RE: [Vo]: Carnot efficiency and COE
David, The paper mentioned by Lou is excellent for further consideration on this forum, despite its title. It represents the best way to achieve OU without an energy sink, or without nuclear energy. This is on the horizon actually but on a small scale (watt level). Perhaps 'Information technology' is the least objectionable way to introduce this concept to a mass audience, since CoE is not a consideration for that industry (usually) and can be overlooked: Information erasure without an energy cost http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5330 But is this kind of energy robust enough - and how do you convert it back to real emf? Another way to express the angular momentum possibility for energy transfer without heat is spin current and there are other studies that reinforce the spin aspect being possible to separate from emf. In the lore of free-energy, this is often called cold current because it does not heat an inductor in the same way as emf. Here is a 2 year old video on spin current applications in information processing which has implications for energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJk3x0XJFDU When the phenomenon is worded this way - there will be disagreement among experts about what is really going on. Is it a new kind of electricity? Anyone who remembers the Joe Newman saga may realize that his view was that indeed there was another kind of electricity. However, that type of electricity (spin current without voltage drop) must be what is happening in a few better documented prior devices, like that of Floyd Sweet. More on Sweet later. BTW - his device did work. Back to heat engines. The big caveat to realize in looking at Carnot efficiency is to realize that it is an ideal which is seldom reached - and its use is often part of many free energy scams. All that it tells you really is what should be called the Carnot spread - the difference between high and low in Kelvin. Real thermal efficiency is often only a small fraction of Carnot. For instance, average thermal efficiency of a very efficient automobile like the Prius is in the range of 35%, but the Carnot efficiency of its gasoline engine is around 65%. It real thermal efficiency is about half of Carnot, but that is excellent for any automobile. Twenty years ago, a big GM V-8 would be 20% thermal. Yet its Carnot was still 65%. The Carnot efficiency is the maximum ideal for any heat engines, but is seldom reached in practice. For this reason, you will almost never hear an Auto-maker use Carnot as a relevant factor - it is a meaningless ideal in itself - as almost every ICE has the same Carnot efficiency. -Original Message- David, Well, some recent papers on quantum thermodynamics make an already difficult subject even more challenging, and counterintuitive. Since LENR violates conventional understanding of physics, it may be worthwhile to consider whether only conventional thermodynamics are involved. -- Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: Thanks Lou. I did hesitate at suggesting the requirement to have a sink because I realized that it might be possible for other types of places for the left over energy to be deposited. You have located some of these and that is very informative. Also, the IR or other radiations have certain implications about the need for a well defined sink, so I limited the discussion to heat engines to escape most of those dilemmas. I was hoping to explain the behavior of Carnot and other cycles in a manner that made common sense instead of having to rely on the esoteric higher level formulas that always tend to lead to confusion. I wanted others in vortex to use COE as a guide when evaluating some of the LENR systems. When we speak of COP it causes difficulties in communication so any effort to put the issue back into the relm of COE might improve that. I recall when students studied thermo in college they would dread the courses. I suspect that a large part of the reason is that the way it was taught did not relate to everyday life for the poor hapless students. There should be a way to clarify the subject and make it more interesting. Perhaps you could assist me in my attempt? If you want to really have fun, consider the ultimate fate of energy in the universe. You can begin with a cloud of gravitationally bound hydrogen, where most of the normal non nuclear energy is in the form of gravitational potential energy. Think of how that ultimately reaches temperature and energy stability. That should generate some good mental juices. Dave David, This is a very interesting, complex and perplexing subject. Your statement - The fact that a heat source and sink is required for the engine to operate ... - may not hold for all heat engines. It may be possible to extract energy from a single thermal reservoir if there is another reservoir of particles (most of) which possess a common conserved quantity, like spin, independent of its temperature. See -
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
On Feb 10, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Storms: NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation. KevinO:***There have been some observances of radiation. Not very much, but some. Storms:Yes, I know but that is not the point. ***Then why did you make the point? Your claim was Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation. My analogy fits the observance well, in terms of a little bit of emitted energy (balloon pops) getting out of the lattice -- not very much but some. There is some radiation, but most of it gets absorbed by the lattice. What point are you trying to make? Sorry, I thought I had made the point often enough that very little radiation is detected that I got sloppy. The point is that large amounts of energetic radiation are not detected. Yes, a little radiation is detected that is energetic enough to get out of the apparatus. However, a large amount of radiation would be created inside the apparatus. If you read my papers, you would already know exactly what I claim. I think you can make a better analogy by comparing exploding and burning. ***My analogy was aimed at showing that it's fusion that's taking place, whether hot or cold, and that claiming there is no radiation didn't fit the facts. You even say yes I know but that is not the point. Hot fusion is an explosion of the nucleus as a result of pet up nuclear energy. Cold fusion is a burning reaction that allows the energy to leak out slowly even though the same reaction products are produced. Both can occur in a lattice, but cold fusion REQUIRES the lattice while hot fusion does not. ***Your analogy does not make sense. To say that cold fusion is a burning reaction while hot fusion isn't would require us to fill the balloons with 2 different flammable gasses. But any balloons in a lattice would burn/pop when placed next to another burning balloon, suggesting a self-sustained nuclear chain reaction such as fission. That isn't what takes place in cold fusion cells. Both hot and cold fusions are a result of pent up nuclear energy. Both are explosions. But they are on completely different scales. That's why I said there's only one balloon pop in cold fusion and 50,000 balloon pops in hot fusion. There's no corresponding 50,000 balloon pop in cold fusion -- I'm not aware of any LENR/Cold fusion cell that has undergone a HUGE nuclear reaction resulting in lethal levels of gamma rays, neutrons, or whatever radiation. I doubt that it can happen. To say that cold fusion requires the lattice while hot fusion does not is ignoring the analogical fact that 50,000 balloons are being popped at once in the hot fusion balloon example -- there's no way to do that in a lattice as far as I can see. And if there was a way, there would be the corresponding lethal levels of radiation. And conversely, there's no way to get just one balloon to pop in the hot-fusion example.
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Axil, your description does not fit what is observed or even what is generally accepted. I'm trying to get you to understand the basic difference between cold fusion and hot fusion. It would help if you read papers that describe what is observed rather than speculate based on imagination. The Coulomb barrier is a force external to the nucleus that keeps the nuclei apart and provide a force to hold the electrons in place. Of course this is a simplified description that requires complex math to describe accurately. Energy has to be applied to move the nuclei together. During hot fusion, this energy can be supplied by the motion of the nuclei either as temperature in plasma or as an energetic ion beam created by an accelerator. Once the nuclei of d get close enough, the extra energy observed as mass is suddenly released and the two d explode into fragments of He. These fragments go off in directions and with energy required to conserve momentum. The idea of gluons is not relevant. In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. Ed On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Both hot and cold fusions are a result of pent up nuclear energy. Both are explosions. As a first principle, LENR is caused by the lowering of the coulomb barrier. How does energy and momentum conservation play into energy produced by coulomb barrier lowering? The conservation laws apply to the system as a whole and not to any individual part of the system. The energy increase of the cold fusion of a nucleus with a proton for example somehow results in an energy transfer between the components in that system. How can this energy transfer work? To start out with, Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together. The binding energy steals energy from the nucleons to keep the nucleus together, that energy is transferred to the gluons. As the coulomb barrier of the nucleus is screened, the protons lose their repulsive charge in the nucleus so the gluons have less work to do; they become less energy intensive. Where does this energy go? It could go back into reformulating the mass of the protons and neutrons. But without radioactive decay, the nucleus must remain stable and there are no gamma rays to transfer the energy out of the nucleus. The difference in the binding energy’s between the original nucleus and the new nucleus must go somewhere as the nucleus returns to normal to conserve energy as the screening gradually abates and the gluons regain their energy. The only other component in the LENR system is the screening electrons. Somehow the screening electrons must take the excess energy away with them bit by bit as the screening of the nucleus gradually decreases. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 10, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Storms: NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation. KevinO:***There have been some observances of radiation. Not very much, but some. Storms:Yes, I know but that is not the point. ***Then why did you make the point? Your claim was Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation. My analogy fits the observance well, in terms of a little bit of emitted energy (balloon pops) getting out of the lattice -- not very much but some. There is some radiation, but most of it gets absorbed by the lattice. What point are you trying to make? I think you can make a better analogy by comparing exploding and burning. ***My analogy was aimed at showing that it's fusion that's taking place, whether hot or cold, and that claiming there is no radiation didn't fit the facts. You even say yes I know but that is not the point. Hot fusion is an explosion of the nucleus as a result of pet up nuclear energy. Cold fusion is a burning reaction that allows the energy to leak out slowly even though the same reaction products are produced. Both can occur in a lattice, but cold fusion REQUIRES the lattice while hot fusion does not. ***Your analogy does not make sense.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Invention of the Daguerreotype
As with any significant and potentially profitable new technology, there is a storm of treachery, theft, false claims and injustice surrounding it. The Daguerreotype is a prime example. Francois Arago, president of the French Academy of Science, convinced Hyppolyte Bayard to delay publishing his invention of photography, which predated that of Daguerre. Arago did this under the ruse of protecting Bayard. Arago did this because he wanted his friend, Daguerre, to get all the credit, the glory, and the money. It worked. I'll bet this is first any of you have heard of poor Mr. Bayard. Arago's scheme to award Daguerre a pension for making the Daguerreotype process free to the world was a nasty cold-hearted way to eliminate any profits Bayard may have made from patents. In the end, neither Bayard's or Daguerre's processes had any long term practical use, because they both required very long exposures and neither process could be used to make copies. These days, I can't imagine the reaction to a photographic process that requires development in mercury fumes as does the Daguerreotype. --- On Sun, 2/10/13, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:OT: Invention of the Daguerreotype To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, February 10, 2013, 9:55 AM This shows it is possible for an inventor of a culturally significant technology to receive recognition and compensation without patent protection. Harry It changed everything The Daguerreotype: Photographic Processes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmm90yhhuJM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype Since the late Renaissance, artists and inventors had been looking for a mechanical method of capturing visual scenes.[17] Previously, using the camera obscura, artists would manually trace what they saw, or use the optical image in the camera as a basis for solving the problems of perspective and parallax, and deciding color values. The camera obscura's optical reduction of a real scene in three-dimensional space to a flat rendition in two dimensions influenced western art, so that at one point, it was thought that images based on optical geometry (perspective) belonged to a more advanced civilization. Later, with the advent of Modernism, the absence of perspective in oriental art from China, Japan and in Persian miniatures was revalued. Previous discoveries of photosensitive methods and substances—including silver nitrate by Albertus Magnus in the 13th century,[18] a silver and chalk mixture by Johann Heinrich Schulze in 1724,[citation needed] and Joseph Niépce's bitumen-based heliography[17] in 1822[19]—contributed to development of the daguerreotype. In 1829 French artist and chemist Louis J.M. Daguerre, contributing a cutting edge camera design, partnered with Niépce, a leader in photochemistry, to further develop their technologies.[17] After Niépce's 1833 death, Daguerre continued to research the chemistry and mechanics of recording images by coating copper plates with iodized silver.[17] Early experiments required hours of exposure in the camera to produce visible results. In 1835 Daguerre discovered—after accidentally breaking a mercury thermometer, according to traditional accounts—a method of developing the faint or invisible images on plates that had been exposed for only 20 to 30 minutes.[17] Further refinement of his process would allow him to fix the image—preventing further darkening of the silver—using a strong solution of common salt. An 1837 still life of plaster casts, a wicker-covered bottle, a framed drawing and a curtain—titled L'Atelier de l'artiste—has been claimed to be the first daguerreotype to successfully undergo the full process of exposure, development and fixation.[17] The French Academy of Sciences announced the daguerreotype process on January 9, 1839. Later that year William Fox Talbot announced his silver chloride sensitive paper process.[20] Together, these announcements mark 1839 as the year photography was born.[21] Daguerre did not patent and profit from his invention in the usual way. Instead, it was arranged that the French government would acquire the rights in exchange for a lifetime pension. The government would then present the daguerreotype process free to the world as a gift, which it did on August 19, 1839. However, on August 14, 1839, a patent agent acting on Daguerre's behalf filed for a patent in England. Consequently, Britain became the only nation in which the purchase of a license was legally required to make and sell daguerreotypes.[22]
Re: [Vo]:OT: Invention of the Daguerreotype
Michael Foster mf...@yahoo.com wrote: As with any significant and potentially profitable new technology, there is a storm of treachery, theft, false claims and injustice surrounding it. The Daguerreotype is a prime example. . . . Yup. There is usually a storm of treachery, theft and so on. Arago did this because he wanted his friend, Daguerre, to get all the credit, the glory, and the money. It worked. I'll bet this is first any of you have heard of poor Mr. Bayard. Arago's scheme to award Daguerre a pension for making the Daguerreotype process free to the world was a nasty cold-hearted way to eliminate any profits Bayard may have made from patents. Ah, so things were not as they seemed. Not surprising. The bad guys often make themselves out to look good. Galileo was a typical example. He is described as a saint in most accounts, but in others I have read he was a political animal. He was in it for power and money, and he overreached. - Jed
[Vo]:T. Ishida's thesis about Kamiokande
Ishida, T., /Study of the anomalous nuclear effects in solid deuterium systems/. 1992, Tokyo University. p. 131. http://inspirehep.net/record/337964 Abstract: By applying the Kamiokande nucleon decay/neutrino detector to neutron measurement, we have achieved the unprecedented detection properties, namely efficiency and background of 20.5% and 0.25 events per hour (random mode), respectively, and 37.4% and one event per year (burst mode), respectively. A series of definitive tests on the 'Cold Fusion' were carried out with this ultra low background detector in 1991. The experimental procedures and results obtained by the online analysis are presented in this thesis. They tested pressurized D2 gas sample, electrolytic samples, and Portland cement made with D2O. The electrolytic cells are described starting on page 33. It says: The whole preparation of the electrolytic cells was entrusted to the groups of BYU and Texas AM University. The number of measured cells amounted to 50, which are tabulated in table 5-2. Table 5-2a says the Kevin Wolf prepared the TAMU cells. Some of them, anyway. In Phase 3 they measured Portland cement along with the electrolytic cells. There is no indication they tried to measure heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Invention of the Daguerreotype
No, I did not know that. Bayard protested the injustice by posing as a drowned man and photographing himself. This helped him to recover from the treacherous treatment and he continued to practice photography and it sounds like he was well known while he was alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_Bayard Despite his initial hardships in photography, Bayard continued to be a productive member of the photographic society. He was a founding member of the French Society of Photography. Bayard was also one of the first photographers to be commissioned to document and preserve architecture and historical sites in France for the Missions Héliographiques in 1851 by the Historic Monument Commission. He used a paper photographic process similar to the one he developed to take pictures for the Commission. Additionally, he suggested combining two negatives to properly expose the sky and then the landscape or building, an idea known as combination printing which began being used in the 1850s harry On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Michael Foster mf...@yahoo.com wrote: As with any significant and potentially profitable new technology, there is a storm of treachery, theft, false claims and injustice surrounding it. The Daguerreotype is a prime example. Francois Arago, president of the French Academy of Science, convinced Hyppolyte Bayard to delay publishing his invention of photography, which predated that of Daguerre. Arago did this under the ruse of protecting Bayard. Arago did this because he wanted his friend, Daguerre, to get all the credit, the glory, and the money. It worked. I'll bet this is first any of you have heard of poor Mr. Bayard. Arago's scheme to award Daguerre a pension for making the Daguerreotype process free to the world was a nasty cold-hearted way to eliminate any profits Bayard may have made from patents. In the end, neither Bayard's or Daguerre's processes had any long term practical use, because they both required very long exposures and neither process could be used to make copies. These days, I can't imagine the reaction to a photographic process that requires development in mercury fumes as does the Daguerreotype. --- On Sun, 2/10/13, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:OT: Invention of the Daguerreotype To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, February 10, 2013, 9:55 AM This shows it is possible for an inventor of a culturally significant technology to receive recognition and compensation without patent protection. Harry It changed everything The Daguerreotype: Photographic Processes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmm90yhhuJM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype Since the late Renaissance, artists and inventors had been looking for a mechanical method of capturing visual scenes.[17] Previously, using the camera obscura, artists would manually trace what they saw, or use the optical image in the camera as a basis for solving the problems of perspective and parallax, and deciding color values. The camera obscura's optical reduction of a real scene in three-dimensional space to a flat rendition in two dimensions influenced western art, so that at one point, it was thought that images based on optical geometry (perspective) belonged to a more advanced civilization. Later, with the advent of Modernism, the absence of perspective in oriental art from China, Japan and in Persian miniatures was revalued. Previous discoveries of photosensitive methods and substances—including silver nitrate by Albertus Magnus in the 13th century,[18] a silver and chalk mixture by Johann Heinrich Schulze in 1724,[citation needed] and Joseph Niépce's bitumen-based heliography[17] in 1822[19]—contributed to development of the daguerreotype. In 1829 French artist and chemist Louis J.M. Daguerre, contributing a cutting edge camera design, partnered with Niépce, a leader in photochemistry, to further develop their technologies.[17] After Niépce's 1833 death, Daguerre continued to research the chemistry and mechanics of recording images by coating copper plates with iodized silver.[17] Early experiments required hours of exposure in the camera to produce visible results. In 1835 Daguerre discovered—after accidentally breaking a mercury thermometer, according to traditional accounts—a method of developing the faint or invisible images on plates that had been exposed for only 20 to 30 minutes.[17] Further refinement of his process would allow him to fix the image—preventing further darkening of the silver—using a strong solution of common salt. An 1837 still life of plaster casts, a wicker-covered bottle, a framed drawing and a curtain—titled L'Atelier de l'artiste—has been claimed to be the first daguerreotype to successfully undergo the full process of exposure, development and fixation.[17] The French Academy of
RE: [Vo]: Carnot efficiency and COE
From: David Roberson I am a bit confused about your statement that the gasoline engine has a Carnot efficiency of 65%. If that calculation is just based upon the maximum temperature of the hot gas within the cylinder as compared to the cooler exhaust gas, then I would have to seek a reason for the extra losses encountered. Yes, the Carnot number for the ICE is based on the high temp of combustion near TDC - which does not change much in any type of gasoline engine - and low temp being the exhaust temperature, which is significantly over ambient. Higher compression helps on the high end, but there are limits. If you could squeeze more energy from the exhaust on the first pass, it would really help the efficiency - but there are a variety of interlocking reasons why an ICE cannot be leaned-out enough to lower the exhaust temperature. The best you can do is add a turbocharger. In a typical ICE of 30% thermal efficiency, roughly 35% of the losses are out the tailpipe and 35% are out the radiator. The engine must be kept cool so radiator losses are almost unavoidable without going to ceramics. The best TEG to capture exhaust heat operates at 5% thermal efficiency, so using one can only add (.05 x .35 = .018) which will raise the 30% original efficiency to less than 32% which is not enough to matter much. That is why few cars have them. The solution that works well --on paper-- to lower both of the major loss categories - out the tailpipe and out the radiator - is the six-stroke cycle, such as the design of Bill Crower and others - which has not yet gained traction, so to speak. Wiki has a basic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
I am both pleased and privileged at your interest in my correct perceptions of LENR processes. There are so many widely varied instances of these LENR processes, there must be more than one cause. There are instances where significant transmutation of elements and isotopic shifts occurs without the generation of heat. There are instances where radioactive isotopic half-lives are significantly modified by LENR processes. Also there are conditions where electrons and protons form coopper pairs in seeming violation of the law of coulomb repulsion. Ensembles of protons can aggregate and form in cavities in seeming violation of the laws of coulomb like charge repulsion. Recent experimentation into the causes of superconductivity has shown in contravention of longstanding belief that phonon action in the lattice does not cause pairing but the collective action of electrons is what really produces the pairing to occur. In all of these instances, nuclear reaction derivatives such as neutrons and gamma radiation are seldom if ever seen as byproducts of the LENR reaction. These reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds. I have come to the conclusion that the actions of electrons; more basically charge accumulation from their collective action can affect the inner workings of the atomic nucleus and even change the basic character of the proton. Recently, we've have gone over the new science paper on muonic hydrogen. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica, the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm for muonic hydrogen and 0.88fm for electronic hydrogen. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained by generally accepted science and the standard model of matter going on. The most basic character of the proton changes base on the type of negatively charge particle that orbits it. It is easy for my imagination to extend this field of nuclear influence to include influence of the electron in the form of charge accumulation into the very heart of the nucleus itself. These considerations lend comfort to my agreement with the Ken Shoulders' “Electrum Validum (EV), meaning strong electron, wing of the LENR community. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Axil, your description does not fit what is observed or even what is generally accepted. I'm trying to get you to understand the basic difference between cold fusion and hot fusion. It would help if you read papers that describe what is observed rather than speculate based on imagination. The Coulomb barrier is a force external to the nucleus that keeps the nuclei apart and provide a force to hold the electrons in place. Of course this is a simplified description that requires complex math to describe accurately. Energy has to be applied to move the nuclei together. During hot fusion, this energy can be supplied by the motion of the nuclei either as temperature in plasma or as an energetic ion beam created by an accelerator. Once the nuclei of d get close enough, the extra energy observed as mass is suddenly released and the two d explode into fragments of He. These fragments go off in directions and with energy required to conserve momentum. The idea of gluons is not relevant. In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. Ed On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Axil Axil wrote: *Both hot and cold fusions are a result of pent up nuclear energy. Both are explosions.* As a first principle, LENR is caused by the lowering of the coulomb barrier. How does energy and momentum conservation play into energy produced by coulomb barrier lowering? The conservation laws apply to the system as a whole and not to any individual part of the system. The energy increase of the cold fusion of a nucleus with a proton for example somehow results in an energy transfer between the components in that system. How can this energy transfer work? To start out with, Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together.
Re: [Vo]:Article about Swartz MIT IAP course, with video
The video is of Swartz giving the course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. Ed ***My balloon analogy accounts for the difference. The reason why the energy is not consistent with hot-fusion emission is that most of the energy gets absorbed into the lattice. There are some LENR theories out there such as phonons greatly contributing to the absorption, and lately Ron Maimon's theory of Auger deuterons may even account for the absorption plus the transmutations in the strange way they've been showing up. http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-maimons-theory.html If you read my papers, you would already know exactly what I claim. ***It would save all of us a lot of time if you spent the one minute necessary to read and process my analogy, rather than asking me to spend 100 hours to understand your theory. It is doubtless I will have trouble understanding your theory when I do embark on this endeavor. Even then, those 100 hours spent would be no guarantee that I would immediately comprehend your shorthand approach to emails on vortex.
Re: [Vo]: Carnot efficiency and COE
You offer an excellent explanation as to where the problems arise in ICE development. The 6 stroke engines represent a good application of invention. I do worry about the complications and possibly extra weight that would be required to make these practical. With a little luck we will see LENR driven engines before these complexities show up in vehicles. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 3:15 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Carnot efficiency and COE From:David Roberson I am a bit confused about your statement that the gasoline enginehas a Carnot efficiency of 65%. If that calculation is just based uponthe maximum temperature of the hot gas within the cylinder as compared to thecooler exhaust gas, then I would have to seek a reason for the extra lossesencountered. Yes, the Carnot number forthe ICE is based on the high temp of combustion near TDC – which does notchange much in any type of gasoline engine - and low temp being the exhausttemperature, which is significantly over ambient. Higher compression helps onthe high end, but there are limits. If you could squeeze moreenergy from the exhaust on the first pass, it would really help the efficiency- but there are a variety of interlocking reasons why an ICE cannot be “leaned-out”enough to lower the exhaust temperature. The best you can do is add aturbocharger. In a typical ICE of 30%thermal efficiency, roughly 35% of the losses are out the tailpipe and 35% areout the radiator. The engine must be kept cool so radiator losses are almost unavoidablewithout going to ceramics. The best TEG to captureexhaust heat operates at 5% thermal efficiency, so using one can only add (.05x .35 = .018) which will raise the 30% original efficiency to less than 32%which is not enough to matter much. That is why few cars have them. The solution that workswell --on paper-- to lower both of the major loss categories - out the tailpipeand out the radiator - is the six-stroke cycle, such as the design of Bill Crowerand others - which has not yet gained traction, so to speak. Wiki has a basic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Kevin, I think that what Dr. Storms is stating about the dangerous radiation emission is valid. In your scenario, the balloon is surrounded by many others that absorb the high energy emissions. How does it account for balloons that are very near to the edge of the bundle? If high level energy is released by any LENR activity, then it would be expected to escape unless a process exists that works well over an extremely short distance. Also, I an unaware of any process that is effective in stopping free energetic neutrons under similar conditions. Do you have a theory that limits the LENR activity to locations that are always deeply inside the active regions and also eliminates neutron release? Any known hot fusion process would produce dangerous particles in great quantities. Some of these emissions can be captured, but many would escape. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Feb 11, 2013 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. Ed ***My balloon analogy accounts for the difference. The reason why the energy is not consistent with hot-fusion emission is that most of the energy gets absorbed into the lattice. There are some LENR theories out there such as phonons greatly contributing to the absorption, and lately Ron Maimon's theory of Auger deuterons may even account for the absorption plus the transmutations in the strange way they've been showing up. http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-maimons-theory.html If you read my papers, you would already know exactly what I claim. ***It would save all of us a lot of time if you spent the one minute necessary to read and process my analogy, rather than asking me to spend 100 hours to understand your theory. It is doubtless I will have trouble understanding your theory when I do embark on this endeavor. Even then, those 100 hours spent would be no guarantee that I would immediately comprehend your shorthand approach to emails on vortex.
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Stewart, I read the article carefully and it does not go into enough detail for anyone to determine how much energy is involved in the Bosenova release. There is no mention of any radiation effects either. I suspect that what they are speaking of is far too small of an energy release to be of much importance for LENR. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature That is interesting. I recall hearing about that once, but I guess I assumed it was not real. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:34 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature Also remember that a BEC under magnetic field alignment has been known to collapse/explode into a Bosenova http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova Stewart On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is an interesting questionas to what percentage of the yield of “Mike” – if any - was due to BECformation within the large flask of liquid deuterium. For some reason, thispossibility never occurred to me before now - but it seems possible if not likely. Indeed, the extra yield fromBECs could have been substantial. BTW – the statement that Maxwelliandistribution prohibits room temperature BECs is probably false in a timedenominated progression where only a small percentage is necessary for fusion.It’s all statistics. But the skeptics mis-framed the argument. If BECs can form at all atroom temperature - then at least for a useable portion of the population of deuterons,there should be transitory condensates of a few tens of molecules formingrapidly enough at room temperature for fusion - since the time required forfusion is extremely short. Even if only 10 deuterons in 10 billion condense togetherat any picosecond, the statistics could be such that there should always be auseable population to fuse. This is above my paygrade, but I doubt seriously that MB distributions are prohibitory - IF the BECwill form at all at ambient. The logical error of skeptics here is the “all ornothing” error. Don’t forget that D nuclei inside a palladium lattice at full loading and 300 K are closertogether than when in the deuterons are in liquid form. From:David Roberson Low temperatures initially? Too bad it did not remain thatway. Actually, I was seeking evidence of a low energy reaction. You did bring up an interesting point however. How would you expectthe BECs to influence the overall reaction in this particular case? Couldthey have caused the yield to exceed expectations? Would that also tendto generate nasty radioactive elements that do not normally occur in other designs? We may be on to something that needs to be explored. I am attempting to get a handle on the equivalent pressure thatwould be required to force Ds to be in the proximity that they find themselveswithin if they share a hole within a metal matrix. This must be enormouscompared to the density they exhibit at room temperature. Add thiselevated pressure and laser cooling, or other methods that reduce the relativemotion between them and something interesting might result. Then, of course there are random variations in the energy of Dsthat naturally occur. It makes me wonder if being trapped in a tinycavity would tend to allow instantaneous cooling to occur under the rightcircumstances. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Jones Beene This is why I ask whether or not fusion has been proven to occur withvery low temperature deuterons. I am not aware that anyone makes thatclaim and it would add support to the other theory if proven. Yes – an early hydrogen bomb called “Mike” put millions of tons ofradioactivity into the air in the fifties, creating untold numbers of healthproblems today - but that is probably not the answer you are looking for.Although the yield was surprising – so perhaps BECs were involved, come tothink of it. BTW – “Mike” used liquid deuterium in a large thermos as the mainfuel - with a small fission trigger. No tritium was needed. The output was over10 megatons of TNT – and that exceeded all of the explosives used in WW II,including the small fission bombs dropped on Japan - which were similar toMike’s trigger. About 95% of Mike’s energy came from the fusion of liquiddeuterium at very low temperature - initially J Cough, cough…
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. Ed ***My balloon analogy accounts for the difference. The reason why the energy is not consistent with hot-fusion emission is that most of the energy gets absorbed into the lattice. There are some LENR theories out there such as phonons greatly contributing to the absorption, and lately Ron Maimon's theory of Auger deuterons may even account for the absorption plus the transmutations in the strange way they've been showing up. http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-maimons-theory.html The Maimon theory ignores several facts. He proposes that the energy applied to remove an electron from Pd can be used to lower the Coulomb barrier. In fact, when PdD is bombarded by energetic electrons so that the proposed electron is removed from the Pd, NO FUSION IS OBSERVED. Hot fusion, not cold fusion, is only observed if the bombarding deuteron has this energy, not the electrons in the lattice. If you read my papers, you would already know exactly what I claim. ***It would save all of us a lot of time if you spent the one minute necessary to read and process my analogy, rather than asking me to spend 100 hours to understand your theory. It is doubtless I will have trouble understanding your theory when I do embark on this endeavor. Even then, those 100 hours spent would be no guarantee that I would immediately comprehend your shorthand approach to emails on vortex. A short hand approach has to be used because neither one of us has the time to explain everything in detail. That is why I write papers where all the details can be explained for everyone to study. In addition, my approach is based on the concepts and vocabulary taught in chemistry and physics. If you do not have knowledge of these concepts, most of what I say will make little sense. Since I have no knowledge about your background, I have no idea how to explain some of these ideas that would be consistent with your education. So, I can only explain what I mean in general ways that may not answer all questions. Your analogy is not consistent with how I and most people imagine the process to occur. Yes, the energy is absorbed in the lattice during cold fusion. The nature of this process has to be explained in a way that is consistent with known chemical and physical laws. I find it easier to explain what I propose is happening in contrast to showing why another proposed process is wrong. Nevertheless, I list in my paper a few general requirements that must be followed that you are free to apply without my help. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Kevin, I think that what Dr. Storms is stating about the dangerous radiation emission is valid. In your scenario, the balloon is surrounded by many others that absorb the high energy emissions. How does it account for balloons that are very near to the edge of the bundle? ***Good point. In the formation of BECs, the atoms near the edge would be less likely to participate in the formation because they aren't subject to the same level of forces jostling them around as the guys in the middle are. An analogy would be when a crowd gets too dense and people start getting trampled. If a dense crowd were to happen on an open field, the people on the edges would not be subject to the same level of forces jostling them around restricting their freedom of movement, it would be the people in the middle most subject to risk of trampling. If high level energy is released by any LENR activity, then it would be expected to escape unless a process exists that works well over an extremely short distance. Also, I an unaware of any process that is effective in stopping free energetic neutrons under similar conditions. ***Going back to the balloon analogy, when 50,000 of them pop at once there is simply more energy released and less matter to block the releases. If only 1 of those non-tinker-toy-lattice balloons popped, you probably wouldn't hear it. I think Hot fusion takes place on a bigger level than cold fusion, that cold fusion has 1 nuclear event for every billion atoms or so, whereas hot fusion has perhaps 50,000 times as much. In addition, when you look at a balloon popping in slow motion, it does not initially emit its energy in all directions at the first microsecond. Its release of energy goes in the direction that the penetration came from initially. If the balloon pop were due to 2 balloons banging together forcefully, the initial release would be right where the 2 balloons collided. Similarly, when 2 atoms collide and fuse, I think their energy release is not 360 degrees, but is perpendicular to the direction of the plane where the 2 atoms meet. It is initially in only 1 direction, not all directions. That release of energy will have a high degree of probability due to its geometry of initial direction, to be directly in the path of atoms on the lattice. But in hot fusion, those 50,000 balloons all slam into each other at varying different angles, leaving the impression that the initial energy release is initially 360 degrees rather than in one direction. I do not know how to test this idea. I doubt there are resources to measure direction of energy release of individual atoms fusing.
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
The Maimon theory ignores several facts. I'm trying to gather as much feedback on Ron's theory as I can, so that I can get his comments. If you see anything, please mention it; I'll include the objections in a followup blog post. He proposes that the energy applied to remove an electron from Pd can be used to lower the Coulomb barrier. To my knowledge, he's not proposing a lowering of the Coulomb barrier. He's using the Auger process to efficiently convert energy from 20 keV x-rays and ejected K-shell electrons to nearby deuterons. The deuterons then have 20 keV of energy, which is close to the optimal for the d+d fusion cross section in a beam of deuterons, without any lowering of the Coulomb barrier. He is not proposing a process typical of hot fusion, however -- the byproducts are relatively benign and largely involve heat, x-rays and 4He. I have written up a followup post [1], which discusses some difficulties which were raised in a previous set of vortex-l threads. Please take a look at the post and mention any difficulties that go beyond what has already been included there. Eric [1] http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/02/ron-maimons-theory-2.html
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Axil, Nicely said but to pick one nit regarding syntax -when you said [snip] These reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds.[/snip] It isn't clear what you are saying is the underlying energy source or possibly multiple sources? Care to elaborate? You well know my position re the geometry of the cavity walls and their suppression of longer vacuum wavelengths that causes the initial catalytic action when said geometry changes [see Chen at Cornell re catalytic action at openings and defects nanotubes]. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature I am both pleased and privileged at your interest in my correct perceptions of LENR processes. There are so many widely varied instances of these LENR processes, there must be more than one cause. There are instances where significant transmutation of elements and isotopic shifts occurs without the generation of heat. There are instances where radioactive isotopic half-lives are significantly modified by LENR processes. Also there are conditions where electrons and protons form coopper pairs in seeming violation of the law of coulomb repulsion. Ensembles of protons can aggregate and form in cavities in seeming violation of the laws of coulomb like charge repulsion. Recent experimentation into the causes of superconductivity has shown in contravention of longstanding belief that phonon action in the lattice does not cause pairing but the collective action of electrons is what really produces the pairing to occur. In all of these instances, nuclear reaction derivatives such as neutrons and gamma radiation are seldom if ever seen as byproducts of the LENR reaction. These reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds. I have come to the conclusion that the actions of electrons; more basically charge accumulation from their collective action can affect the inner workings of the atomic nucleus and even change the basic character of the proton. Recently, we've have gone over the new science paper on muonic hydrogen. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica, the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm for muonic hydrogen and 0.88fm for electronic hydrogen. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained by generally accepted science and the standard model of matter going on. The most basic character of the proton changes base on the type of negatively charge particle that orbits it. It is easy for my imagination to extend this field of nuclear influence to include influence of the electron in the form of charge accumulation into the very heart of the nucleus itself. These considerations lend comfort to my agreement with the Ken Shoulders' Electrum Validum (EV), meaning strong electron, wing of the LENR community. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.commailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, your description does not fit what is observed or even what is generally accepted. I'm trying to get you to understand the basic difference between cold fusion and hot fusion. It would help if you read papers that describe what is observed rather than speculate based on imagination. The Coulomb barrier is a force external to the nucleus that keeps the nuclei apart and provide a force to hold the electrons in place. Of course this is a simplified description that requires complex math to describe accurately. Energy has to be applied to move the nuclei together. During hot fusion, this energy can be supplied by the motion of the nuclei either as temperature in plasma or as an energetic ion beam created by an accelerator. Once the nuclei of d get close enough, the extra energy observed as mass is suddenly released and the two d explode into fragments of He. These fragments go off in directions and with energy required to conserve momentum. The idea of gluons is not relevant. In the case of cold fusion, the process does not produce energetic products and the final product is an intact helium nucleus. Nevertheless, the nuclear energy appears as heat. Of course, radiation is produced and some is detected outside of the apparatus. However, the energy of the radiation is not consistent with a single release of energy as is the case with hot fusion. In this way, the two processes are entirely different. This difference MUST be taken into account in any explanation. Ed On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:56 PM,
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Eric, there seems to be confusion about how energy is measured and how it is applied. Let's say that the electron identified as a k shell is removed by adding 20 keV. The source of this energy is not important. I assumed it resulted from electron bombardment and you assume it comes from photon bombardment. In either case, the deuteron does not move. The energy goes into the electron that is ejected well away from the atom. When it returns, a 20 keV photon is emitted. This process only involves the electron. The process is well known and not a subject for debate. The 20 keV energy is only relative to the electron state in the atom compared to the electron at infinity. For fission to occur, the deuteron MUST acquire this energy as kinetic energy, which this process does not accomplish. This being a fact, I assumed Maimon was proposing that the process affected the barrier because otherwise the idea is nonsense. As for what happens next, a fusion reaction MUST get rid of the energy in a way that is consistent with conservation of momentum. This process seems not to be understood by several of people who are discussing the idea. The mechanism proposed by Maimon has only one way to do this, i.e. by the hot fusion process. Basic and known laws must be followed. It is not enough just to assume certain things happen. Either the energy is dissipated as fragments of He (hot fusion) or as a new process that leaves the He without any energy in any form, neither kinetic or that released by gamma emission. Maimon does not address this issue, he just makes an assumption. Ed On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Eric Walker wrote: The Maimon theory ignores several facts. I'm trying to gather as much feedback on Ron's theory as I can, so that I can get his comments. If you see anything, please mention it; I'll include the objections in a followup blog post. He proposes that the energy applied to remove an electron from Pd can be used to lower the Coulomb barrier. To my knowledge, he's not proposing a lowering of the Coulomb barrier. He's using the Auger process to efficiently convert energy from 20 keV x-rays and ejected K-shell electrons to nearby deuterons. The deuterons then have 20 keV of energy, which is close to the optimal for the d+d fusion cross section in a beam of deuterons, without any lowering of the Coulomb barrier. He is not proposing a process typical of hot fusion, however -- the byproducts are relatively benign and largely involve heat, x-rays and 4He. I have written up a followup post [1], which discusses some difficulties which were raised in a previous set of vortex-l threads. Please take a look at the post and mention any difficulties that go beyond what has already been included there. Eric [1] http://rolling-balance.blogspot.com/2013/02/ron-maimons-theory-2.html
[Vo]:Buy and E cat
http://ecatreport.com/ecat-plant/rossi-only-1mw-plants-available-at-this-time
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: In either case, the deuteron does not move. The energy goes into the electron that is ejected well away from the atom. When it returns, a 20 keV photon is emitted. This process only involves the electron. The process is well known and not a subject for debate. This is where you and Ron disagree. He's saying that the math allows for the K-shell hole decay to dump its energy directly to a nearby deuteron, bypassing the electron altogether. Beyond that, he's saying that the math of the system indicates that the transfer of energy (via electrostatic repulsion) would be *preferentially* imparted to the deuteron rather than an electron, such that this would be the main form of decay of the K-shell hole when a deuteron is in close vicinity. This being a fact, I assumed Maimon was proposing that the process affected the barrier because otherwise the idea is nonsense. I personally am not qualified to judge whether what Ron is saying is nonsense. I gather from his interactions with others on physics.stackexchange.com, which has some pretty smart people on it, and his overall reputation there, that he knows at least the basics of what he's talking about. As for what happens next, a fusion reaction MUST get rid of the energy in a way that is consistent with conservation of momentum. This process seems not to be understood by several of people who are discussing the idea. The mechanism proposed by Maimon has only one way to do this, i.e. by the hot fusion process. Ron is conserving momentum in his reaction. He's saying that the energy of the fusion is shared between the daughter alpha and the spectator palladium atom, because the fusion happens so close the the palladium nucleus. (This also obviates the emission of the gamma photon.) Either the energy is dissipated as fragments of He (hot fusion) or as a new process that leaves the He without any energy in any form, neither kinetic or that released by gamma emission. Maimon does not address this issue, he just makes an assumption. Ron's saying that the fusion results in a daughter 4He and 24 MeV of energy. The resulting energy is shared between the daughter alpha and the spectator palladium nucleus. The alpha races through the lattice, causing the ejection of a portion of palladium K-shell electrons as it goes, and the palladium atom that was in the vicinity of the fusion gains a significant amount kinetic energy. I'm not saying any of this is true -- just trying to ensure that the details are understood so that a sharp critique can be prepared. Part of the difficulty here is that I'm just a beginner when it comes to physics. I should let Ron speak in his own words; his original post is here [1]. Eric [1] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus/13734#13734
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Hi David, sorry for this late response. Experimentally I know of nothing that has show fusion in the near absolute zero. It's pretty hard to achieve a BEC in first place, and specifically one that exposes a nuclear potential in its wave function. BECs will show superfluity when it's neutral and superconductivity when the bose particle is charged. What will happen if the nuclear potential is exposed in the bose particles. What will happen with a BEC of Deuterium? Several posts down (or above now), the Mike test is brought up, which may have induced a BEC in a near zero deuterium core. I have no info on that so its hard to say. It sounds like perfect test of Gamow factor in a BEC. Best Regards, Chuck - On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Chuck, I see where you mention that cold fusion might occur near absolute zero. Do you recall any direct evidence that this is happening? I would find that an important link if proven, since atoms of deuterium trapped in a metal matrix box might be cooled in a manner that simulates that temperature for pico seconds. One would think that hydrogen and its isotopes would be able to slip easily through a metal crystal if ionized. The size of a proton without the orbiting electron is extremely tiny, but I suspect that it is almost impossible for a free proton to exist in such an environment without stealing electrons as it progresses. Dave -Original Message- From: Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature HI Ed, I think it is apparent that a BEC in it's normal sense with temps at near absolute zero is out of the question as you note. There are too many problems like the coupling of the lattice to the fusion reaction. Still if you review Kim's several presentations over the years he has developed a consistent and testable theoretical frame work for a N-body mechanism of cold fusion at and above room temperatures. I've always thought the physics was intriguing regardless of the nuclear aspects, that a condensate deuterium ions (or positive Bose ions or even virtual integer spin particles) could even form in a metal lattice. I also like the Chubbs' concepts and it's evaluation of deuterium ions moving through a lattice and creating something new in physics, Bose-Band states. In a periodic potential created by the host metal, you can work out a system where the bose deuterons form quantum band states like the electron band states found in solid state physics realm. However, unlike electrons that have to obay the Polli exclusion principle, particles in the Bose band could occupy the same state, and from BE statistics would prefer to occupy the bands grounds states. It even seems likely that the Bose-band could even be superconducting with respect to the ion channels which would show up as a drop in resistance, something that people have observed. It seems possible that H2 molecules (or pseudo-H2 molecules in a metal lattice like Ni) could also have bose band states. Even your suggestion Dr. Storm the hydrogen (H or D) could collect in lattice dislocations is interesting with respect to either Kim's or Chubbs' work. For example a long 1-D chain of deuterons might have some really unusual quantum states just due to the 1-dimensional nature of the chain. It might fit a kronig-penny model of periodic potentials and have even better potential of N-body fusion because of the quantum geometry. As far as why a BEC might result in nuclear fusion, there is a couple of papers that were published years prior to PF's big announce by Richard L Liboff on D fusion rates in degenerate gas (a BEC), basically from the overlapping wave functions from 2 D ions. It may have appeared in Physics Letters circa 1977. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R.+L.+Liboff+BOSEbtnG=hl=enas_sdt=1%2C18 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01050663?LI=true What is fun reading Liboff's work is he is talking very very cold fusion! Near absolute zero cold fusion! Anyway, that's the basis of my naive understanding the BEC concepts for LERN. No doubt there is much more to learn and discover. Best Regards, Chuck - On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Chuck, consider these issues. First, the BEC between atoms has not been shown to occur except near absolute zero. The claim for such a structure between hypothetical particles based on a form of concentrated energy within a structure really does not apply. Second. once a BEC forms, why would you think it would result in a nuclear reaction? Third, if a fusion reaction occurred, why would it not take the form of hot fusion? After all, the energy has to be dissipated by a process that is not in evidence in the BEC. This idea is based
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
I have just posted a reference (Plasmons on a patterned surface can enhance the production of bright electron beams) that describes how a properly configured patterned surface of cavities and mounds can convert the heat in the form of plasmons present in a lattice into electrons localized on that surface. This is an example of how Anderson localization of plasmons in the form of collective oscillations of the free electron gas density on the surface of the lattice can catalyze LENR. More generally, this shows how the proper structuring of materials can be formulated to engineer localized concentrations of electrons in response to the application of heat to the surface of the lattice. These localized areas of high electron density form the active nuclear areas where the lowering of the coulomb barrier is greatly enhanced. This is a similar mechanism to the crack method called out in Ed Storms theory where the cracks in the lattice localizes, pins down and concentrates surface electrons under the stimulus of heat in and around the cracks on the surface of the lattice. Admittedly, breaking of chemical bonds may not be the appropriate term for processes so described. Topological construction in materials might be a better term even if this type of process might well be a chemical one. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Axil, Nicely said but to pick one nit regarding syntax –when you said [snip]These reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds.[/snip] It isn’t clear what you are saying is the underlying energy source or possibly multiple sources? Care to elaborate? You well know my position re the geometry of the cavity walls and their suppression of longer vacuum wavelengths that causes the initial catalytic action when said geometry changes [see Chen at Cornell re catalytic action at openings and defects nanotubes]. Fran ** ** *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 3:19 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature ** ** I am both pleased and privileged at your interest in my correct perceptions of LENR processes. There are so many widely varied instances of these LENR processes, there must be more than one cause. There are instances where significant transmutation of elements and isotopic shifts occurs without the generation of heat. There are instances where radioactive isotopic half-lives are significantly modified by LENR processes. Also there are conditions where electrons and protons form coopper pairs in seeming violation of the law of coulomb repulsion. Ensembles of protons can aggregate and form in cavities in seeming violation of the laws of coulomb like charge repulsion. Recent experimentation into the causes of superconductivity has shown in contravention of longstanding belief that phonon action in the lattice does not cause pairing but the collective action of electrons is what really produces the pairing to occur. In all of these instances, nuclear reaction derivatives such as neutrons and gamma radiation are seldom if ever seen as byproducts of the LENR reaction. These reactions must be catalyzed by chemical reactions where changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds. I have come to the conclusion that the actions of electrons; more basically charge accumulation from their collective action can affect the inner workings of the atomic nucleus and even change the basic character of the proton. Recently, we've have gone over the new science paper on muonic hydrogen. According to a summary of the Science article in Ars Technica, the charge radius of the proton has been measured very accurately to be both 0.84fm for muonic hydrogen and 0.88fm for electronic hydrogen. This would not be a big deal if the accuracy of the measurements allowed both of these values. But the measurements are extremely accurate, and incompatible, unless there is something unexplained by generally accepted science and the standard model of matter going on. The most basic character of the proton changes base on the type of negatively charge particle that orbits it. It is easy for my imagination to extend this field of nuclear influence to include influence of the electron in the form of charge accumulation into the very heart of the nucleus itself. These considerations lend comfort to my agreement with the Ken Shoulders' “Electrum Validum (EV), meaning strong electron, wing of the LENR community. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Axil, your description
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Hi Ed. Again sorry for the delayed response and right now all I can give is a quick response. Kim's theory is interesting as it's been refined more and more towards effects at the nano-scale and he's also incorporating proton descriptions that may allow his theory to describe H in Ni. Kim's work is some of the best I've read. But H/D in Metals really follow physics of solid state just with opposite charge and heavier weights. For that reason the Chubbs' seems very plausible. If you don't think the wave function overlap is important to the fusion processes, I think you need to consider what the Gamow factor is based on. It's the quantum wave function that describes how two particles can interact strongly through the Coulomb barrier. It's the Gamow factor that really makes the BEC's so interesting. Even in your Nuclear active sites, suppression of Coulomb barrier has to occur, and an n-body interactions has to occur. I understand Kim's theory and I also understand the Chubbs' theory. What makes the Active Nuclear sites a better theory (or concept) than that of a nuclear active BEC in metal? Best Regards, Chuck On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Chuck, we have three separate and independent questions here. First, can a BEC based on atoms form in a lattice at room temperature. In spite of Kim, theory says this is not possible. Second, can such a cluster lead to fusion? My answer is NO because the nuclear charge is not eliminated by forming a BEC. Yes, wave functions can overlay, but this is essentially a chemical process that would not affect the nucleus because too little energy is involved. Third, will the resulting fusion reaction produce hot fusion or cold fusion? My answer is that hot fusion must result because no part of the process can dissipate the energy before fusion takes place. It is not enough to just throw out an idea with a little math and claim this explains anything. The entire process must be described in a logically connected way. My theory attempts to do this. Yes, some previous ideas might be applied, but only as PART of the process. Ed On Feb 10, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: HI Ed, I think it is apparent that a BEC in it's normal sense with temps at near absolute zero is out of the question as you note. There are too many problems like the coupling of the lattice to the fusion reaction. Still if you review Kim's several presentations over the years he has developed a consistent and testable theoretical frame work for a N-body mechanism of cold fusion at and above room temperatures. I've always thought the physics was intriguing regardless of the nuclear aspects, that a condensate deuterium ions (or positive Bose ions or even virtual integer spin particles) could even form in a metal lattice. I also like the Chubbs' concepts and it's evaluation of deuterium ions moving through a lattice and creating something new in physics, Bose-Band states. In a periodic potential created by the host metal, you can work out a system where the bose deuterons form quantum band states like the electron band states found in solid state physics realm. However, unlike electrons that have to obay the Polli exclusion principle, particles in the Bose band could occupy the same state, and from BE statistics would prefer to occupy the bands grounds states. It even seems likely that the Bose-band could even be superconducting with respect to the ion channels which would show up as a drop in resistance, something that people have observed. It seems possible that H2 molecules (or pseudo-H2 molecules in a metal lattice like Ni) could also have bose band states. Even your suggestion Dr. Storm the hydrogen (H or D) could collect in lattice dislocations is interesting with respect to either Kim's or Chubbs' work. For example a long 1-D chain of deuterons might have some really unusual quantum states just due to the 1-dimensional nature of the chain. It might fit a kronig-penny model of periodic potentials and have even better potential of N-body fusion because of the quantum geometry. As far as why a BEC might result in nuclear fusion, there is a couple of papers that were published years prior to PF's big announce by Richard L Liboff on D fusion rates in degenerate gas (a BEC), basically from the overlapping wave functions from 2 D ions. It may have appeared in Physics Letters circa 1977. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R.+L.+Liboff+BOSEbtnG=hl=enas_sdt=1%2C18 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01050663?LI=true What is fun reading Liboff's work is he is talking very very cold fusion! Near absolute zero cold fusion! Anyway, that's the basis of my naive understanding the BEC concepts for LERN. No doubt there is much more to learn and discover. Best Regards, Chuck - On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Chuck,
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
I wrote: I personally am not qualified to judge whether what Ron is saying is nonsense. I gather from his interactions with others on physics.stackexchange.com, which has some pretty smart people on it, and his overall reputation there, that he knows at least the basics of what he's talking about. To give a little context -- Ron is at a level to have a meaningful exchange with the likes of Gerard 't Hooft and Peter Shor on the suitability of certain classes of quantum model, as evidenced by 't Hooft's taking the time to reply to Ron in the body of this question 't Hooft raised on physics.SE [1]. I cannot speak for others here, but I am not yet sufficiently up to speed to merit a response to any objections or concerns that I may personally have about certain classes of quantum model; 't Hooft and Shor would just ask me to go read a dozen textbooks on the subject. Eric [1] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34217/why-do-people-categorically-dismiss-some-simple-quantum-models
