Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
You all must know that the maximum temperature that can support Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) formation is proportional to the mass of the particle that comprises the BEC ensemble. The details of this realization are new to me and are a result of research into the subject matter in this thread. For example, the photon can form BEC at very high temperatures; the electron is not far behind. The proton can also form a BEC at room temperature being relatively lite. Atoms are very massive. They require low temperatures to form a BEC. The question in my mind is what particle is forming a BEC discussed in this thread? Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Vorts: See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 1:22 PM (4 hours ago) to yekim, ayandas, pkb Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation of a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more viable? Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures? Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *4*, 188 (2011), best regards, Kevin O'Malley 408%20460%205707 -- http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110 Polariton Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N nanowire–dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap Ayan Dasa,1, Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1, Junseok Heoa, Animesh Banerjeea, and Wei Guob Author Affiliations Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012) Abstract A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature. Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical exciton–photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of the formation of a near-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensate in the GaN region of the nanowire at room temperature. In contrast, the condensate formed in the uniform GaN nanowire–dielectric microcavity without the spatial potential trap is only in self-equilibrium. Bose–Einstein condensation exciton–polariton Footnotes 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: ayan...@umich.edu or p...@umich.edu. Author contributions: A.D. and P.B. designed research; A.D. and J.H. performed research; J.H., A.B., and W.G. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.D. analyzed data; and P.B. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This article contains supporting information online at http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas. 1210842110/-/DCSupplemental. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. Reply Reply to all Forward Kim, Yeong E 5:24 PM (32 minutes ago) to me, ayandas, pkb Hi, Kevin, Yes, the formation of a BEC of deuterons (or other Bose nuclei) makes my theory more viable. ** ** The claim, made by some that BECs could not form at room temperatures, was based on an inconclusive conjecture which assumes that the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB ) velocity distribution applies for deuterons in a metal. This conjecture was not based on any theories nor on any experimentally observed facts. The MB velocity distribution is for an ideal gas containing non-interacting particles. There are no justifications to assume the MB velocity distribution for deuterons in a metal. The published paper by Dasa, et al. quoted below indicates that the conjecture is not justified. ** ** I have stated at seminars and conferences (in the proceedings) that “The BEC formation of deuterons in metal at room temperatures depends on the velocity distribution of deuterons in metal at room temperatures. The velocity distribution of deuterons in metal has not determined by theories nor by experiments and is not expected to be the MB distribution” ** ** The published
Re: [Vo]:T. Ishida's thesis about Kamiokande
If you are trying to get neutrinos from D+D=He4, you will get null results since there isn't weak interactions involved. He should try with NiH, since there would have to be a weak reaction in case of any nuclear reaction. 2013/2/14 Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com Wasn't Ishida a graduate student under Steve Jones? I had a really nice correspondence with Steve regarding the NULL results from the Kamiokande experiments. What I heard was they thought they were getting good results with D2O+cement (the so called natural soup) but it so overwhelmed the photo-multipliers of the Kamiokande neutrino detector they were told to shut it down. If I recall Steve attributed that to the natural radon in cement. His gas experiment was D in Titanium and who knows if his electrolysis tests where that well done. All where NULL results. Anyway, Ishida was one of the co-authors on that Steve Jones experiments if I recall. I hope he still follows the field. Best Regards, Chuck --- On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: 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 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:T. Ishida's thesis about Kamiokande
first point is I did not clearly see they were detecting neutrino from LENR. It seems from the paper that they use Kamiokande as neutron detector. beside that, when reasoning about DD fusion, you are making an hypothesis. D+D-He4 may be something else like D+e - nn +v nn+D - 4H - He4 + e + /v or something else, involving more particles, collective effects, ... imagine a crazy multibody reaction, more crazy than TSC and WL : 47 D+23 e - 23 nn + 24 D 7 nn+12D - 7 4H + 5D 7 4H - 6He4 + 6e + 6/v + T +n ( why 47 , because 47-5= 42 , and 42 is the solution ;- ) however that there is no Kamiokande neutrino detection may mean - that there is no such inverse beta decay, nor direct beta decay - that the energy range of neutrino is not the one detected at Kamiokande a big mistake in LENR is to stay used in hidden assumption. I have nothing to propose except being cautious with assumptions. Dogs don't fly, so birds have no reason to love meat. 2013/2/14 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com If you are trying to get neutrinos from D+D=He4, you will get null results since there isn't weak interactions involved. He should try with NiH, since there would have to be a weak reaction in case of any nuclear reaction. 2013/2/14 Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com Wasn't Ishida a graduate student under Steve Jones? I had a really nice correspondence with Steve regarding the NULL results from the Kamiokande experiments. What I heard was they thought they were getting good results with D2O+cement (the so called natural soup) but it so overwhelmed the photo-multipliers of the Kamiokande neutrino detector they were told to shut it down. If I recall Steve attributed that to the natural radon in cement. His gas experiment was D in Titanium and who knows if his electrolysis tests where that well done. All where NULL results. Anyway, Ishida was one of the co-authors on that Steve Jones experiments if I recall. I hope he still follows the field. Best Regards, Chuck --- On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: 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 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5
If it turns out to be closer to 7 meters, there is a link to nickel magnetic properties. From: fznidar...@aol.com I have predicted that cold fusion progresses with a domain of 50nm for a long time now. This is the domain for thermal energy. Using the same math I have now computed another resonance for a cathode wire 17.5 meters in length. Its crazy. I may have to recheck on another day. Frank z
RE: [Vo]:17.5 meters
Please define heavy proton Thanks From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:17.5 meters It odd. Fixing the wave number at 50nm the frequency finds itself at 5 x 10^^12 hertz. Five terahertz. The system needs heavy protons. A lot of light protons, acting together, does the trick. Heavy loading is required. Fixing the frequency and letting with wave number find itself the active domain length is 17.5 meters. The system only requires two protons acting together. I don't like the long wire. Perhaps both resonances could be hit with a cathode designed like a loop radio antenna. It would act like an inductor and externally add proton mass. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 7:47 pm Subject: [Vo]:17.5 meters I have said for a long time that 50 nm was the correct domain for the thermal cold fusion reaction. This reaction occurs at high loading. Using the same math I have computed another resonance. It is for a thin palladium or nickel wire 17.5 meters in length. This resonance is for light loading. I don't know what to make of it. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:17.5 meters
The mass of several protons acting in concert. In the formula for frequency K/M the M is n times M. I wonder if Rossi's sparking mechanism excites the second harmonic. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 9:03 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:17.5 meters Please define “heavyproton” Thanks From:fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 20135:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:17.5 meters It odd. Fixing the wave number at 50nm the frequency findsitself at 5 x 10^^12 hertz. Five terahertz. The system needs heavyprotons. A lot of light protons, acting together, does the trick. Heavyloading is required. Fixing the frequency and letting with wave number find itself theactive domain length is 17.5 meters. The system only requires two protonsacting together. I don'tlike the long wire. Perhaps both resonances could be hit with acathode designed like a loop radio antenna. It would act likean inductor and externally add proton mass. -OriginalMessage- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 7:47 pm Subject: [Vo]:17.5 meters I have said for a long time that 50 nm was the correctdomain for the thermal cold fusion reaction. Thisreaction occurs at high loading. Using the same math I have computed another resonance. It is for a thin palladium or nickel wire 17.5 meters in length. This resonance is for light loading. I don't know what to make of it. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5
Perhaps I should quit talking and start building. I tried to excite nickel and palladium wires with RF before. The result was no anomalous energy. A tuning capacitor was used to obtain resonance. No protons entered into the capacitor and the only the electrons were tuned.How do I get the mobile protons to follow? The protons have to be part of the tuned circuit. The tuned circuit will not extend beyond the proton conductor. I have some ideas on how to do this. Frank -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 9:01 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5 If it turns out to becloser to 7 meters, there is a link to nickel magnetic properties. From:fznidar...@aol.com I have predicted that cold fusion progresses with a domain of 50nmfor a long time now. This is the domain for thermal energy. Using the same math I have now computedanother resonance for a cathode wire 17.5 meters in length. Itscrazy. I may have to recheck on another day. Frank z
RE: [Vo]:17.5 meters
Sounds a bit like having a desired result in mind – in advance, but finding that it did not calculate correctly with 2 protons, more were “found” g How many proton masses are required to make the calculation work? At any rate, and given that monatomic hydrogen is an atomic BEC – why not use spillover hydrogen as the active agent instead of protons, or else Miley’s rationalization of IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen)…? From: fznidar...@aol.com The mass of several protons acting in concert. In the formula for frequency K/M the M is n times M. I wonder if Rossi's sparking mechanism excites the second harmonic. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Please define “heavy proton” Thanks From: fznidar...@aol.com It odd. Fixing the wave number at 50nm the frequency finds itself at 5 x 10^^12 hertz. Five terahertz. The system needs heavy protons. A lot of light protons, acting together, does the trick. Heavy loading is required. Fixing the frequency and letting with wave number find itself the active domain length is 17.5 meters. The system only requires two protons acting together. I don't like the long wire. Perhaps both resonances could be hit with a cathode designed like a loop radio antenna. It would act like an inductor and externally add proton mass. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 7:47 pm Subject: [Vo]:17.5 meters I have said for a long time that 50 nm was the correct domain for the thermal cold fusion reaction. This reaction occurs at high loading. Using the same math I have computed another resonance. It is for a thin palladium or nickel wire 17.5 meters in length. This resonance is for light loading. I don't know what to make of it. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I should quit talking and start building. Now you're talkin'!
Re: [Vo]:T. Ishida's thesis about Kamiokande
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: . . . first point is I did not clearly see they were detecting neutrino from LENR. It seems from the paper that they use Kamiokande as neutron detector. That is the what it says in the first sentence of the Abstract! By applying the Kamiokande nucleon decay/neutrino detector to neutron measurement . . . Come on folks, read what it says. You read the whole paper on line. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5
That's what I will do. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 10:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:big jump in sales now number 5 On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I should quit talking and start building. Now you're talkin'!
[Vo]:Breakthrough in Optical refrigeration
http://www.gizmag.com/laser-cooling-semiconductor/26222/ Using the laser for active cooling. Weren't we just talking about this as being relevant to LENR and the BEC ... :-) We know that anti-sound works to nullify sound waves, so why shouldn't anti-heat work in a similar (or slightly different) way? Waves are waves. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
See my related post on this subject as follows: Polariton are interesting as major player in LENR. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You all must know that the maximum temperature that can support Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) formation is proportional to the mass of the particle that comprises the BEC ensemble. The details of this realization are new to me and are a result of research into the subject matter in this thread. For example, the photon can form BEC at very high temperatures; the electron is not far behind. The proton can also form a BEC at room temperature being relatively lite. Atoms are very massive. They require low temperatures to form a BEC. The question in my mind is what particle is forming a BEC discussed in this thread? Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Vorts: See below for confirmation from YE Kim that the formation of a BEC at room temperature gives his LENR theory a leg up. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com 1:22 PM (4 hours ago) to yekim, ayandas, pkb Hello Dr. Kim. I left you a voicemail regarding this. Does the formation of a BEC at room temperature make your theory of Deuteron Fusion more viable? Wasn't the main criticism of your theory that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures? Y. E. Kim, Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. *4*, 188 (2011), best regards, Kevin O'Malley 408%20460%205707 -- http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/29/1210842110 Polariton Bose-Einstein condensate at room temperature in an Al(Ga)N nanowire-dielectric microcavity with a spatial potential trap Ayan Dasa,1, Pallab Bhattacharyaa,1, Junseok Heoa, Animesh Banerjeea, and Wei Guob Author Affiliations Edited by Paul L. McEuen, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and approved December 21, 2012 (received for review June 28, 2012) Abstract A spatial potential trap is formed in a 6.0-μm Al(Ga)N nanowire by varying the Al composition along its length during epitaxial growth. The polariton emission characteristics of a dielectric microcavity with the single nanowire embedded in-plane have been studied at room temperature. Excitation is provided at the Al(Ga)N end of the nanowire, and polariton emission is observed from the lowest bandgap GaN region within the potential trap. Comparison of the results with those measured in an identical microcavity with a uniform GaN nanowire and having an identical exciton-photon detuning suggests evaporative cooling of the polaritons as they are transported into the trap in the Al(Ga)N nanowire. Measurement of the spectral characteristics of the polariton emission, their momentum distribution, first-order spatial coherence, and time-resolved measurements of polariton cooling provides strong evidence of the formation of a near-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensate in the GaN region of the nanowire at room temperature. In contrast, the condensate formed in the uniform GaN nanowire-dielectric microcavity without the spatial potential trap is only in self-equilibrium. Bose-Einstein condensation exciton-polariton Footnotes 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: ayan...@umich.edu or p...@umich.edu. Author contributions: A.D. and P.B. designed research; A.D. and J.H. performed research; J.H., A.B., and W.G. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.D. analyzed data; and P.B. wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. This article contains supporting information online at http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas. 1210842110/-/DCSupplemental. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. Reply Reply to all Forward Kim, Yeong E 5:24 PM (32 minutes ago) to me, ayandas, pkb Hi, Kevin, Yes, the formation of a BEC of deuterons (or other Bose nuclei) makes my theory more viable. ** ** The claim, made by some that BECs could not form at room temperatures, was based on an inconclusive conjecture which assumes that the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB ) velocity distribution applies for deuterons in a metal. This conjecture was not based on any theories nor on any experimentally observed facts. The MB velocity distribution is for an ideal gas containing non-interacting particles. There are no justifications to assume the MB velocity distribution for deuterons in a metal. The published paper by Dasa, et al. quoted below indicates that the conjecture is not justified. ** ** I have stated at seminars and conferences (in the proceedings) that The BEC formation of deuterons in metal at room temperatures depends on the velocity distribution of deuterons in metal at room
[Vo]:In detail, what the NASA patent is getting at.
In detail, what the NASA patent is getting at. The NASA patent is so generally worded it does not say much. What are the details behind these general words? I have postulated that charge separation is the root cause of LENR. In advance of this concept, metallic nanoparticles have emerged as fundamental structures due to the tunability of their plasmonic resonances and ability to enhance electromagnetic fields. When two metallic nanoparticles are placed close to each other, forming a dimer, new plasmonic modes is formed, which are interpreted as the hybridization of the plasmonic resonances of the individual nanoparticles. This condition exists in the nano-hairs of the micro-particles used by Rossi and DGT. For these non-touching nano-hair dimers, the optical response is mainly governed by the Bonding Dimer Plasmon (BDP) resonance, arising from the coupling of the dipolar modes of the individual particles. This mode presents strong charge densities of opposite sign at both sides of the inter-particle cavity that exists in the space between the nano-hairs, producing enormously enhanced local electromagnetic fields. These nano-hairs draw energy from the resonant black body heat radiation emitted from the bulk of their constituent micro-particle. For touching particles or, when a thin conductive path is opened between the nanoparticles, a new Charge Transfer Plasmon (CTP) mode is excited, in which the whole dimer acts as a dipolar plasmon mode, so that in the oscillations both particles present net charges of opposite sign. These nano-hairs can form a Bose-Einstein Condensate with a common wave function (PSI) when aggregated into an arbitrarily large ensemble. This charge coherence greatly amplifies the effectiveness of charge separation as a mechanism for lowering the coulomb barrier of atoms just below the root of the nano-hairs as a manifestation of negative dielectric permittivity. The surface charge density oscillations associated with surface plasmons at the interface between a metal nano-hair and a dielectric(hydrogen) can give rise to strongly enhanced EMF fields which are spatially confined to the interface. Similarly, if the electron gas is confined in three dimensions, as in the case of a small subwavelength particle, the overall displacement of the electrons with respect to the positively charged lattice leads to a restoring force which in turn gives rise to specific particle plasmon resonances depending on the geometry of the particle. In particles such as nano-hairs of suitable (usually pointed) shape, extreme local charge accumulations can occur that are accompanied by strongly enhanced EMF. Because these quasiparticles are almost massless, their condensate can develop and persist at extremely high temperatures. This mechanism is behind the effectiveness of properly prepared nano-materials acting on the surface of metals as an enabling causation of LENR at least in the Rossi type reactor design. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: I think you are being very dismissive of the way quantum mechanics works with in the nuclear realm. I have no problem applying QM if it is applied to realistic conditions. Simply assuming a condition that has no reality and then applying QM to justify the assumption means nothing. This is only a dog chasing its tail. You can use any vocabulary you want, but Gibbs energy determines the basic behavior of atoms. The temperature must be low because the bonding energy, obtained from the process you describe, is very low. The entropy * T will overwhelm the enthalpy if the value for T is large, thereby causing the BEC structure to decompose. Or do you think BEC formation violates the Laws of Thermodynamics? Ed It all boils down to PSI and if the nuclear force is point charge with a probability of interacting defined by PSI, or that PSI is blurred motion where the nuclear force is spread over space describing PSI. Is it a wave or is a particle probability? It's a very fundamental question with respect to BECs. The BEC comes about by the overlapping wave functions of integral spin. By it's nature bose particles when chilled they like to fall towards ground states and as they do, their PSI's will completely overlap making one big PSI(n) where PSI(n) describes all of the properties of that mix. The PSI is the matter wave, and with the matter wave all of the other attributes of a particle are carried along, so the electric force and the nuclear force(s) are just aspects of that PSI(n). The overlap of the PSI is where there is a probability of interaction. That's why I mentioned the Gamow factor is that it describes perfectly what the collision of two PSI's with nuclear interactions looks like. At very high energies, it looks like CERN, but at very low energies it looks like solid state. Eventually you have to have PSI(x) describing the model. If that wave function overlap doesn't occur, there is no probability for interaction and nothing will occur. I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling. Specifically with the Nano scale BECs or 100 atom Bose- band states. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, the details do not matter. The basic idea is wrong. The details are just a series of arbitrary assumptions to avoid dropping the initial premise. We are simply playing whack-a-mole. He strings a collection of words together that have no logical relationship, but because the vocabulary of QM mathematics is used, no one questions the statements. If Ron wants to make a contribution, he needs to apply his ideas to what actually exists in the real world based on what material science has agreed is real based on much study. Simply making up concepts to which math is applied is not useful except as a game. Also, we are describing a mechanism. Describing one part in isolation is not useful. This is like saying an automobile works by turning the key in the ignition and then go on to describe the key in great detail. On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: There is no alpha. The helium CAN NOT MOVE spontaneously. The helium contains extra energy as mass. This mass must be converted to energy before it can appear as reaction energy. The He is fixed in space. Normally the He nucleus explodes into fragments producing hot fusion. Or it emits a gamma which releases the mass-energy. This conversion CAN NOT OCCUR outside of the nucleus simply by being near a Pd. I suspect that you are very busy and haven't had time to read Ron's writeup closely. Here is what he says about the production of the alpha: The fusion of deuterons always happens through unstable intermediate states, and the cross section to alpha particle is only small because of the same non-relativistic issue. To get an alpha, you need to emit a gamma-ray photon, and emissions of photons are suppressed by 1/c factors. Yes, this is why the hot fusion products occur rather than helium. Even this statement is ambiguous - what does 1/c factors mean? In fact, the explanation is much easier to understand simply by noting that energy can be lost by the nucleus exploding into its parts faster than it can be released by gamma emission. The issue is based on relative rates. Why is gamma emission slow? It is slow for the same reason it is slow when photons are emitted from any energetic nucleus. Many explanations have been suggested including the need to assemble the required energy and spin in the nucleus before the photon can be emitted. The statement of 1/c factors has no relationship to this process. When there is a nucleus nearby, it can be kicked electrostatically, and this
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Experimens have shown that a BEC can form at a temperature of 2640 K. arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086 I have posted on this elsewhere.Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: I think you are being very dismissive of the way quantum mechanics works with in the nuclear realm. I have no problem applying QM if it is applied to realistic conditions. Simply assuming a condition that has no reality and then applying QM to justify the assumption means nothing. This is only a dog chasing its tail. You can use any vocabulary you want, but Gibbs energy determines the basic behavior of atoms. The temperature must be low because the bonding energy, obtained from the process you describe, is very low. The entropy * T will overwhelm the enthalpy if the value for T is large, thereby causing the BEC structure to decompose. Or do you think BEC formation violates the Laws of Thermodynamics? Ed It all boils down to PSI and if the nuclear force is point charge with a probability of interacting defined by PSI, or that PSI is blurred motion where the nuclear force is spread over space describing PSI. Is it a wave or is a particle probability? It's a very fundamental question with respect to BECs. The BEC comes about by the overlapping wave functions of integral spin. By it's nature bose particles when chilled they like to fall towards ground states and as they do, their PSI's will completely overlap making one big PSI(n) where PSI(n) describes all of the properties of that mix. The PSI is the matter wave, and with the matter wave all of the other attributes of a particle are carried along, so the electric force and the nuclear force(s) are just aspects of that PSI(n). The overlap of the PSI is where there is a probability of interaction. That's why I mentioned the Gamow factor is that it describes perfectly what the collision of two PSI's with nuclear interactions looks like. At very high energies, it looks like CERN, but at very low energies it looks like solid state. Eventually you have to have PSI(x) describing the model. If that wave function overlap doesn't occur, there is no probability for interaction and nothing will occur. I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling. Specifically with the Nano scale BECs or 100 atom Bose-band states. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Eric, the details do not matter. The basic idea is wrong. The details are just a series of arbitrary assumptions to avoid dropping the initial premise. We are simply playing whack-a-mole. He strings a collection of words together that have no logical relationship, but because the vocabulary of QM mathematics is used, no one questions the statements. If Ron wants to make a contribution, he needs to apply his ideas to what actually exists in the real world based on what material science has agreed is real based on much study. Simply making up concepts to which math is applied is not useful except as a game. Also, we are describing a mechanism. Describing one part in isolation is not useful. This is like saying an automobile works by turning the key in the ignition and then go on to describe the key in great detail. On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: There is no alpha. The helium CAN NOT MOVE spontaneously. The helium contains extra energy as mass. This mass must be converted to energy before it can appear as reaction energy. The He is fixed in space. Normally the He nucleus explodes into fragments producing hot fusion. Or it emits a gamma which releases the mass-energy. This conversion CAN NOT OCCUR outside of the nucleus simply by being near a Pd. I suspect that you are very busy and haven't had time to read Ron's writeup closely. Here is what he says about the production of the alpha: The fusion of deuterons always happens through unstable intermediate states, and the cross section to alpha particle is only small because of the same non-relativistic issue. To get an alpha, you need to emit a gamma-ray photon, and emissions of photons are suppressed by 1/c factors. Yes, this is why the hot fusion products occur rather than helium. Even this statement is ambiguous - what does 1/c factors mean? In fact, the explanation is much easier to understand simply by noting that energy can be lost by the nucleus exploding into its parts faster than it can be released by gamma emission. The issue is based on relative rates. Why is gamma emission slow? It is slow for the same reason it is slow when photons are emitted from any energetic nucleus. Many explanations have been suggested including the need to assemble the required energy and spin in the nucleus before the photon can be emitted.
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:45:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] A blast years in advance might spread the material in both time and space sufficiently to protect us. You have to be a little careful here. If it's too far in advance, and the blast doesn't accelerate the pieces beyond their own escape velocity, then the gravitational pull between them might bring the thing back together again before impact. It may require a bit of math to get the timing just right. BTW I don't think the water would be necessary. At the temperature of a nuclear blast, a high temperature plasma forms, surrounded by a gas. I think the plasma and the gas would provide enough pressure. However it might require a Tsar Bomba to do the job. BTW2 Asteroids that are rubble collections would obviously be better candidates than completely solid bodies, but unfortunately we don't have any say in the matter. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:FW: Record High Field Electromagnet
Vo, FYI Mark Goldes Co-Founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax From: noreply+feedpr...@google.com [noreply+feedpr...@google.com] On Behalf Of Terra Magnetica [gpha...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:49 AM To: Mark Goldes Subject: Terra Magnetica Terra Magneticahttp://www.terramagnetica.com [http://gmodules.com/ig/images/plus_google.gif] http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgsfeedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.com/TerraMagnetica USA Reclaims World Record For Highest Field Resistive Electromagnethttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TerraMagnetica/~3/-2If_irhI9E/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email Posted: 08 Jan 2010 05:00 AM PST The engineers and scientists at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory [NHMFL] in Florida, announced this week that they had successfully tested a new resistive electromagnet that produces a magnetic field strength of 36 teslahttp://www.fsu.edu/news/2010/01/06/record.magnet/ (360 kilo-oersted), breaking the old record of 35 tesla (350 kilo-oersted) previously held jointly between the NHMFL and the Grenoble High Magnetic Field Laboratory in France. The device is actually an upgrade to an existing electromagnet, and uses a special coil design called a Bitter solenoid, in order to generate the intense magnetic field. This design, first invented by Prof. Francis Bitter while working at MIT prior to World War Two, consists of stacks of copper plates, instead of wire coils, in order to carry the massive currents that are required for the electromagnet. The working inner bore of the new magnet is approximately 32 mm [1.25 inches] in diameter. The increment from 35 T to 36 T came from creating a new arrangement of the copper plates in the Bitter solenoid. The researchers at the NHMFL plan to apply this new arrangement and upgrade the rest of the electromagnets at the lab, in order to increase the overall magnetic output of each. As an added bonus, according to laboratory: [t]his cost-neutral modification means a higher magnetic field can be created using the same amount of power, 20 megawatts. By comparison, the magnet at the Grenoble High Magnetic Field Laboratory achieves its 35 tesla using 22.5 megawatts of power. [http://www.terramagnetica.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/frog.jpg] Frog levitating in a 16 T resistive electromagnet (image courtesy of High Field Magnet Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen 2005) To put this into context, 20 megawatts of electricity is enough electricity to power around 6,000-7,000 average American homes. A 2.5 MW saving in electricity [equivalent to the power produced by a commercial scale wind turbine these days], for the same magnetic output, is therefore pretty significant. During a visit to the NHMFL a few years ago, I was told that the laboratory is required to give plenty of notice to the local municipality in Tallahassee before switching on their electromagnets, because of the massive current draw on the local grid that they cause. It was in a very high field electromagnet of this type, that the famous picture of the floating frog shown here, was taken some years ago. The strong diamagnetic effect of the electromagnet, on the water molecules in the frog’s body, is enough to counter the effects of gravity. When not levitating amphibians and other objects, researchers use these types of very strong electromagnets for physics and materials science research. You are subscribed to email updates from Terra Magneticahttp://www.terramagnetica.com To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe nowhttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=MjGySBgP4QF52XbHaXslgJpldgE. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
RE: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
Is this an overlooked possibility... ? A few meteorites/asteroids are composed of nickel-iron-cobalt and are essentially large ferromagnets. None has reached our surface as a strong permanent magnet AFAIK (unless that part of the Excalibur myth). Even if one became permanently magnetized on its journey through space, it would exceed its Curie temp on contact with Earth's atmosphere and lose most of its polarization ... so it is unlikely that the magnetic field of earth would play much of role in altering any near miss orbit of a megaton magnet. But what about the extreme situation of a nickel iron cobalt meteorite with a few rare earth elements - becoming strongly polarized like the best permanent magnet - and also picking up a coating of ice in the Oort cloud to protect it from exceeding its Curie point for several minutes, so that it was attracted to one of Earth's poles. Unlikely, of course ... but is it out of the realm of possibility?
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Since you think this paper is relevant, perhaps you can suggest where all the BEC are in PdD and why great effort is made to achieve temperatures near 0 K to study BEC? Ed On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Experimens have shown that a BEC can form at a temperature of 2640 K. arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086 I have posted on this elsewhere.Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: I think you are being very dismissive of the way quantum mechanics works with in the nuclear realm. I have no problem applying QM if it is applied to realistic conditions. Simply assuming a condition that has no reality and then applying QM to justify the assumption means nothing. This is only a dog chasing its tail. You can use any vocabulary you want, but Gibbs energy determines the basic behavior of atoms. The temperature must be low because the bonding energy, obtained from the process you describe, is very low. The entropy * T will overwhelm the enthalpy if the value for T is large, thereby causing the BEC structure to decompose. Or do you think BEC formation violates the Laws of Thermodynamics? Ed It all boils down to PSI and if the nuclear force is point charge with a probability of interacting defined by PSI, or that PSI is blurred motion where the nuclear force is spread over space describing PSI. Is it a wave or is a particle probability? It's a very fundamental question with respect to BECs. The BEC comes about by the overlapping wave functions of integral spin. By it's nature bose particles when chilled they like to fall towards ground states and as they do, their PSI's will completely overlap making one big PSI(n) where PSI(n) describes all of the properties of that mix. The PSI is the matter wave, and with the matter wave all of the other attributes of a particle are carried along, so the electric force and the nuclear force(s) are just aspects of that PSI(n). The overlap of the PSI is where there is a probability of interaction. That's why I mentioned the Gamow factor is that it describes perfectly what the collision of two PSI's with nuclear interactions looks like. At very high energies, it looks like CERN, but at very low energies it looks like solid state. Eventually you have to have PSI(x) describing the model. If that wave function overlap doesn't occur, there is no probability for interaction and nothing will occur. I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling. Specifically with the Nano scale BECs or 100 atom Bose- band states. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Eric, the details do not matter. The basic idea is wrong. The details are just a series of arbitrary assumptions to avoid dropping the initial premise. We are simply playing whack-a-mole. He strings a collection of words together that have no logical relationship, but because the vocabulary of QM mathematics is used, no one questions the statements. If Ron wants to make a contribution, he needs to apply his ideas to what actually exists in the real world based on what material science has agreed is real based on much study. Simply making up concepts to which math is applied is not useful except as a game. Also, we are describing a mechanism. Describing one part in isolation is not useful. This is like saying an automobile works by turning the key in the ignition and then go on to describe the key in great detail. On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: There is no alpha. The helium CAN NOT MOVE spontaneously. The helium contains extra energy as mass. This mass must be converted to energy before it can appear as reaction energy. The He is fixed in space. Normally the He nucleus explodes into fragments producing hot fusion. Or it emits a gamma which releases the mass- energy. This conversion CAN NOT OCCUR outside of the nucleus simply by being near a Pd. I suspect that you are very busy and haven't had time to read Ron's writeup closely. Here is what he says about the production of the alpha: The fusion of deuterons always happens through unstable intermediate states, and the cross section to alpha particle is only small because of the same non-relativistic issue. To get an alpha, you need to emit a gamma-ray photon, and emissions of photons are suppressed by 1/c factors. Yes, this is why the hot fusion products occur rather than helium. Even this statement is ambiguous - what does 1/c factors mean? In fact, the explanation is much easier to understand simply by noting that energy can be lost by the nucleus exploding into its parts faster than it can be released by gamma emission. The issue is based on
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
If you believe that the Rossi and DGT reactors work, then the nano-engineering methods that they claim they use is one route to LRNR among many. But at the end of the day, all these LENR methods involve charge separation. I have postulated that charge separation is the root cause of LENR. In advancement of this concept, metallic nanoparticles have emerged as fundamental structures due to the tunability of their plasmonic resonances and ability to enhance electromagnetic fields. When two metallic nanoparticles are placed close to each other, forming a dimer, new plasmonic modes is formed, which are interpreted as the hybridization of the plasmonic resonances of the individual nanoparticles. This condition exists in the nano-hairs of the micro-particles used by Rossi and DGT. The referenced paper states that Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) formation can occur at high temperatures because BEC formation is proportional to the mass of the particle that comprises the BEC ensemble. For example, the photon can form BEC at very high temperatures; the electron is not far behind. The proton can also form a BEC at room temperature being relatively light. Atoms are relatively very massive. They require very low temperatures to form a BEC. Polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves in the infrared with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation that exists on the serface of a noble metal. This particle is very light. Like the photon, Polaritions can form BEC as specified in the reference article. It is these BEC in localized areas of high electron density that 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 your 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. In detail, for these non-touching nano-hair dimers as exists on the surface of Rossi’s micro-particles, the optical response is mainly governed by the Bonding Dimer Plasmon (BDP) resonance, arising from the coupling of the dipolar modes of the individual particles. This mode presents strong charge densities of opposite sign at both sides of the inter-particle cavity that exists in the space between the nano-hairs, producing enormously enhanced local electromagnetic fields. These nano-hairs draw quantized photon infrared energy from the resonant black body heat radiation emitted from the bulk of their constituent micro-particle (4 microns resonent black body temperature is 400C). For touching particles or, when a thin conductive path is opened between the nanoparticles, a new Charge Transfer Plasmon (CTP) mode is excited, in which the whole dimer acts as a dipolar plasmon mode, so that in the oscillations both particles present net charges of opposite sign. These nano-hairs can form a Bose-Einstein Condensate with a common wave function (PSI) when aggregated into an arbitrarily large ensemble. This charge coherence greatly amplifies the effectiveness of charge separation as a mechanism for lowering the coulomb barrier of atoms just below the root of the nano-hairs as a manifestation of negative dielectric permittivity. The surface charge density oscillations associated with surface plasmons at the interface between a metal nano-hair and a dielectric(hydrogen) can give rise to strongly enhanced EMF fields which are spatially confined to the interface. Similarly, if the electron gas is confined in three dimensions, as in the case of a small subwavelength particle, the overall displacement of the electrons with respect to the positively charged lattice leads to a restoring force which in turn gives rise to specific particle plasmon resonances depending on the geometry of the particle. In particles such as nano-hairs of suitable (usually pointed) shape, extreme local charge accumulations can occur that are accompanied by strongly enhanced EMF. Because these quasiparticles are almost massless, their condensate can develop and persist at extremely high temperatures. Unfortunately, you don’t believe that this BEC formation process at high temperatures is possible. This mechanism is behind the effectiveness of properly prepared nano-materials acting on the surface of metals as an enabling causation of LENR at least in the Rossi type reactor design. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Since you think this paper is relevant, perhaps you can suggest where all the BEC are in PdD and why great effort is made to achieve temperatures near 0 K to study BEC? Ed On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Experimens have shown that a BEC can form at a temperature of 2640 K. arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086 I have posted on this elsewhere.Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Edmund Storms
[Vo]:Lockheed: Prototype 100 MW fusion reactor in maybe 5 years
Courtesy of nextbigfuture.com - Lockheed may have a design for a small low cost fusion reactor - prototype may be possible in 5 years: http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/new-google-solve-for-x-lockheed.html I have looked for, but not found, patent applications. Does anyone have more information? -- Lou Pagnucco
[Vo]:Science Set Free
Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. One topic Vorts will find interesting in the first part are the human calorimetry studies by Paul Webb performed for the US government. Did you know that we are all violators of the 2LoT?
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Unfortunately, he has no idea were the energy resulting from cold fusion comes from. He puts this phenomenon in the category of perpetual motion. What else has he misinterpreted? Ed On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Unfortunately, he has no idea were the energy resulting from cold fusion comes from. He puts this phenomenon in the category of perpetual motion. What else has he misinterpreted? Everything. Consider it a philosophical interlude.
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
It would be unfortunate if the blast merely delayed the reconstruction of the asteroid, but I suspect that this would be unlikely. The escape velocity of an asteroid is very low if I recall, which is due to the relatively small mass of the object. Isn't it normally assumed that the asteroids are just small fragments of a much larger body that was destroyed by collisions between large planet like precursors? My thought about water arose because the underground testing of nuclear blasts tends to look wimpish. This seems to be the result of the fact that a nuclear weapon has a relatively small amount of mass that does not carry away much momentum. The energy is enormous, but the momentum effects are minor in comparison. The water vaporizes quickly and generates a lot of pressure to act upon the plug of matter above, kind of like a large gun. I am not confident that the vaporization of normal asteroid material would generate sufficient push without a little help. The underground test containment seems to suggest the lack of extra push from standard rock based materials. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 5:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:45:19 -0500 (EST): Hi, [snip] A blast years in advance might spread the material in both time and space sufficiently to protect us. You have to be a little careful here. If it's too far in advance, and the blast doesn't accelerate the pieces beyond their own escape velocity, then the gravitational pull between them might bring the thing back together again before impact. It may require a bit of math to get the timing just right. BTW I don't think the water would be necessary. At the temperature of a nuclear blast, a high temperature plasma forms, surrounded by a gas. I think the plasma and the gas would provide enough pressure. However it might require a Tsar Bomba to do the job. BTW2 Asteroids that are rubble collections would obviously be better candidates than completely solid bodies, but unfortunately we don't have any say in the matter. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. Giovanni On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0waMBY3qEA4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKvvxku5So
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. I rather found him entertaining. His ideas are the type which are usually welcomed on this forum. I told you he could be annoying.
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling. ***I think when LENR is finally figured out, it will be various elements of several theories that form together the final puzzle. Note that Sinha hints strongly that Mills’s Hydrino theory might be close. I think when this all gets hashed out, that it will be a combination of theories. So the final accepted theory will be something like Mills/Sinha/Widom-Larson/Horace Heffner/Focardi/Chubbs/Storms/whomever, borrowing elements from each theory to piece it together. The biggest pieces will come from Sinha.
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
I'm listening to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A He is interesting and he has good points but he makes too much of them. The problem is when you do real science you realize that his points are not practical or useful. For example the constant changing with time. Look what happened with the speed of the neutrinos few months ago. In the end it was found to be a problem with one of the wires of the devices used. Chasing each anomalies one can think about is pretty wasteful use of resources and time. Also it seems that his criticism of conventional science comes from the bias he has towards his silly theory. Science is wrong for him because he wants his spiritualist theories are in contrast with it Giovanni On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Sheldrake makes a lot of absurd claims that are unsubstantiated. And he doesn't understand how creation from nothing is the most natural thing of all. I rather found him entertaining. His ideas are the type which are usually welcomed on this forum. I told you he could be annoying.
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
Well said but I am convinced the paper by Naudts describing the hydrino as relativistic is going to prove most important.. it is a sleeper. From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling. ***I think when LENR is finally figured out, it will be various elements of several theories that form together the final puzzle. Note that Sinha hints strongly that Mills's Hydrino theory might be close. I think when this all gets hashed out, that it will be a combination of theories. So the final accepted theory will be something like Mills/Sinha/Widom-Larson/Horace Heffner/Focardi/Chubbs/Storms/whomever, borrowing elements from each theory to piece it together. The biggest pieces will come from Sinha.
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
It does seem like the experimental evidence is rolling in on the side of BECs, at least for the time being. On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Polariton are interesting as a major player in LENR. arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7086 A new quasiparticle formed from a hybrid electron/phonon combo called a strongly coupled surface plasmon polariton-exciton modes (plexcitons) was shown to exhibit Bose-Einstein Condensation. An extremely small plexciton mass makes this the warmest BEC condensate yet reported. This extremely small mass explains the large plexciton critical temperatures, which are ~2 and ~10 orders of magnitude higher than in exciton-polariton and atomic systems, respectively. The effective plexciton temperature T and chemical potential μ extracted from the fits are T= 2640 K and μ= -160 meV for Fig. 2c, and T= 1230 K, μ= -70 meV This is beyond the melting point of most metals except tungsten and its mates. Plexcitons could make LENR go. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I think maybe a hybrid of Chubbs' and Kim's theory could be very compelling. ***I think when LENR is finally figured out, it will be various elements of several theories that form together the final puzzle. Note that Sinha hints strongly that Mills's Hydrino theory might be close. I think when this all gets hashed out, that it will be a combination of theories. So the final accepted theory will be something like Mills/Sinha/Widom-Larson/Horace Heffner/Focardi/Chubbs/Storms/whomever, borrowing elements from each theory to piece it together. The biggest pieces will come from Sinha.
Re: [Vo]:explaining CF
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: One thing that comes to mind right away is the transition from a metastable nucleus to a stable nucleus by way of the emission of a gamma-ray photon. Sometimes in a fusion you get one or more metastable states rather than a transition straight to the ground state. Each state corresponds to an isomer that has more energy than the ground state, and sometimes I believe there is more than one transition. As I further reflect on the matter of isomer transitions and the emission of gamma-ray photons, it seems to me that this is an interesting way to make the energy loss more granular, but it is also telling in that the quanta are large -- on the order of MeV, typically. So obviously isomer transitions aren't going to do it. This is suggestive of three possibilities: 1. Any draining off of mass-energy is done at the level of the electron shells (e.g., Mills's f/H). 2. There are new physics to be found, where some kind of metastable combination of two fusion precusrors can be brought and then juiced, like you might squeeze an orange, without pushing the separate pieces together so quickly that the mass-energy is released all at once. This gets back to Dave's demon thought experiment. Robin thought it would be hard to keep the nucleons apart once the strong force kicked in. 3. There has been a misdiagnosis about the draining off of mass-energy, and the energy that is released really is a quantum of 24 MeV, but it occurs in a relatively benign way (a la Ron Maimon's theory). I don't see how (2) is any more justified than (3). They both seem pretty fantastic. Have I misunderstood (2)? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Science Set Free
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Rupert Sheldrake is sometimes annoying to conventional science. Published late last month this talk in two parts is amusing at times; but, always thought provoking. One topic Vorts will find interesting in the first part are the human calorimetry studies by Paul Webb performed for the US government. Did you know that we are all violators of the 2LoT? As long as science refuses to acknowledge its own dogmas, one can expect political blowback... http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/missouri-bill-redefines-science-gives-equal-time-to-intelligent-design/ Harry
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
We all have our favorite theories. Storms finds it significant that the reactions seem to take place on the surface or near it. The cracks seem significant. On this thread, it seems like hairs can possibly trigger a BEC. And the hairs are similar to cracks in how they snag electrons. Maybe it's all coming together. I've been trying to reconcile Kim's BEC theory with Storms's NAE theory with my trapped balloons analogy. It seems like BECs would form in the middle of the material rather than on the surface.Unless the edges act like a fence and pin atoms the same way that a crowd gets pinned people start getting trampled. Then, between the hairs and the edge fence, there might be ways that formation of BECs becomes plausible. There's a possibility that the surface effects are masking other activity. I'll go back to the balloon analogy. Let's say that, rather than just a popped balloon, you have a pellet gun in the middle of a million balloon/tinkertoy lattice. You fire the gun perpendicular to the direction of 2 balloons colliding within 1 tinker toy box, which aims the fire right at the corners of the matrix. Can you hear the pellet gun fire? Probably not. And its stronger emission is even absorbed by the lattice. Could you hear a .22 going off, even if it pops a bunch of balloons in its path? Probably not, and the escallated stronger emission would probably be absorbed by the lattice.In this analogy, the bullets are the gamma rays or neutrons or whatever strong nuclear emissions that need to be absorbed by the LENR Lattice. The gun is a fusion event that generates an energetic neutron/gamma wave/whatever in a single direction, as discussed in a previous posting. Now, once the .22 gun fires along balloon lattice, the energy only gets absorbed if the lattice intercepts with the escape vector of the energy emission. Let's say it's going straight along the lattice it won't hit anything as long as the lattice is straight. But if there's an imperfection in the lattice, the bullet that was minding its own business suddenly hits a part of the lattice. At the point where the bullet hits the lattice, that's where we would see all the kinetic activity and it would appear that this is where the emission took place, but it didn't -- the original emission took place way down inside the lattice. So my reconciling suggestion is that BECs are forming inside a lattice but generating a bunch of the energetic collision evidence at the surface. On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Well said but I am convinced the paper by Naudts describing the hydrino as relativistic is going to prove most important.. it is a sleeper.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
In my opinion, all LENR causation involves charge separation. How does this charge separation happen in a micro-particle? As background, for an alternating current, electrons will concentrate near the outer part or “skin” of a conductor. For a steady unidirectional current through a homogeneous conductor, the current distribution is uniform over the cross section; that is, the current density is the same at all points in the cross section. But with an alternating current, the current is displaced more and more to the surface as the frequency increases. On a micro-particle, electrons vibrate at infrared frequencies. All free electrons in this particle will migrate to the surface of the particle and the bulk at the center of the particle will be left with a maximum positive charge. The interface between and directly at the surface of the particle will have the most intense separation between positive and negative charges. The protons that migrate into the micro-particle will concentrate just under the surface of the particle. In the balloon analogy, all the balloons will be drawn to the surface just under the top of the particle’s bulk. When fusion occurs, the nuclear products cannot get through the surface of the particle without encountering a heavy electron layer which will reduce the frequency of the gamma ray’s wave form. Ken Shoulders has demonstrated the complete elimination of radioactivity in high-level nuclear material. Whatever the mechanism may be, the neutralization of LENR radioactive waste by EV technology will be a great wonderment and blessing, According to Ken Shoulders, The NEV acts as an ultra-massive, negative ion with high charge-to-mass ratio. This provides the function of a simple nuclear accelerator. Radioactive isotopes are stabilized in this way. In this micro-particle case, the NEVs is produced by infrared photons combining with the heavy electrons on the surface of the micro-particle. Due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, these surface electrons bathed in such high coherent fields on the surface of the micro-particle increase their effective mass, thus becoming heavy electrons. These electrons react directly with protons, deuterons, or tritons passing through the surface patches reacting to an inverse beta decay process that results in simultaneous collective production of one, two, or three neutrons, respectively, and a neutrino. Collectively produced neutrons are created ultra-cold; that is, they have ultra-low momentum and extremely large quantum mechanical wavelengths and absorption cross-sections compared to “typical” neutrons at thermal energies. These surface electrons are uniquely able to immediately convert almost any locally produced or incident gamma radiation directly into infrared heat, UV and x-ray energy, thus providing a form of built-in gamma shielding for LENR nuclear reactions. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: We all have our favorite theories. Storms finds it significant that the reactions seem to take place on the surface or near it. The cracks seem significant. On this thread, it seems like hairs can possibly trigger a BEC. And the hairs are similar to cracks in how they snag electrons. Maybe it's all coming together. I've been trying to reconcile Kim's BEC theory with Storms's NAE theory with my trapped balloons analogy. It seems like BECs would form in the middle of the material rather than on the surface.Unless the edges act like a fence and pin atoms the same way that a crowd gets pinned people start getting trampled. Then, between the hairs and the edge fence, there might be ways that formation of BECs becomes plausible. There's a possibility that the surface effects are masking other activity. I'll go back to the balloon analogy. Let's say that, rather than just a popped balloon, you have a pellet gun in the middle of a million balloon/tinkertoy lattice. You fire the gun perpendicular to the direction of 2 balloons colliding within 1 tinker toy box, which aims the fire right at the corners of the matrix. Can you hear the pellet gun fire? Probably not. And its stronger emission is even absorbed by the lattice. Could you hear a .22 going off, even if it pops a bunch of balloons in its path? Probably not, and the escallated stronger emission would probably be absorbed by the lattice.In this analogy, the bullets are the gamma rays or neutrons or whatever strong nuclear emissions that need to be absorbed by the LENR Lattice. The gun is a fusion event that generates an energetic neutron/gamma wave/whatever in a single direction, as discussed in a previous posting. Now, once the .22 gun fires along balloon lattice, the energy only gets absorbed if the lattice intercepts with the escape vector of the energy emission. Let's say it's going straight along the lattice it won't hit anything as long as the lattice is straight. But
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
In the balloon analogy, all the balloons will be drawn to the surface just under the top of the particle’s bulk. ***How is that? In the balloon analogy, the tinker toys represent the palladium lattice and the balloons represent Hydrogen atoms. There hasn't been indication that hydrogen atoms migrate to the surface, has there?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
I was thinking about the Rossi type reactor and NiH system, but the principle is the same for the Palladium system. The hydrogen (H) is packed to form a hydride before the heat is applied and it will penetrant only a short way into the bulk of the micro-particle. When the particle is heated, charge separation will occur, the electron will be stripped from some of the H, and that hydrogen will be ionized leaving these protons in the bulk. Then the high negative charge at the surface will draw the protons outward toward the surface. Remember that the proton will be attracted to the positive nucleus as happens in cooper pair production because of the negative permeability coefficient of the particle’s surface charge ( the Shukla-Eliasson effect). Cheers: Axil On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: In the balloon analogy, all the balloons will be drawn to the surface just under the top of the particle’s bulk. ***How is that? In the balloon analogy, the tinker toys represent the palladium lattice and the balloons represent Hydrogen atoms. There hasn't been indication that hydrogen atoms migrate to the surface, has there?
