date:20130124

Thanks Chuck,

It's encouraging to know we've had the same ideas!  You may not have had
the polarity wrong.  I've gone through two wires with it so far.  I've
thought maybe I was putting too much power through it, but it also may be
that the hydrogen loading is very rough on the wire.  After running ~5 hrs
the wire broke and you could touch it, and it would disintegrate.  I may
need to try thicker wire (using .009 currently).


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Jack,

Keep on experimenting!  Your following the same track that I did, and
 Nitinol was one thought I had.  The idea at the time was to load hydrogen
  into nitinol, and then crank up the current to flex the metal lattice with
 the H embedded in  the crystal structure.   I think I had the polarity
 wrong as the nitinol dissolved in the solution.  Anyway, keep on
 experimenting.  You might be on to something.


 On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've been conducting a new series of electrolysis experiments with
 Nitinol (56% nickel/44% titanium).  I did a little video demonstrating
 nitinol's effect of contracting when heated while running an electrolysis
 experiment.  I'm using KOH as the electrolyte.

 May be of interest to some here.  Seems to me that this alloy may be
 promising for LENR.


 http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2013/01/23/automated-android-electrolysis-system-nitinol-demonstration/

 Best regards,
 Jack

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

Thanks for the suggestions Jones.  I will give that a try.


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  A combination of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide works with nickel-copper
 and is very safe. This is often used to etch PCBs. Using a few volts with
 the wire as cathode  should also load H2. The muriatic may work better on
 Nitinol.

 ** **

 This is not precise calorimetry – Terry… you can to call it “thermometry”
 and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to gauge the comparative ability to
 raise the temp of a known mass of water. Using the specific heat to arrive
 at joules and logging the P-in, you can get a ballpark but the basic idea
 is *comparative* between a wire that may be slightly gainful and one that
 may be slightly endothermic.

 ** **

 The idea is to see if there is anything “obvious” there, before incurring
 the expense and time of doing it right. For instance, going from 25C to 75C
 in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol
 (both wires of the same Ohmic resistance) and everything else being the
 same … that would be interesting enough to dig deeper, no?

 ** **

 Ahern’s finding of anomalous endotherm with nickel-titanium is ‘out there’
 in the public record and ought to be corroborated or debunked.

 ** **

 *From:* Jack Cole 

 ** **

 I could run some low power electrolysis for a day or two in some diluted
 hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the trick?  Or do you have another
 idea for the acid?

 Hydrogen loading will surely be necessary at some level, but can possibly
 be accommodated by combination of low pH electrolyte, not so low as to
 dissolve the wires… or preferably by preloading etched wires for a day
 under H2 pressure and modest heat, or even the simplest expedient which
 would be during a slow electro-etching in weak acid- with the wires as
 cathodes. The last would be the easiest to try for anyone without H2.

  

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

I ordered several additional meters of nitinol and constantan wire (.8mm).
 It took some work to find similar diameters.


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for the suggestions Jones.  I will give that a try.


 On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  A combination of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide works with nickel-copper
 and is very safe. This is often used to etch PCBs. Using a few volts with
 the wire as cathode  should also load H2. The muriatic may work better on
 Nitinol.

 ** **

 This is not precise calorimetry – Terry… you can to call it “thermometry”
 and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to gauge the comparative ability to
 raise the temp of a known mass of water. Using the specific heat to arrive
 at joules and logging the P-in, you can get a ballpark but the basic idea
 is *comparative* between a wire that may be slightly gainful and one
 that may be slightly endothermic.

 ** **

 The idea is to see if there is anything “obvious” there, before incurring
 the expense and time of doing it right. For instance, going from 25C to 75C
 in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol
 (both wires of the same Ohmic resistance) and everything else being the
 same … that would be interesting enough to dig deeper, no?

 ** **

 Ahern’s finding of anomalous endotherm with nickel-titanium is ‘out
 there’ in the public record and ought to be corroborated or debunked.

 ** **

 *From:* Jack Cole 

 ** **

 I could run some low power electrolysis for a day or two in some diluted
 hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the trick?  Or do you have another
 idea for the acid?

 Hydrogen loading will surely be necessary at some level, but can possibly
 be accommodated by combination of low pH electrolyte, not so low as to
 dissolve the wires… or preferably by preloading etched wires for a day
 under H2 pressure and modest heat, or even the simplest expedient which
 would be during a slow electro-etching in weak acid- with the wires as
 cathodes. The last would be the easiest to try for anyone without H2.

  

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
 Obviously this is not as sensitive as advanced
 calorimetry, but it is also not without utility.

Roger.

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

Speaking of chemo-nuclear transitions in a general way - and especially in
regards to hydrogen thermal anomalies, it is possible that the very
definition of chemical energy is in jeopardy soon - to the extent that
Mills finally delivers.

This is because of the Rydberg teachings - which is Sweden's great gift to
humanity 130 years ago. Wiki has a number of related entries under Johannes
Rydberg's name and also under nascent hydrogen. Nascent hydrogen was the
term used by Mills in his original discovery of Nickel-hydrogen thermal
anomalies - of the non-nuclear variety. 

Mills may have missed the boat on several other parts of his theory,
especially in trying to abandon QM in favor of his version - but he did
understand one important point: the reliance on chemical or nuclear as
the source of energy under CoE falls apart with nascent hydrogen ... and a
massive apparent overunity potential is available from nascent hydrogen on
paper even with no apparent nuclear participation. 

Chemical is a proximate cause of gain, so to avoid CoE issues - one still
must identify an ultimate source of mass to energy conversion beyond
electron orbitals - and that is what Mills got wrong. Mills said the gain
was only in orbitals - and that is NOT correct. However, this point is what
the LENR crowd got equally wrong, but that is fodder for another day. As for
now, we are awaiting CIHT.

Until CIHT device comes out from BLP, and it is long-delayed already but my
N.J. source is certain that a semi-public demo will happen before the end of
February - Mills has failed miserably in many eyes. He has failed to back up
his massive theory with an operating device that can be seen by the public
or independent scientists. Moreover, he has been dishonest about his
numerous failures in the past ...yet ... he will probably get most of the
credit for any non-deuterium version of NiH, no matter how many lies that
Piantelli wishes to foster on the community.

This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence. 

In stark contrast  to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.

In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture. 

Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.

More on those details later,

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

2013-01-24 Thread David Roberson

Jones,


I can see how the 13.6 eV of energy would be very substantially larger than the 
normal burning of hydrogen at 1.4 eV as you mention.  My problem with this 
concept arises when I try to find the original source of the 13.6 eV of energy. 
 Clearly, free hydrogen is available to burn with oxygen delivering the 1.4 eV 
since it exists in nature with the energy stored ahead of time.  But the 13.6 
eV you mention is nowhere to be found until the electron is stripped away from 
the proton in the initial phase.


Do you know of a source for stripped protons that can be obtained without that 
input of energy?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence. 

In stark contrast  to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.

In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture. 

Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.

More on those details later,

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

David,

 

Good question … and yes - nature provides us with a few clues. 

 

Without getting into anything proprietary – you need only look at the oceans of 
earth for the source you are asking about.

 

In effect – “hydronium” is a component of water and represents a free source of 
protons – albeit transitory. The hydronium ion is a cation H3O+ formed 
naturally- is the result of temporary protonation. The pH of the oceans 
represents the free protons available, and it is gigatons at any given moment. 
The emphasis there is on “at any given moment”. :-)

 

So far, attempts to harvest hydronium have been in the easy ways have been 
futile – that goes without saying, since we are still burning oil. That may not 
be the case with advancing technology. Note that while hydrogen as a gas is 
diamagnetic, the proton is intensely magnetic.

 

The important point is that QM (nature) can provide protons which are 
essentially “free”. It is up to inventors to find a cost effective way to 
harvest them.

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Jones, 

 

I can see how the 13.6 eV of energy would be very substantially larger than the 
normal burning of hydrogen at 1.4 eV as you mention.  My problem with this 
concept arises when I try to find the original source of the 13.6 eV of energy. 
 Clearly, free hydrogen is available to burn with oxygen delivering the 1.4 eV 
since it exists in nature with the energy stored ahead of time.  But the 13.6 
eV you mention is nowhere to be found until the electron is stripped away from 
the proton in the initial phase.

 

Do you know of a source for stripped protons that can be obtained without that 
input of energy?

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence. 
 
In stark contrast  to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
 
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture. 
 
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
 
More on those details later,
 
Jones

Re: [Vo]:colloquium cold fusion 2013 in eindhoven

2013-01-24 Thread Rob Dingemans


Hi,

Thanks for the info (extracted the dutch original linked version) en 
beterschap gewenst.


Kind regards,

Rob

On 24-1-2013 10:40, Teslaalset wrote:
Unfortunately I was tackled by flu and could not visit, but here's 
some feedback:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nltl=enjs=nprev=_thl=nlie=UTF-8eotf=1u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cursor.tue.nl%2Fnieuwsartikel%2Fartikel%2Fwarme-belangstelling-voor-koude-fusie%2Fact=url 
http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftranslate%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Ftranslate%3Fsl%3Dnl%26tl%3Den%26js%3Dn%26prev%3D_t%26hl%3Dnl%26ie%3DUTF-8%26eotf%3D1%26u%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww%2Ecursor%2Etue%2Enl%252Fnieuwsartikel%252Fartikel%252Fwarme-belangstelling-voor-koude-fusie%252F%26act%3Durlurlhash=-URP_t=tracking_disc


and

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/01/reports-from-cold-fusion-meeting-in-eindhoven/ 
http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ee-catworld%2Ecom%2F2013%2F01%2Freports-from-cold-fusion-meeting-in-eindhoven%2Furlhash=mHzR_t=tracking_disc




On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com 
mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:


Hi,


On 15-1-2013 22:06, P.J van Noorden wrote:

Hi Robbie,
I registered late in the afternoon and got a welcome mail.
It will be interesting to attend the colloquium..Are you also
living in the Netherlands like me?
Peter


Just wondering if any (interesting) news is to be reported?

Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

2013-01-24 Thread David Roberson

Thanks Jone,


I have never really thought about that natural source of energy.  It sounds 
like there are people attempting to tap the stored joules and I wish them 
success.


In a manner of speaking, the energy you mention is a form of fossil fuel. 


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 12:10 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions



David,
 
Good question … and yes - natureprovides us with a few clues. 
 
Without getting intoanything proprietary – you need only look at the oceans of 
earth for the sourceyou are asking about.
 
In effect – “hydronium” isa component of water and represents a free source of 
protons – albeit transitory.The hydronium ion is a cation H3O+ formed 
naturally- is the result of temporaryprotonation. The pH of the oceans 
represents the free protons available, and itis gigatons at any given moment. 
The emphasis there is on “at any given moment”.J
 
So far, attempts toharvest hydronium have been in the easy ways have been 
futile – that goeswithout saying, since we are still burning oil. That may not 
be the case withadvancing technology. Note that while hydrogen as a gas is 
diamagnetic, theproton is intensely magnetic.
 
The important point isthat QM (nature) can provide protons which are 
essentially “free”. It is up toinventors to find a cost effective way to 
harvest them.
 

From:David Roberson 

 
Jones, 

 

I can see how the 13.6 eV of energy would be very substantiallylarger than the 
normal burning of hydrogen at 1.4 eV as you mention.  Myproblem with this 
concept arises when I try to find the original source of the13.6 eV of energy.  
Clearly, free hydrogen is available to burn withoxygen delivering the 1.4 eV 
since it exists in nature with the energystored ahead of time.  But the 13.6 eV 
you mention is nowhere to befound until the electron is stripped away from the 
proton in the initial phase.

 

Do you know of a source for stripped protons that can be obtainedwithout that 
input of energy?

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 10:53 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

.
This ostensibly non-nuclear but supra-chemical gain is available because of
the Rydberg value of mass-energy of 13.6 eV for hydrogen. This basically
represents the energy which is obtainable from a proton capturing an
electron, and it is astronomically high, so to speak. I do not know if this
extreme value has ever been conclusively seen except in Space. Since protons
in Space are more common than any other form of mass out there - UV
spectroscopy can be used to pick up this signature everywhere we look - but
closer to home it is harder to see the strongest Rydberg evidence. 
 
In stark contrast  to this 13.6 eV Rydberg value, the highest amount of
chemical energy that can be obtained practically from burning hydrogen in
oxygen is about 1.4 eV and seldom does that happen (it is a rough
equivalence to 14,000 degrees K). A figure of about half that represents
practical reality as seen in rocketry.
 
In short, as you can see instantly from comparing 13.6 eV to 1.4 eV or less
- that hydrogen without combustion would offer an easy (but not naïve) way
to achieve a COP of ~10 ... if (big IF) ... we can simply engineer a proton
conductor which is not electrically conductive - to occasionally allow the
full transition energy of a free electron capture. 
 
Thus Mills, or LENR, needs little else, other than nascent hydrogen magic in
order to show high gain (COP ~10) and to do it ostensibly through only
chemistry. After all, chemistry is also {mass to energy conversion} in one
perspective, so we are really talking semantics with nascent hydrogen being
non-nuclear. There is a way that it can be both.
 
More on those details later,
 
Jones

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

The title of your article is Rossi wants to destroy the Piantelli patent.

Rossi has no power to destroy any patent, any more than I can destroy a
football player's contract with the NFL. Rossi has no say in this matter,
and no influence with the patent office in any country. However, Rossi does
have a right to his opinion of the Piantelli patent.

So what are you talking about?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

It is not about opinion, Rossi says he has tested
the apparatus according to the patent with high fidelity and has
demonstrated it does not work.
I show why this cannot be true, and suppose
that it is true, it would be a loss for him.
The method is the key.
I have not spoken about opinion.

Peter

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 The title of your article is Rossi wants to destroy the Piantelli patent.

 Rossi has no power to destroy any patent, any more than I can destroy a
 football player's contract with the NFL. Rossi has no say in this matter,
 and no influence with the patent office in any country. However, Rossi does
 have a right to his opinion of the Piantelli patent.

 So what are you talking about?

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:

It is not about opinion, Rossi says he has tested
 the apparatus according to the patent with high fidelity and has
 demonstrated it does not work.


The patent office does not care what he says. He is not a patent examiner.
His tests are going to be admitted as evidence.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

I meant his tests are NOT going to be admitted as evidence.

Believe me, that patent office has never heard of Rossi, and it does not
want to hear from him. He has no influence. Stop worrying about him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

And then Piantelli tests Ross's patent and finds it not to work.  
Meanwhile, the lawyers get rich and while the elephants are fighting,  
the mice eat the corn. Being one of the mice, this is good news.


Ed


On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

The title of your article is Rossi wants to destroy the Piantelli  
patent.


Rossi has no power to destroy any patent, any more than I can  
destroy a football player's contract with the NFL. Rossi has no say  
in this matter, and no influence with the patent office in any  
country. However, Rossi does have a right to his opinion of the  
Piantelli patent.


So what are you talking about?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

And then Piantelli tests Ross's patent and finds it not to work. Meanwhile,
 the lawyers get rich . . .


Piantelli has no influence with the patent office either.

This discussion makes no sense. You cannot walk in off the street, declare
yourself a patent examiner, and influence a decision at the patent office.
I suppose they might solicit an opinion from an expert, but I cannot
imagine any organization asking Rossi for anything.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

Rossi's patent description is untestable and has not much in common with
what he is really doing.
I bet thta Rossi does not want a patent for what he does or tries to do,
This action now is just smoke, circus, game playing.

Peter

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 And then Piantelli tests Ross's patent and finds it not to work.
 Meanwhile, the lawyers get rich and while the elephants are fighting, the
 mice eat the corn. Being one of the mice, this is good news.

 Ed



 On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

  The title of your article is Rossi wants to destroy the Piantelli
 patent.

 Rossi has no power to destroy any patent, any more than I can destroy a
 football player's contract with the NFL. Rossi has no say in this matter,
 and no influence with the patent office in any country. However, Rossi does
 have a right to his opinion of the Piantelli patent.

 So what are you talking about?

 - Jed





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

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

2013-01-24 Thread Teslaalset

Formally, anybody can object against a granted EU patent within 9 months.
Looking to Piantelli's claims not only pure Nickel but also Nickel alloys
are applicable.
So, it's basically impossible for Rossi to claim Piantelli's setup cannot
work.
Even stronger, Rossi's catalyzer is possibly related to applying Nickel
alloys.
So, e.g. a NiCu alloy has copper as the catalyst.
Why do I think Rossi's catalyst is the copper in an applied Nickel alloy
powder?
Think of Celani. Think of the large percentage of Copper in the 'ashes'
that Rossi made avalable in 2011 to the University of Uppsalla.

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

No the action is not at the patent office. The action is in the courts  
that oversee patents. Also such challenges can prevent a patent from  
being granted in the EU. Remember Patterson and F-P.


Ed
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

And then Piantelli tests Ross's patent and finds it not to work.  
Meanwhile, the lawyers get rich . . .


Piantelli has no influence with the patent office either.

This discussion makes no sense. You cannot walk in off the street,  
declare yourself a patent examiner, and influence a decision at the  
patent office. I suppose they might solicit an opinion from an  
expert, but I cannot imagine any organization asking Rossi for  
anything.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


 Also such challenges can prevent a patent from being granted in the EU.
 Remember Patterson and F-P.


That is true. I had forgotten about that. Still, Rossi is not an
influential person.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

I wanted to call Rossi's attention about his moral obligation to tell
better lies. Surely he cannot do anything real against this very well
conceived an written patent.
I start to have very serious doubts if he is progressing on the way from
enhanced excess heat to energy source. A good partner could help him.

Peter

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


 Also such challenges can prevent a patent from being granted in the EU.
 Remember Patterson and F-P.


 That is true. I had forgotten about that. Still, Rossi is not an
 influential person.

 - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

Jones,

I went back and looked at some of my previous results, and they do raise
the possibility of anomalous cooling.  I was a little confused by these
results at the time.

After our discussion, I think this is exactly what you were predicting.
 The control trial used HFAC pulses through a beverage heating element (2
seconds) alternating with 30VDC electrolysis through the nitinol wire (10
seconds).  The experimental run used 30VDC electrolysis for 10 seconds
alternating with 2 second HFAC pulses through the nitinol.  Notice that the
beverage heater temperature produced results above the predicted amount and
nitinol pulses produced results below the predicted amount.  I don't make a
whole lot of the beverage heater being above the predictions because I
don't think there would have been a lot of hydrogen loading into that.  But
the nitinol results are intriguing enough to explore further.

Here is the chart.

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EXP52.png

Best regards,
Jack


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  A combination of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide works with nickel-copper
 and is very safe. This is often used to etch PCBs. Using a few volts with
 the wire as cathode  should also load H2. The muriatic may work better on
 Nitinol.

 ** **

 This is not precise calorimetry – Terry… you can to call it “thermometry”
 and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to gauge the comparative ability to
 raise the temp of a known mass of water. Using the specific heat to arrive
 at joules and logging the P-in, you can get a ballpark but the basic idea
 is *comparative* between a wire that may be slightly gainful and one that
 may be slightly endothermic.

 ** **

 The idea is to see if there is anything “obvious” there, before incurring
 the expense and time of doing it right. For instance, going from 25C to 75C
 in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol
 (both wires of the same Ohmic resistance) and everything else being the
 same … that would be interesting enough to dig deeper, no?

 ** **

 Ahern’s finding of anomalous endotherm with nickel-titanium is ‘out there’
 in the public record and ought to be corroborated or debunked.

 ** **

 *From:* Jack Cole 

 ** **

 I could run some low power electrolysis for a day or two in some diluted
 hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the trick?  Or do you have another
 idea for the acid?

 Hydrogen loading will surely be necessary at some level, but can possibly
 be accommodated by combination of low pH electrolyte, not so low as to
 dissolve the wires… or preferably by preloading etched wires for a day
 under H2 pressure and modest heat, or even the simplest expedient which
 would be during a slow electro-etching in weak acid- with the wires as
 cathodes. The last would be the easiest to try for anyone without H2.

  

 ** **

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

As far as the NiH reaction goes, I doubt anyone could defend a patent
since it was placed in the public domain by Mills years ago.

Processes for increasing the efficiency should be defendable, however.

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

Randy Mills says hsi process has nothing to do
with Rossi's or Piantelli's. And he is not interested
in ny communiction with these individuals.
The problem is that his CIHT is progressing very
slowly.
peter

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 As far as the NiH reaction goes, I doubt anyone could defend a patent
 since it was placed in the public domain by Mills years ago.

 Processes for increasing the efficiency should be defendable, however.




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

RE: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

Jack - Well that is interesting. It may be a relic of too little data which
will average out over time, but it may also mean something now.

 

IOW, it begs for more confirming data with slight changes that would
accentuate the effect by adding increasing levels of H loading with every
run. Since you have some data that indicates an effect, if another set of
runs confirms this at a higher level based on the prediction of an effect
due to increased hydrogen loading - then it becomes more meaningful. 

 

Why not go back and do several more sets of identical runs like those - with
the only change being that you have electro-etched the exposed electrodes
for units of increasing duration. 

 

If that chart then shows a trend towards greater and greater delta-T (both
up and down) with increasing loading - then. voila, you have something which
could be important.  

 

 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

Jones,

 

I went back and looked at some of my previous results, and they do raise the
possibility of anomalous cooling.  I was a little confused by these results
at the time.

 

After our discussion, I think this is exactly what you were predicting.  The
control trial used HFAC pulses through a beverage heating element (2
seconds) alternating with 30VDC electrolysis through the nitinol wire (10
seconds).  The experimental run used 30VDC electrolysis for 10 seconds
alternating with 2 second HFAC pulses through the nitinol.  Notice that the
beverage heater temperature produced results above the predicted amount and
nitinol pulses produced results below the predicted amount.  I don't make a
whole lot of the beverage heater being above the predictions because I don't
think there would have been a lot of hydrogen loading into that.  But the
nitinol results are intriguing enough to explore further.

 

Here is the chart.

 

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EXP52.png

 

Best regards,

Jack

 

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

A combination of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide works with nickel-copper and
is very safe. This is often used to etch PCBs. Using a few volts with the
wire as cathode  should also load H2. The muriatic may work better on
Nitinol.

 

This is not precise calorimetry - Terry. you can to call it thermometry
and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to gauge the comparative ability to
raise the temp of a known mass of water. Using the specific heat to arrive
at joules and logging the P-in, you can get a ballpark but the basic idea is
comparative between a wire that may be slightly gainful and one that may be
slightly endothermic.

 

The idea is to see if there is anything obvious there, before incurring
the expense and time of doing it right. For instance, going from 25C to 75C
in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol
(both wires of the same Ohmic resistance) and everything else being the same
. that would be interesting enough to dig deeper, no?

 

Ahern's finding of anomalous endotherm with nickel-titanium is 'out there'
in the public record and ought to be corroborated or debunked.

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

I could run some low power electrolysis for a day or two in some diluted
hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the trick?  Or do you have another
idea for the acid?

Hydrogen loading will surely be necessary at some level, but can possibly be
accommodated by combination of low pH electrolyte, not so low as to dissolve
the wires. or preferably by preloading etched wires for a day under H2
pressure and modest heat, or even the simplest expedient which would be
during a slow electro-etching in weak acid- with the wires as cathodes. The
last would be the easiest to try for anyone without H2.

RE: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

BTW - can you find out what metal the beverage heater is made of?

 

Probably stainless and NOT chrome plated (hexavalent chrome is highly
toxic).

 

If it were to be the 316L grade of SS that could be important. This grade
has been associated with energy anomalies. That could relate to why it
performed better than expected.

 

 

From: Jones Beene 

 

Jack - Well that is interesting. It may be a relic of too little data which
will average out over time, but it may also mean something now.

 

IOW, it begs for more confirming data with slight changes that would
accentuate the effect by adding increasing levels of H loading with every
run. Since you have some data that indicates an effect, if another set of
runs confirms this at a higher level based on the prediction of an effect
due to increased hydrogen loading - then it becomes more meaningful. 

 

Why not go back and do several more sets of identical runs like those - with
the only change being that you have electro-etched the exposed electrodes
for units of increasing duration. 

 

If that chart then shows a trend towards greater and greater delta-T (both
up and down) with increasing loading - then. voila, you have something which
could be important.  

 

 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

Jones,

 

I went back and looked at some of my previous results, and they do raise the
possibility of anomalous cooling.  I was a little confused by these results
at the time.

 

After our discussion, I think this is exactly what you were predicting.  The
control trial used HFAC pulses through a beverage heating element (2
seconds) alternating with 30VDC electrolysis through the nitinol wire (10
seconds).  The experimental run used 30VDC electrolysis for 10 seconds
alternating with 2 second HFAC pulses through the nitinol.  Notice that the
beverage heater temperature produced results above the predicted amount and
nitinol pulses produced results below the predicted amount.  I don't make a
whole lot of the beverage heater being above the predictions because I don't
think there would have been a lot of hydrogen loading into that.  But the
nitinol results are intriguing enough to explore further.

 

Here is the chart.

 

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EXP52.png

 

Best regards,

Jack

 

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

A combination of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide works with nickel-copper and
is very safe. This is often used to etch PCBs. Using a few volts with the
wire as cathode  should also load H2. The muriatic may work better on
Nitinol.

 

This is not precise calorimetry - Terry. you can to call it thermometry
and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to gauge the comparative ability to
raise the temp of a known mass of water. Using the specific heat to arrive
at joules and logging the P-in, you can get a ballpark but the basic idea is
comparative between a wire that may be slightly gainful and one that may be
slightly endothermic.

 

The idea is to see if there is anything obvious there, before incurring
the expense and time of doing it right. For instance, going from 25C to 75C
in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol
(both wires of the same Ohmic resistance) and everything else being the same
. that would be interesting enough to dig deeper, no?

 

Ahern's finding of anomalous endotherm with nickel-titanium is 'out there'
in the public record and ought to be corroborated or debunked.

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

I could run some low power electrolysis for a day or two in some diluted
hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the trick?  Or do you have another
idea for the acid?

Hydrogen loading will surely be necessary at some level, but can possibly be
accommodated by combination of low pH electrolyte, not so low as to dissolve
the wires. or preferably by preloading etched wires for a day under H2
pressure and modest heat, or even the simplest expedient which would be
during a slow electro-etching in weak acid- with the wires as cathodes. The
last would be the easiest to try for anyone without H2.

RE: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

Whoa ! Hold everything. What a find.

This Watta-heater is copper nickel plated...

http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-N-Clark-Watta-Heater/dp/B0045E4DSW

Heck - here is your basic Celani replication experiment for 16 bucks.

Jones




From: Jones Beene 

BTW - can you find out what metal the beverage heater is
made of?

Probably stainless and NOT chrome plated (hexavalent chrome
is highly toxic).

If it were to be the 316L grade of SS that could be
important. This grade has been associated with energy anomalies. That could
relate to why it performed better than expected.


From: Jones Beene 

Jack - Well that is interesting. It may be a
relic of too little data which will average out over time, but it may also
mean something now.

IOW, it begs for more confirming data with
slight changes that would accentuate the effect by adding increasing levels
of H loading with every run. Since you have some data that indicates an
effect, if another set of runs confirms this at a higher level based on the
prediction of an effect due to increased hydrogen loading - then it becomes
more meaningful. 

Why not go back and do several more sets of
identical runs like those - with the only change being that you have
electro-etched the exposed electrodes for units of increasing duration. 

If that chart then shows a trend towards
greater and greater delta-T (both up and down) with increasing loading -
then. voila, you have something which could be important.  



From: Jack Cole 

Jones,

I went back and looked at some of my
previous results, and they do raise the possibility of anomalous cooling.  I
was a little confused by these results at the time.

After our discussion, I think this is
exactly what you were predicting.  The control trial used HFAC pulses
through a beverage heating element (2 seconds) alternating with 30VDC
electrolysis through the nitinol wire (10 seconds).  The experimental run
used 30VDC electrolysis for 10 seconds alternating with 2 second HFAC pulses
through the nitinol.  Notice that the beverage heater temperature produced
results above the predicted amount and nitinol pulses produced results below
the predicted amount.  I don't make a whole lot of the beverage heater being
above the predictions because I don't think there would have been a lot of
hydrogen loading into that.  But the nitinol results are intriguing enough
to explore further.

Here is the chart.


http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EXP52.png

Best regards,
Jack

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones Beene
jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A combination of vinegar and hydrogen
peroxide works with nickel-copper and is very safe. This is often used to
etch PCBs. Using a few volts with the wire as cathode  should also load H2.
The muriatic may work better on Nitinol.
 
This is not precise calorimetry - Terry...
you can to call it thermometry and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to
gauge the comparative ability to raise the temp of a known mass of water.
Using the specific heat to arrive at joules and logging the P-in, you can
get a ballpark but the basic idea is comparative between a wire that may be
slightly gainful and one that may be slightly endothermic.
 
The idea is to see if there is anything
obvious there, before incurring the expense and time of doing it right.
For instance, going from 25C to 75C in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts
P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol (both wires of the same Ohmic resistance)
and everything else being the same ... that would be interesting enough to
dig deeper, no?
 
Ahern's finding of anomalous endotherm with
nickel-titanium is 'out there' in the public record and ought to be
corroborated or debunked.
 
From: Jack Cole 
 
I could run some low power electrolysis for
a day or two in some diluted hydrochloric acid.  Think that would do the
trick?  Or do you have another idea for the acid?

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

It would appear that clusters of electrons can form in some materials
at low temperature. The BIG question is whether these have the ability
to initiate a nuclear reaction, especially at a rate of near 10^11
times/sec as is required to explain CF. As for the Miley idea, the
question is whether a large cluster of deuterons can form in PdD in
violation of the laws of thermodynamics and whether these would form a
new nucleus in violation of all that is known about nuclear
interaction. None of these questions has been answered. Simply seeing
a new effect in a material at low temperature is not an answer.

Ed Storms
On Jan 24, 2013, at 12:28 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

By the way, Anderson localization will concentrate degenerate
electrons near cracks in a metal lattice. This will catalyze the
formation of proton crystals within the cracks as seen by Miley in
his experimentation.

Ed Storm said this about Miley’s experimentation in “Edmund Storms /
Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9 (2012) 1–22:”

A source of screening electrons has been suggested to exist between
two materials having different work functions, the so-called
swimming electron theory [85–87]. These electrons are proposed to
reduce the Coulomb barrier and explain the transmutation
observations reported by Miley [88,89]. Unfortunately, this theory
ignores how the required number of protons can enter the available
nuclei in the sample without producing radioactive isotopes, which
are seldom detected. Miley et al. [90] try to avoid this problem by
creating another problem. Their mechanism involves formation of a
super-nucleus of 306X126 from a large cluster of H and D. This
structure then experiences various fission reactions. The cluster is
proposed to form as local islands of ultra dense hydrogen [91] using
Rydberg-like process [92]. Why so many deuterons would spontaneously
form a cluster in a lattice in apparent violation of the Laws of
Thermodynamics has not been explained.

The SE effect may be the explanation.

Cheers:Axil

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The description of the Shukla-Eliasson (SE) force is just been
released and is a major breakthrough in understanding electron
screening behavior within heavy concentrations of degenerate
electrons.

http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-physical-attraction-between-ions-in.html

The SE paper

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Ed, and fellow vortexians, I've been thinking about the issue of
proton fusion in metals, that is can H in metals be so condensed to
start the proton-proton chain reaction within a metal lattice. The
proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction
between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton
then decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron +
electron + electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy.

Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

Dr. Storm, you have suggested that lattice dislocations may be ideal
locations to form long linear chains of protons that have nuclear
potential. That is an intriguing idea, A screened 1D trapped
string of protons presents some interesting physics. For one thing,
it might be modeled with the Kronig-Penney model of the periodic
potential, kind of what S Chubbs was hinting at. Maybe the KP
periodic potential model for a chain of protons does supply enough
energy for the proton-proton chain to initiate. A screened proton-
proton chain in a 1D lattice dislocation.

Chuck
---
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Well Lou, I doubt this can be practical. Most of the energy in the D
+ beam will result in heat with a little energy from fusion added.
Meanwhile, an apparatus is required to supply a very intense D+
beam.I suspect that once the D+ concentration gets too high in
the target, the enhanced effect of electrons will drop off, thereby
creating an upper limit that will be too small to be useful. The
engineering problems will determine how practical this will be, not
the physics.

On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:55 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

Thanks for the input, Ed

I am agnostic on the underlying physics, but am interested in whether
this approach make any type of fusion viable.

If you have the time, or interest, in some of this author's patent
applications, here are a few:

Method of and apparatus for generating recoilless nonthermal
nuclear fusion
http://www.google.com/patents/US20090052603

Method Of Controlling

[Vo]:Lattice Energy posting on recent Li-battery failures

2013-01-24 Thread pagnucco

Very recently posted on Lattice Energy site -

LENRs are potentially another mechanism for producing so-called
 field failures that can trigger catastrophic thermal runaway fires
 in Lithium-based batteries

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-field-failures-and-lenrs-in-lithiumbased-batteriesjan-23-2013

The LENR theory should be easily testable by autopsies on some failed
batteries, looking for evidence of transmutations, i.e., unusual
isotopes or elements.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

I went back and double checked the calculations and the beverage heater
control was actually below the predicted level as well.  The predicted
value for the control run was incorrect, but the rest of the data was
correct.  Anyway, I think the beverage heater is less efficient with pulse
heating possibly because of it's mass.

But anyway, I think that the same type of experiment with impedance matched
nitinol vs. constantan would be very interesting.  What I'll do is several
runs of each and then average the results across the runs.  I haven't been
able to discover yet what the heater is made of, but it looks fairly
similar to the one you found.


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Whoa ! Hold everything. What a find.

 This Watta-heater is copper nickel plated...

 http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-N-Clark-Watta-Heater/dp/B0045E4DSW

 Heck - here is your basic Celani replication experiment for 16 bucks.

 Jones




 From: Jones Beene

 BTW - can you find out what metal the beverage heater is
 made of?

 Probably stainless and NOT chrome plated (hexavalent chrome
 is highly toxic).

 If it were to be the 316L grade of SS that could be
 important. This grade has been associated with energy anomalies. That could
 relate to why it performed better than expected.


 From: Jones Beene

 Jack - Well that is interesting. It may be
 a
 relic of too little data which will average out over time, but it may also
 mean something now.

 IOW, it begs for more confirming data with
 slight changes that would accentuate the effect by adding increasing levels
 of H loading with every run. Since you have some data that indicates an
 effect, if another set of runs confirms this at a higher level based on the
 prediction of an effect due to increased hydrogen loading - then it becomes
 more meaningful.

 Why not go back and do several more sets of
 identical runs like those - with the only change being that you have
 electro-etched the exposed electrodes for units of increasing duration.

 If that chart then shows a trend towards
 greater and greater delta-T (both up and down) with increasing loading -
 then. voila, you have something which could be important.



 From: Jack Cole

 Jones,

 I went back and looked at some of my
 previous results, and they do raise the possibility of anomalous cooling.
  I
 was a little confused by these results at the time.

 After our discussion, I think this is
 exactly what you were predicting.  The control trial used HFAC pulses
 through a beverage heating element (2 seconds) alternating with 30VDC
 electrolysis through the nitinol wire (10 seconds).  The experimental run
 used 30VDC electrolysis for 10 seconds alternating with 2 second HFAC
 pulses
 through the nitinol.  Notice that the beverage heater temperature produced
 results above the predicted amount and nitinol pulses produced results
 below
 the predicted amount.  I don't make a whole lot of the beverage heater
 being
 above the predictions because I don't think there would have been a lot of
 hydrogen loading into that.  But the nitinol results are intriguing enough
 to explore further.

 Here is the chart.


 http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EXP52.png

 Best regards,
 Jack

 On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Jones
 Beene
 jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
 A combination of vinegar and hydrogen
 peroxide works with nickel-copper and is very safe. This is often used to
 etch PCBs. Using a few volts with the wire as cathode  should also load H2.
 The muriatic may work better on Nitinol.

 This is not precise calorimetry - Terry...
 you can to call it thermometry and be sure to stir. Just a simple way to
 gauge the comparative ability to raise the temp of a known mass of water.
 Using the specific heat to arrive at joules and logging the P-in, you can
 get a ballpark but the basic idea is comparative between a wire that may be
 slightly gainful and one that may be slightly endothermic.

 The idea is to see if there is anything
 obvious there, before incurring the expense and time of doing it right.
 For instance, going from 25C to 75C in an hour with Constantan at (x)watts
 P-in vs. 25 C to 65 C with Nitinol (both wires of the same Ohmic
 resistance)
 and everything else being the same ... that would be interesting enough to
 dig deeper, no?

 Ahern's finding of anomalous endotherm with

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy posting on recent Li-battery failures

I guess it was Lattice Energy who wrote:


 The LENR theory should be easily testable by autopsies on some failed
 batteries, looking for evidence of transmutations, i.e., unusual
 isotopes or elements.


This would not be an easy test. There would be only microscopic amounts
of anomalous elements, and a burned battery is about as contaminated and
filthy as anything can be.

Frankly, I am surprised they said that. It seems highly unrealistic.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy posting on recent Li-battery failures

Why are you surprised? Krivit said that and WL are his masters, so it was
just a matter of time (it was actually days).


2013/1/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Frankly, I am surprised they said that.

 - Jed




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:El cheapo experiment to test for a Romanowski/Celani effect

_
This Watta-heater is copper nickel plated... could be close
to a Romanowski alloy


http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-N-Clark-Watta-Heater/dp/B0045E4DSW

_

This one is chrome plated steel, should show no thermal anomaly

http://www.amazon.com/NORPRO-559-Immersion-Warming-Liquids/dp/B000I8VE68/ref
=sr_1_1?s=home-garden


Use both - side-by-side with the same power input to heat 250 ml of a liquid
(preferably a low pH liquid, say vinegar to provide protons) for a 2 minutes
- and measure the comparative heat rise. Be sure to stir.

Will the Watta-heater outperform?


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy posting on recent Li-battery failures

2013-01-24 Thread pagnucco

Jed,

No. Lattice did not say that.
That is my statement.

Of course, a definitive test would absolutely require a very, very
clean controlled environment.

Do you believe that the battery environment cannot produce LENRs?
-- Or, that the circumstances under which other (alleged) LENR
transmutations were observed were fundamentally different, or just
erroneous?

Personally, I do not know.

What are the London bookies' odds?

- Lou Pagnucco

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 I guess it was Lattice Energy who wrote:


 The LENR theory should be easily testable by autopsies on some failed
 batteries, looking for evidence of transmutations, i.e., unusual
 isotopes or elements.


 This would not be an easy test. There would be only microscopic amounts
 of anomalous elements, and a burned battery is about as contaminated and
 filthy as anything can be.

 Frankly, I am surprised they said that. It seems highly unrealistic.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy posting on recent Li-battery failures

pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:


 No. Lattice did not say that.
 That is my statement.

 Of course, a definitive test would absolutely require a very, very
 clean controlled environment.

 Do you believe that the battery environment cannot produce LENRs?


Ah, I see what you are saying. A controlled experiment with a system
similar to the battery might yield interesting results. Examining the
actual battery will show nothing.

You would have to make the test sample much smaller than these batteries.

If you just used ordinary batteries you could test for millions of hours
without seeing anything. They are very reliable these days. There were
problems with them burning up in the 1990s but the cause was prosaic.

- Jed

[Vo]:Lattice Energy posting on recent Li-battery failures

2013-01-24 Thread ChemE Stewart

It is even less suprising that I believe energetic dark matter particles
orbiting @ 43,000 ft in jet streams are triggering the LENR and the
annihilation of Li.  Which may also answer the cosmological problem of the
missing Li.

http://newviews.uchicago.edu/talks/december_11/parallel/room_a/jedamzik/karsten_jedamzik.pdf

I think they should take a bunch of those Li batteries up to 43,000 and put
them thru duty cycles and hrs of operation otherwise the problem may only
rarely show up on the ground

:)

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com


http://newviews.uchicago.edu/talks/december_11/parallel/room_a/jedamzik/karsten_jedamzik.pdf



On Thursday, January 24, 2013, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 Why are you surprised? Krivit said that and WL are his masters, so it was
 just a matter of time (it was actually days).


 2013/1/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Frankly, I am surprised they said that.

 - Jed




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:patent saga, Rossi enters the battle

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Randy Mills says hsi process has nothing to do
 with Rossi's or Piantelli's. And he is not interested
 in ny communiction with these individuals.
 The problem is that his CIHT is progressing very
 slowly.

I'm talking about the March 24, 1994 Thermacore report:

*Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact
with
potassium carbonate on a nickel surface. The nickel surface consisted of
500 feet of
0.0625 inch diameter tubing wrapped in a coil. The coil was inserted into a
pressure
vessel containing a light water solution of potassium carbonate. The tubing
and solution
were heated to a steady state temperature of 249°C using an FR heater.
Hydrogen at
1100 psig was applied to the inside of the tubing. After the application of
hydrogen, a
32°C increase in temperature of the cell was measured which corresponds to
25 watts
of heat. Heat production under these conditions is predicted by the theory
of Mills where
a new species of hydrogen is produced that has a lower energy state then
normal
hydrogen. ESCA analyses, done independently by Lehigh University, have
found the
predicted 55 eV signature of this new species of hydrogen. Work is
continuing at
Thermacore with internal funding to bring this technology to the
marketplace.*
*
*
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Whoa ! Hold everything. What a find.

 This Watta-heater is copper nickel plated...

 http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-N-Clark-Watta-Heater/dp/B0045E4DSW

 Heck - here is your basic Celani replication experiment for 16 bucks.


ROFL!  This is all going to be so funny 100 years from now when students
must write reports on the history of this tech.  Especially when you roll
in the Thermacore results.

[Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(PPPL) in New Jersey.

more

Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

That might be as good as cold fusion, according to some simulations they
did with some configurations. They surprisingly got a COP of 1000x.


2013/1/24 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com


 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

 South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
 design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
 the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 (PPPL) in New Jersey.

 more

 Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

2013-01-24 Thread James Bowery

My response:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-powerposted=1#comment-18

18. jabowery
http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=my-account06:21
PM 1/24/13

From a founder of the US Tokamak Fusion Program to Congress:

The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic
tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the
program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program
- not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this
program in the early 1970's (when I was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's
Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true; we
raised the budget in order to take 20% off the top of the larger funding,
to try all of the hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.
Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation management
thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since then, the ERDA/DoE
has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue big-budget support. This
worked so long as various Democratic Senators and Congressmen could see the
funding as helpful in their districts. But fear of undermining their budget
position also made DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any
kind of new approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE
to fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared.

See http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(PPPL) in New Jersey.

Such a waste. Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

Sorry, I thought this was a case of plasma pinch. This is the old Tokamak,
so I mistook this project with another one.


2013/1/24 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

 That might be as good as cold fusion, according to some simulations they
 did with some configurations. They surprisingly got a COP of 1000x.


 2013/1/24 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com


 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

 South Korea has embarked on the development of a preliminary concept
 design for a fusion power demonstration reactor in collaboration with
 the US Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
 (PPPL) in New Jersey.

 more

 Such a waste.  Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!




 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

2013-01-24 Thread James Bowery

BTW: I don't know why rational fusion people don't continually rub the
noses of pseudoskeptics in this letter.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

My response:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-powerposted=1#comment-18

18.
jaboweryhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=my-account06:21
PM 1/24/13

From a founder of the US Tokamak Fusion Program to Congress:

See http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

Such a waste. Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!

RE: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

2013-01-24 Thread Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan

This is not 'Fusion' proper; This is Plasma Breach Reactor technology. (which
'can' support
fusion but which would be so monumentally counter productive) and so much so
that simply using the Plas-Breach
Reactor in 'INCIPIENT'-Plas-Breach(restrained-eye)XO-Plasma bleed-through mode
provides
a self sustaining EM-induction production level that makes nuclear
power appear a clumsy wasteful dinosaur. This is seriously both GREEN and
CLEAN. . .
And once 'online' eg. Giga-High-Denstiy jump-started it goes into
self-sustaining mode
and the up-keep expense is 'nill.'

I always knew that the inevitable MONSTER STAG-FLATION of the world economy
would
finally be that which brought this Plas-Breach/XO-Plas tech into the opening.
And this
because only relative low cost full energy independence coupled with relative
low cost
Super-Weapons systems would bring the GUNS BUTTER equation back to
relative Global Stabilization.

Sister tech 2 this is
Electro-Plasmic-Meteor Broadcast 'incipient Plasma-Breach toroid' missle
interdiction systems.

They are just announcing this now because it's already been installed. The
Electro-Plasmic
Meteors Broadcast units (which are mini-low-power Plas-Breach Reactors) needs
be arrayed
across an latitudinal grid line because the FLY-PATTERN follows the
geo-magnetic grid
NORTHward(only). The Magneto-Gravionic Wake creates a long-path devastating
airborne hyper
gravity 'sump' effect which is more like hypr-grav trenches in the sky. In UK
I watched
the prototype literally RIP 5 jet-fighters out of the sky across about a
nautical mile. It tends
to make a believer out of you. This was public but few commentators had a clue
as to
what exactly they were watching. . . ultimate stealth equals INVISIBLE but the
effects are stunning.

This technology being installed in South Korea will CUT OFF NORTH KOREAN missle
launches
OFF AT THE KNEES since it is instantaneous 1/2 C/light speed response. If the
Electro-Plasmic
Meteor(Hyper-grav frisbees-toroid fields and wakes) is launched at a shallow
enough horizon skimming
trajectory it stands to RIP A TRENCH in any installation in its path for a
least as far north as the
northern most border of North Korea.

Note the 'timing' and location: This is an American project 'totally.' Jack

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:11:36 -0500
From: hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

Such a waste. Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved
or even widely acknowledged.

1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it
is not a natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into
tritium which is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this
conversion process is not 100% efficient because many neutrons are
lost without making tritium. This missing tritium must be made using a
fission reactor or accelerator, with the added expense this gives.

2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a
result, its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major
problem and requires shutting down the reactor for an extended time.
During this time, the missing power must be supplied by expensive
backup generators, thereby increasing the average cost of power.

3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure modes,
most of which have not been identified. These will only be identified
after the money has been spent and the machine is put into service.
Consequently, more money will be required, but at this stage too much
will have been invested to abandon the method, which seems to be the
case even now.

The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of money
and will never produce commercial power. The method was given its
chance to prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes on. In
contrast, cold fusion was never given a chance to prove its worth.

Ed Storms

On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:23 PM, James Bowery wrote:

My response:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-powerposted=1#comment-18

18. jabowery
06:21 PM 1/24/13
From a founder of the US Tokamak Fusion Program to Congress:

The DoE committment to very large fusion concepts (the giant
magnetic tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and
that is what the program has been about for the past 15 years - a
defense-of-budget program - not a fusion-achievement program. As one
of three people who created this program in the early 1970's (when I
was an Asst. Dir. of the AEC's Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction
Division) I know this to be true; we raised the budget in order to
take 20% off the top of the larger funding, to try all of the
hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.
Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation
management thought the big program was real; it was not. Ever since
then, the ERDA/DoE has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue
big-budget support. This worked so long as various Democratic
Senators and Congressmen could see the funding as helpful in their
districts. But fear of undermining their budget position also made
DoE bureaucrats very autocratic and resistant to any kind of new
approach, whether inside DoE or out in industry. This led DoE to
fight industry wherever a non-DoE hopful new idea appeared.

See http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=south-korea-makes-billion-dollar-bet-fusion-power

Such a waste. Imagine if they redirected that $1B to LENR!

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

2013-01-24 Thread Jouni Valkonen

Indeed, 

However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have some big 
science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having fun!

If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn profits on 
a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion. It is nicer, because it 
does not produce a neutron flux, but it emits fast protons. This means in 
practice that protons can be captured with magnets and their kinetic energy can 
be transformed directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%).

This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are devastating for 
the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any economical prospects. However 
argument (3) is still valid and it hard to see how even he-3 plasma fusion 
could compete economically with solar electricity, wind power and 4th gen 
nuclear.

China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium cooled nuclear 
plant at Rongcheng. 

—Jouni

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been solved or even 
 widely acknowledged.
 
 1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because it is not a 
 natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron flux into tritium which 
 is fed back into the reactor. Unfortunately, this conversion process is not 
 100% efficient because many neutrons are lost without making tritium. This 
 missing tritium must be made using a fission reactor or accelerator, with the 
 added expense this gives.
 
 2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a result, 
 its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a major problem and 
 requires shutting down the reactor for an extended time. During this time, 
 the missing power must be supplied by expensive backup generators, thereby 
 increasing the average cost of power.
 
 3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure modes, most of 
 which have not been identified. These will only be identified after the money 
 has been spent and the machine is put into service. Consequently, more money 
 will be required, but at this stage too much will have been invested to 
 abandon the method, which seems to be the case even now.
 
 The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of money and 
 will never produce commercial power.  The method was given its chance to 
 prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes on.  In contrast, cold fusion 
 was never given a chance to prove its worth.  
 
 Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion



On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Indeed,

However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to  
have some big science experiments running. Science is not about  
profit but having fun!


Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is  
who has the fun from this money.  As a tax payer, I could have had  
much more fun if the money had been sent on something that lowered my  
energy bill and reduced the risk of global warming . But to each his  
own.


If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn  
profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.


Yes, and where do you get the He3?  Yes, this is present on the Moon,  
but at what cost?


It is nicer, because it does not produce a neutron flux, but it  
emits fast protons. This means in practice that protons can be  
captured with magnets and their kinetic energy can be transformed  
directly into electricity with high efficiency (over 70%).




This would negate at least your arguments (1) and (2) that are  
devastating for the deuterium based plasma fusion to have any  
economical prospects. However argument (3) is still valid and it  
hard to see how even he-3 plasma fusion could compete economically  
with solar electricity, wind power and 4th gen nuclear.


I agree. However, why not suggest just a little of this money be used  
to explore cold fusion?


China is already building quite promisingly cheap 4th gen helium  
cooled nuclear plant at Rongcheng.


Yes, China is on the front of many technologies now because the West  
is captured by various self-interests that have no relationship to  
general benefit.


Ed


—Jouni

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 25, 2013, at 1:54 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com  
wrote:


This type of hot fusion has three problems that have not been  
solved or even widely acknowledged.


1. The fusion is between D+T. The tritium must be created because  
it is not a natural isotope. The plan is to convert the neutron  
flux into tritium which is fed back into the reactor.  
Unfortunately, this conversion process is not 100% efficient  
because many neutrons are lost without making tritium. This missing  
tritium must be made using a fission reactor or accelerator, with  
the added expense this gives.


2. The first wall is exposed to an intense flux of radiation. As a  
result, its integrity is gradually compromised. Replacement is a  
major problem and requires shutting down the reactor for an  
extended time. During this time, the missing power must be supplied  
by expensive backup generators, thereby increasing the average cost  
of power.


3. The system is very complex and as a result has many failure  
modes, most of which have not been identified. These will only be  
identified after the money has been spent and the machine is put  
into service. Consequently, more money will be required, but at  
this stage too much will have been invested to abandon the method,  
which seems to be the case even now.


The comment below is exactly correct. This program is a waste of  
money and will never produce commercial power.  The method was  
given its chance to prove its worth and it has failed. Yet it goes  
on.  In contrast, cold fusion was never given a chance to prove its  
worth.


Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: from the dark side of LENR

2013-01-24 Thread fznidarsic

Did not happen.




http://20121221.tv/nasa-admits-cold-fusion-lenr-energy-revolution-2012-reupload-fast-do-not-let-this-be-covered-up/

Re: [Vo]:new experiment (nitinol)

Here is where I got the nitinol for those interested:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003R5028K/ref=biss_dp_sa1

It would certainly be something if this ended up being replicated with a
beverage heater.  ;)


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Whoa ! Hold everything. What a find.

 This Watta-heater is copper nickel plated...

 http://www.amazon.com/Lewis-N-Clark-Watta-Heater/dp/B0045E4DSW

 Heck - here is your basic Celani replication experiment for 16 bucks.


 ROFL!  This is all going to be so funny 100 years from now when students
 must write reports on the history of this tech.  Especially when you roll
 in the Thermacore results.

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion

2013-01-24 Thread Harry Veeder

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

 Indeed,

 However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to have
 some big science experiments running. Science is not about profit but having
 fun!


 Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is who has
 the fun from this money.  As a tax payer, I could have had much more fun if
 the money had been sent on something that lowered my energy bill and reduced
 the risk of global warming . But to each his own.


 If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn
 profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.


 Yes, and where do you get the He3?  Yes, this is present on the Moon, but at
 what cost?

Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
LENR system be engineered to supply enough
He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:S.Korea Fusion



On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


On Jan 24, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Indeed,

However plasma physics is by itself interesting, so it is nice to  
have
some big science experiments running. Science is not about profit  
but having

fun!



Well Jouni, when over 25 billion dollars are spent, the question is  
who has
the fun from this money.  As a tax payer, I could have had much  
more fun if
the money had been sent on something that lowered my energy bill  
and reduced

the risk of global warming . But to each his own.



If plasma physicist would like really do something that could spawn
profits on a long run, then they should study helium-3 fusion.



Yes, and where do you get the He3?  Yes, this is present on the  
Moon, but at

what cost?


Some LENR systems produce tritium and this decays into He3. Could a
LENR system be engineered to supply enough
He3 to make this sort of hot fusion practical?


No, because tritium is a very minor product of LENR. If LENR worked,  
the energy created by this process could be used directly without the  
need to create a big machine to use the He3.


Ed


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

2013-01-24 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:

The proton-proton chain reaction is initiated with a strong interaction
between two protons, that binds to form a diproton, the diproton then
decays via weak interaction (a W boson) into a deuteron + electron +
electron neutrino and 0.42 MeV of energy.
Wikipedia has a very good description of this processes:

The proton-proton chain does seem promising at first, especially when one
takes into account some of the difficulties with the kind of activation
that would occur if there were a lot of neutron-moderated reactions. But
the proton-proton chain has its own difficulties. See [1], below, for an
earlier discussion.

Briefly, the diproton lasts for a vanishingly small amount of time before
it breaks up. Only a very small fraction of diprotons go on to form
deuterium; in the sun, this process is a limiting one that prevents it from
rapidly burning through its fuel. In known cases, the rate of deuterium
formation is small because the weak force requires that a very high energy
barrier be surpassed before a proton will convert to a neutron. Widom and
Larsen have other ideas on this particular point, and it is part of what
makes their writings difficult for physicist types (of which I am not one)
to get a handle on. See also the comments to this physics.SE question for
more details [2]. I believe Ed Storms proposes an alternate form of
weak-force moderated nuclear reaction, along the lines of a slow p-e-p
reaction, and I would assume that similar difficulties must be addressed in
this instance as well.

Assuming the weak interaction really does provide a limiting barrier, any
fusion-like reaction is presumably going to have to occur either through
the action of deuterium or higher, on one hand, or through proton capture
within a larger nucleus, on the other, unless a non-fusion reaction along
the lines of what Jones or Mills describes is going on. Obviously there is
also the matter of the Coulomb barrier, but I think we've gotten used to
ignoring it for the sake of convenience. ;)

Eric

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67691.html
[2]
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23640/what-interactions-would-take-place-between-a-free-proton-and-a-dipolariton

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions

2013-01-24 Thread Eric Walker

I wrote:

But the proton-proton chain has its own difficulties.


Here I have in mind only the beginning of the proton-proton chain, where
you have

  p+p - 2p

and then

  2p - d + e+ + v.

The rest of the proton-proton chain is easier to wrap one's head around in
the context of LENR.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Chemonuclear Transitions