inventor suffers from the same Messiah complex as Joseph Newman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM This paper could be improved considerably and trimmed down to a couple of relevant issues but focusing on this device. Steven Jones does not go far enough in noting that there is more than one completely distinct phenomenon at work in gainful devices which are lumped as LENR. And there is too much emphasis early-on in the slides with muons - which appears to be dead-in-the-water, despite the Star claims (Australia- http://www.starscientific.com.au/). There is no practical way to make muons work IMO ... unless of course. a charged sphere collects them :) In fact, there are at least 5 pathways to gain, some nuclear some not - or more if one includes muons as separate from other catalysis. In the end, it is all about repeatability, and that is THE major problem, even for Celani. The proof for the Davey device is actually stronger than most of LENR, and should not be overlooked because of the eccentricities of an inventor. But it still lacks repeatability, with a number of failed attempts. We can only hope that SJ, who is a thorough and careful experimenter, can dig deeper on this simple device, since it is simple 'like electrolysis', but much more robust (for some important but unknown reason.) Of special interest is slide 17 et al. (NRL from ICCF 17) where he shows the spectacular episodes of 40x gain with alloy electrodes and tell-tale RF emission. It should be noted that Miles found nothing with Rhenium alone (Miles-Co-Deposition-of-Palladium-Paper-ICCF17). In fact, it seems to me now - in retrospect - that there was a strong sub-theme at ICCF-17 on Rhenium. Why? Well, it is group 7 and has massive valence electron flexibility, and is a Mills catalyst - but note that in contrast to Miles we have the results of an Re alloy with Pd that is spectacular, and most of all gives us an RF signature. I think the emphasis on Rhenium in many of these papers is misplaced - and instead manganese should perform better, as both are group 7 - and Re is rarer than palladium where as Mn is cheap ... but anyway - these NRL results are important and beg to be expanded on. Note to Steven Jones, if you monitor this group - try manganese or Ni-Mn alloy on one of the hemispheres and use RF as input. -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Steven Jones replica: Pons Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion Jones is experimenting with a bell electrode setup that strongly evidences excess (xs) energy and has similarities to the cell presented by Pons and Fleischmann. He says that there are at least two distinct phenomena in these experiments and that fusion is not what most of these CF or LENR types of arrangements exhibit http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
Just responding to this because travelling. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my exegesis of Sterling Allan's presentation of Steven Jones's recent research: 1. There is piezonuclear fusion. Fleischmann's and Pons's discovery was not this. Definitely not this. Piezo fusion is hot fusion. 2. There is metal-assisted d-d fusion. Fleischmann's and Pons's discovery was also not this. That's nuts. Maybe Jones is using some special definition. The article said lots that made no sense without other information, and it looks like Jones wasn't asked. 3. There is anamalous xs heat, or Freedom Energy, which is what Fleischmann and Pons investigated. They did not discover it. Peter Davey, in the 1940s, also researched it. People do not know what goes into anomalous xs heat, but to call it fusion Beating dead horse. PF claimed two things. Heat and neutrons at a low level. If not for the neutron artifact, they wouldn't have said fusion. It was clear from the levels that what they found was an unknown nuclear reaction, and that's what they wrote in the original paper. They made a tentative claim of fusion to explain the neutrons. However, from what we now know, it's almost certainly *some kind of fusion.* And Jones should know this. But for some strange reason, the power of correlation is neglected. 3a. confuses the issue, because people want to see radiation if there is fusion. Unfortunately, what people expected with fusion was an unnecessary constraint. Conservation of momentum is a basic principle, and this generally requires that there be two or more products of any nuclear reaction. However, there exist exceptions, at least transiently. Because it *might* turn out to resemble the reaction, here is a theoretical possibility: molecular fusion through a Bose-Einstein Condensate, 2 D2 - Be-8*. Notice: single product. However, no energy has been released yet, it is entirely a nuclear excited state. So then, two things happen: Be-8* - Be-8 + photons (23.7 MeV) (a series of transitions at relatively low energy, this might be Mossbauer recoil- suppressed.) Be-8 - 2 He-4 + electrons (from the original molecules) However, this proposal is incomplete. My point is only that we cannot predict the behavior of an unknown reaction. In any case, the radiation expectation massively confused the issues. 3b. is incorrect. I couldn't tell whether Jones insisted on (3b) or was just emphasizing (3a) The interview was poor. The obvious questions were not asked. From the fuel and heat/ash relationship, though, the FP Heat Effect is fusion by an unknown mechanism. Get over it, if you can't provide a better fit to the experimental evidence. Eric On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: It's a really weird article. It starts off with this title: Steven Jones replica: Pons Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
Does this device operate with standard tap water that has impurities? The mention of an RF resonator in the video has interesting implications if this device actually works. The spherical shape of the unit suggests that it would have resonances at radio frequencies within and some might be closely coupled to the water molecules or atoms to which they are composed. The heating energy must arise from some mechanism since the device appears to warm up at a rate that far exceeds the possible output power of the 9 volt battery. My opinion is that there is some kind of trick being displayed here although there is no proof. Perhaps the 'water' is not really water but some mixture that self heats when triggered by the battery input. The invention needs to be tested with fresh water applied and controlled by the experimenter without interference of the inventor. This test should be run several times in a row to ensure that the metal enclosure does not contribute to the heating as well. I would further carefully measure the time required to heat the fresh tap water during each warm up period to ensure that this is the same while using fresh batteries for each run. One can never be positive that a demonstration such as this is not a magic trick since there are many ways to confuse people. I guess that Rossi has determined that the only way to prove his ECAT to the world is to sell them and he might be correct is that assumption. This device might be another case where that concept is valid. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 12:11 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear Actually, I think that this is one of the better slide presentations out there this year - in the entire field - despite a few controversial statements and being in need of massive editing. Hats off to Steven Jones to support the Davey device, even though that inventor was nutty - and the prior claims were heavy on anecdote. Both the Davey and Timothy Thrapp spherical hot water heaters have been demonstrated to be way overunity, and operate on what could be a similar principal, and also are the product of inventors who are their own worst enemies. Both tried to hide the role of nickel alloys, but there is also a geometry factor is the sphere or hemisphere, along with recombination (chemical asymmetry). Here is a Thrapp video, and you can probably see note that this inventor suffers from the same Messiah complex as Joseph Newman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM This paper could be improved considerably and trimmed down to a couple of relevant issues but focusing on this device. Steven Jones does not go far enough in noting that there is more than one completely distinct phenomenon at work in gainful devices which are lumped as LENR. And there is too much emphasis early-on in the slides with muons - which appears to be dead-in-the-water, despite the Star claims (Australia- http://www.starscientific.com.au/). There is no practical way to make muons work IMO ... unless of course. a charged sphere collects them :) In fact, there are at least 5 pathways to gain, some nuclear some not - or more if one includes muons as separate from other catalysis. In the end, it is all about repeatability, and that is THE major problem, even for Celani. The proof for the Davey device is actually stronger than most of LENR, and should not be overlooked because of the eccentricities of an inventor. But it still lacks repeatability, with a number of failed attempts. We can only hope that SJ, who is a thorough and careful experimenter, can dig deeper on this simple device, since it is simple 'like electrolysis', but much more robust (for some important but unknown reason.) Of special interest is slide 17 et al. (NRL from ICCF 17) where he shows the spectacular episodes of 40x gain with alloy electrodes and tell-tale RF emission. It should be noted that Miles found nothing with Rhenium alone (Miles-Co-Deposition-of-Palladium-Paper-ICCF17). In fact, it seems to me now - in retrospect - that there was a strong sub-theme at ICCF-17 on Rhenium. Why? Well, it is group 7 and has massive valence electron flexibility, and is a Mills catalyst - but note that in contrast to Miles we have the results of an Re alloy with Pd that is spectacular, and most of all gives us an RF signature. I think the emphasis on Rhenium in many of these papers is misplaced - and instead manganese should perform better, as both are group 7 - and Re is rarer than palladium where as Mn is cheap ... but anyway - these NRL results are important and beg to be expanded on. Note to Steven Jones, if you monitor this group - try manganese or Ni-Mn alloy on one of the hemispheres and use RF as input. -Original Message- From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com Steven Jones replica: Pons Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion Jones is
RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
In fact, it seems to me now - in retrospect - that there was a strong sub-theme at ICCF-17 on Rhenium. Why? Well, it is group 7 and has massive valence electron flexibility, and is a Mills catalyst - but note that in contrast to Miles we have the results of an Re alloy with Pd that is spectacular, and most of all gives us an RF signature. I think the emphasis on Rhenium in many of these papers is misplaced - and instead manganese should perform better, as both are group 7 - and Re is rarer than palladium where as Mn is cheap ... but anyway - these NRL results are important and beg to be expanded on. Of course, it should be noted that almost 2/3 of natural Re is 187Re which is a radioactive beta emitter with a multi-billion year half-life. In a way this also ties into the thread yesterday on a possible connection to Ed Storms suggestion of a mysterious radiation associated with LENR which can alter decay rates. This could be similar to what is seen in solar astronomy. As noted yesterday - the solar neutrino rate does not vary noticeably due to massive solar flares. Instead another kind of radiation precedes flares, and is measureable on earth as accelerated decay rates. That unexplained kind of radiation could possibly correspond to what Storms describes. Curiously the same radiation could also be involved in other anomalies - and excess heat with rhenium alloys could be one of them. The mystery radiation itself would not need to be measureable in its own right - only its effect on the neutrino flux. Thus, the close analogy to the Aharonov-Bohm effect (if one needs a close analogy, and I think it helps in this case). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
Dave, You are exactly right - the video is suspicious, and that suspicion is not mitigated by the inventor's demeanor, nor the fact that he is supposedly a Christian minister. But I prefer this Thrapp scenario - to the Rossi's credentials anytime. The biggest problem with Thrapp/Davey is that here we are 4 years later and there is no commercial unit, BUT this situation is little different to Rossi's delay - since AR claimed to be in full production over a year ago. I would not even have mentioned Thrapp - had not the Davey device, with its undeniable similarity, been investigated by Steven Jones with what appear to be positive results. It there is anything to the claim of excess heat, SJ will probably find it. From: David Roberson Does this device operate with standard tap water that has impurities? The mention of an RF resonator in the video has interesting implications if this device actually works. The spherical shape of the unit suggests that it would have resonances at radio frequencies within and some might be closely coupled to the water molecules or atoms to which they are composed. The heating energy must arise from some mechanism since the device appears to warm up at a rate that far exceeds the possible output power of the 9 volt battery. My opinion is that there is some kind of trick being displayed here although there is no proof. Perhaps the 'water' is not really water but some mixture that self heats when triggered by the battery input. The invention needs to be tested with fresh water applied and controlled by the experimenter without interference of the inventor. This test should be run several times in a row to ensure that the metal enclosure does not contribute to the heating as well. I would further carefully measure the time required to heat the fresh tap water during each warm up period to ensure that this is the same while using fresh batteries for each run. One can never be positive that a demonstration such as this is not a magic trick since there are many ways to confuse people. I guess that Rossi has determined that the only way to prove his ECAT to the world is to sell them and he might be correct is that assumption. This device might be another case where that concept is valid. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 12:11 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear Actually, I think that this is one of the better slide presentations out there this year - in the entire field - despite a few controversial statements and being in need of massive editing. Hats off to Steven Jones to support the Davey device, even though that inventor was nutty - and the prior claims were heavy on anecdote. Both the Davey and Timothy Thrapp spherical hot water heaters have been demonstrated to be way overunity, and operate on what could be a similar principal, and also are the product of inventors who are their own worst enemies. Both tried to hide the role of nickel alloys, but there is also a geometry factor is the sphere or hemisphere, along with recombination (chemical asymmetry). Here is a Thrapp video, and you can probably see note that this inventor suffers from the same Messiah complex as Joseph Newman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM This paper could be improved considerably and trimmed down to a couple of relevant issues but focusing on this device. Steven Jones does not go far enough in noting that there is more than one completely distinct phenomenon at work in gainful devices which are lumped as LENR. And there is too much emphasis early-on in the slides with muons - which appears to be dead-in-the-water, despite the Star claims (Australia- http://www.starscientific.com.au/). There is no practical way to make muons work IMO ... unless of course. a charged sphere collects them :) In fact, there are at least 5 pathways to gain, some nuclear some not - or more if one includes muons as separate from other catalysis. In the end, it is all about repeatability, and that is THE major problem, even for Celani. The proof for the Davey device is actually stronger than most of LENR, and should not be overlooked because of the eccentricities of an inventor. But it still lacks repeatability, with a number of failed attempts. We can only hope that SJ, who is a thorough and careful experimenter, can dig deeper on this simple device, since it is simple 'like electrolysis', but much more robust (for some important but unknown reason.) Of special interest is slide 17 et al. (NRL from ICCF 17) where he shows the spectacular episodes of 40x gain with alloy electrodes and tell-tale RF emission. It should be noted that Miles found nothing with Rhenium alone (Miles-Co-Deposition-of-Palladium-Paper-ICCF17). In fact, it seems to me now - in retrospect - that there was a strong sub-theme at ICCF-17 on Rhenium.
[Vo]:Heins Effect Gaining Credibility
Heins Effect Gaining Credibility Monday | March 19, 2012 http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=279 'Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats.' -Howard Aiken, US computer scientist (1900 - 1973) Back in July of 2010 I wrote a story called The Heins Effect. It was a simple story about a self-taught inventor who asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer. 30+ years ago Thane Heins was a young, naive student at Ottawa University when he asked the professor teaching the electric motors/generators class an obvious question about efficiency, 'If you could figure out a way to retard [withhold] the counter-EMF on the advancing magnet by 10% would you not increase its overall efficiency by 10%?'. 'Why even bother answering that question, because if you did you would be violating several laws of physic, so you can't do it' was the reply. And that was that. It may not have been the actual word-for-word conversation that took place, but Thane gave us this short synopsis when asked what sparked the idea for his technology. He had an idea in his mind when he asked that question (a flash of genius you might say) but buried it in his collective and went on with life. I gleaned that little bit of history from Thane last Monday while I was attending the RegenX demonstration in Toronto that he was giving for his investors and technical staff. Fast forward to post-911: Thane, like many other eco-engineers, wanted to stop the oil wars so he started thinking about his ideas again. He grabbed his ideas, some electric motors and headed down into the basement where disaster awaited. I'll spare you the details of the first time he plugged in his Regenerative Acceleration prototype, but suffice to say it got away from him but in a good way. And from that first disaster Thane knew he was on the right track so he has spent the last 10+ years coming to grips with what he discovered and the last few years trying to explain it. And I have spent the last 48 hours doing the same. When I last spoke to Thane several years ago he had come to grips with the mechanics of his technology, but not quite the explanation of it (at least not one that most engineers could understand). He could prove it in the lab to anyone that questioned it but without that basic, rock solid and understandable explanation of how his electric motor can draw less energy, and accelerate at the same time, most of his naive collogues just scratched their heads and walked away. Well, as a mechanical engineer I'm here to explain how it works and why it works. And it does work; over a dozen of us were witness to that last Monday (as well as a film crew--filming in 3D no less!) Let's start with my feeble explanation of the mechanics of how a permanent-magnet electric motor works--then I'll work my way up from there. The coils provide rotational force to the rotor when the coils are energized with current (amps). Energized in sequence they form a rotating magnetic field (the Electro-Motive Force; EMF) that attracts the magnets of the rotor and thus it rotates with force. An opposite EMF is also formed as the magnet approaches the coils and--based on the strength of that back-EMF -- it determines how fast you can rotate the magnets through it before it stops accelerating. The conventional laws of physics (and those governing electric motors/generators) tells us that the faster we pass the magnet through the EMF the more current is needed (or generated) to the point where the magnets cannot go any faster due to back EMF [resistance to the magnetic field]. If you quit supplying electrical current to the coils the rotor eventually freewheels to a stop over time. If you short out those coils (let's say to a battery) then the magnetism in the rotating magnets supply current to those coils the motor, it becomes a generator and slows down even faster because it's under load (via it's self-induced EMF). This is called Regenerative Braking and it can be used to convert the momentum of the vehicle to electricity and [ultimately] to put some of that electricity back in the battery and extend the range of the vehicle. Still with me? I'm almost there... now picture if you will a flywheel attached to the pigtail of this electric motor, and on this flywheel are the same type of magnets. If you were to place some standard coils next to these magnets you have a duplicate of what's inside. Put Thanes proprietary Regenerative Acceleration coils next to those magnets you have something exciting. As Thane has come to understand he has figured out a way to store the latent electrical energy in those rotating magnets as high voltage between the coils (not as magnetic field around his coils) and not in them either; a capacitor of types (if you care to imagine). Since it is current flowing through the coils that causes the magnetic fields around them (and not the volts) Thanes' coils offer no EMF [resistance] as the
RE: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTV85J2QHj0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTV85J2QHj0feature=plcp feature=plcp contrast this one with the Thrapp video as it is a bit more believable - there are differences and similarities - however, can there be any doubt that geometry and resonance are involved as much, or more so than Ohmic heating or direct water-splitting? Dave, You are exactly right - the video is suspicious, and that suspicion is not mitigated by the inventor's demeanor, nor the fact that he is supposedly a Christian minister. But I prefer this Thrapp scenario - to the Rossi's credentials anytime. The biggest problem with Thrapp/Davey is that here we are 4 years later and there is no commercial unit, BUT this situation is little different to Rossi's delay - since AR claimed to be in full production over a year ago. I would not even have mentioned Thrapp - had not the Davey device, with its undeniable similarity, been investigated by Steven Jones with what appear to be positive results. It there is anything to the claim of excess heat, SJ will probably find it. From: David Roberson Does this device operate with standard tap water that has impurities? The mention of an RF resonator in the video has interesting implications if this device actually works. The spherical shape of the unit suggests that it would have resonances at radio frequencies within and some might be closely coupled to the water molecules or atoms to which they are composed. The heating energy must arise from some mechanism since the device appears to warm up at a rate that far exceeds the possible output power of the 9 volt battery. My opinion is that there is some kind of trick being displayed here although there is no proof. Perhaps the 'water' is not really water but some mixture that self heats when triggered by the battery input. The invention needs to be tested with fresh water applied and controlled by the experimenter without interference of the inventor. This test should be run several times in a row to ensure that the metal enclosure does not contribute to the heating as well. I would further carefully measure the time required to heat the fresh tap water during each warm up period to ensure that this is the same while using fresh batteries for each run. One can never be positive that a demonstration such as this is not a magic trick since there are many ways to confuse people. I guess that Rossi has determined that the only way to prove his ECAT to the world is to sell them and he might be correct is that assumption. This device might be another case where that concept is valid. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Actually, I think that this is one of the better slide presentations out there this year - in the entire field - despite a few controversial statements and being in need of massive editing. Hats off to Steven Jones to support the Davey device, even though that inventor was nutty - and the prior claims were heavy on anecdote. Both the Davey and Timothy Thrapp spherical hot water heaters have been demonstrated to be way overunity, and operate on what could be a similar principal, and also are the product of inventors who are their own worst enemies. Both tried to hide the role of nickel alloys, but there is also a geometry factor is the sphere or hemisphere, along with recombination (chemical asymmetry). Here is a Thrapp video, and you can probably see note that this inventor suffers from the same Messiah complex as Joseph Newman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06iCfowinUM
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DtvKnZk9iM Video by Steven Jones http://www.youtube.com/user/TheProfJones http://www.youtube.com/user/TheProfJones List of all videos Cheers: Axil On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Courtesy of pesn.com - Steven Jones replica: Pons Fleischmann XS Heat not from fusion Jones is experimenting with a bell electrode setup that strongly evidences excess (xs) energy and has similarities to the cell presented by Pons and Fleischmann. He says that there are at least two distinct phenomena in these experiments and that fusion is not what most of these CF or LENR types of arrangements exhibit http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
Jones can tell a bigger, bolder lie than anyone else I know. His chutzpah is unbounded. He does not even bother to make the lie believable He has such contempt for you, the audience, that he does not bother to make the lie seem credible. He reminds me of Soviet Era judges who would send people to Siberia for the crime of destroying a bridge -- a bridge which stands outside the courtroom, undamaged, in plain view through the window. Their real message was: I can say or do anything I like, no matter how absurd, and you are powerless to stop me. You can't even object. Here is one example of what Jones does; just one example of many -- Year after year, in lectures, papers and conversation he asserted that all cold fusion excess heat results are artifacts of recombination. He said that even when when McKubre and Storms used closed cells with recombiners; even when the total output far exceeded I*V input; and even (I recall) of heat after death. He was challenged again and again to explain that, in person and in e-mail. He never responded. This was not a smooth lie. It was not the least bit convincing to anyone who understands what recombination means. He wasn't being serious, because he does understand elementary science, after all. He said this only to flummox rubes and reporters. He and others also conducted absurd experiments to prove there might be recombination in Miles' experiments. He reduced input power by a factor of a thousand and used a cell of the wrong shape. Miles commented that Jones might as well throw some platinum powder into the electrolyte while he is at it. This paper has several other brazen lies: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEchasingano.pdf Jones should have been a politician. I would not trust him as far as I can throw him. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
430 * 4 = 1720, eh?
Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:59:21 -0800: Hi, [snip] There is an RF signal which appears to have a strong correlation to excess heating events in one kind of LENR. This is from a recent paper at ICCF17. The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. This could be a cyclotron frequency of electrons in the Van Allen belts. Maybe the Earth's magnetic field is acting as the magnetic field in a transformer, with the electrons in the Van Allen belts as the primary, and the experimental setup as the secondary? Or is my imagination running away with me? :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
The Global Frequency database for 1.720 MHz has an entry, but I don't think it's what you had in mind ... Location Callsign 1.72 MHzAM Kandahar, Afghanistan OKN :) -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Subject: Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature 430 * 4 = 1720, eh?
Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
What is the paper? 2012/11/20 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net There is an RF signal which appears to have a strong correlation to excess heating events in one kind of LENR. This is from a recent paper at ICCF17. The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. I have looked high and low to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but nothing seems to turn up. This is longwave once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but not much used anymore. Who wants a 700 meter antenna? There is some relevance to Rabi frequency and to MRI but this seems incidental. A real connection to nuclear events seems extremely remote, given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be important. Very strange... -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auroral_kilometric_radiation interesting possibility -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. This could be a cyclotron frequency of electrons in the Van Allen belts. Maybe the Earth's magnetic field is acting as the magnetic field in a transformer, with the electrons in the Van Allen belts as the primary, and the experimental setup as the secondary? Or is my imagination running away with me? :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
See slides 17-19 in the Steven Jones paper mentioned earlier. http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischman n_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf It was apparently from a paper that NRL presented at ICCF17 but that is all I remember From: Daniel Rocha What is the paper? There is an RF signal which appears to have a strong correlation to excess heating events in one kind of LENR. This is from a recent paper at ICCF17. The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. I have looked high and low to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but nothing seems to turn up. This is longwave once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but not much used anymore. Who wants a 700 meter antenna? There is some relevance to Rabi frequency and to MRI but this seems incidental. A real connection to nuclear events seems extremely remote, given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be important. Very strange... -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
radio beacons work in that range http://www.dxinfocentre.com/ndb.htm harry On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an RF signal which appears to have a strong correlation to excess heating events in one kind of LENR. This is from a recent paper at ICCF17. The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. I have looked high and low to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but nothing seems to turn up. This is longwave once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but not much used anymore. Who wants a 700 meter antenna? There is some relevance to Rabi frequency and to MRI but this seems incidental. A real connection to nuclear events seems extremely remote, given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be important. Very strange...
Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
Look at the acoustics of the electrodes. On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is an RF signal which appears to have a strong correlation to excess heating events in one kind of LENR. This is from a recent paper at ICCF17. The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. I have looked high and low to find some broader significance to this particular frequency, but nothing seems to turn up. This is longwave once used for Morse code and warning beacons, but not much used anymore. Who wants a 700 meter antenna? There is some relevance to Rabi frequency and to MRI but this seems incidental. A real connection to nuclear events seems extremely remote, given the wavelength - but it is there, and knowing why it is there could be important. Very strange...
Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature
Yep, it is running wild this time. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:430 kHz may be a LENR signature In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 20 Nov 2012 15:59:21 -0800: Hi, [snip] There is an RF signal which appears to have a strong correlation to excess heating events in one kind of LENR. This is from a recent paper at ICCF17. The signal has a frequency of .43 MHz (430 kHz). This seems to be a signature - and a strong one. But it is too early to generalize. This could be a cyclotron frequency of electrons in the Van Allen belts. Maybe the Earth's magnetic field is acting as the magnetic field in a transformer, with the electrons in the Van Allen belts as the primary, and the experimental setup as the secondary? Or is my imagination running away with me? :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The biggest problem with Thrapp/Davey is that here we are 4 years later and there is no commercial unit, BUT this situation is little different to Rossi’s delay - since AR claimed to be in full production over a year ago. One of the pleasures of following this list is the zoo of strange and curious overunity devices that one learns about, some of which look promising and all of which look dubious. I am reminded of Roz Chast: http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/61/6147/AX2G100Z/posters/roz-chast-little-things-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg Eric
Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear
Thinking of acousticsIf the hemispheres are very accurately machined then any ultrasonic excitement of the surface that is symmetrical will form waves that collide at the center of the device. Very large pressure will be generated similar to the collapse of a bubble. I know of a fingerprint reading technique that uses a partial half sphere emitter of ultrasonic energy. This allows reading of the finger shape very accurately even through rubber gloves since the energy is focused to a tiny point. Maybe the extreme pressure can lead to a form of LENR that generates excess heating in water. I wonder whether the effect is due to ultrasonic or RF activation. A 'resonator' could apply to both and the frequencies used for ultrasonic generation are within the RF range. I also would assume that the structure has an RF resonance, but it would definitely posses an ultrasonic one. If the Q of the ultrasonic resonator is high, then standing waves would form within the structure. A moderate amount of drive energy could result in a far larger amount of stored energy in this configuration. Perhaps this type of system would behave as a cavitation generator on steroids. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steven Jones: Excess heat is real, but probably not nuclear In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:59:07 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] Does this device operate with standard tap water that has impurities? The mention of an RF resonator in the video has interesting implications if this device actually works. The spherical shape of the unit suggests that it would have resonances at radio frequencies within and some might be closely coupled to the water molecules or atoms to which they are composed. The heating energy must arise from some mechanism since the device appears to warm up at a rate that far exceeds the possible output power of the 9 volt battery. Two (hemi)spherical electrodes with water in between would form a crude electrolytic capacitor which, in combination with attached wiring, would form a tank circuit. The resonant frequency of such a tank circuit would likely lie in the RF frequency band. Thus any anomalous energy that fed into the tank circuit could produce RF emissions from the wiring. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
