Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
*Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts *Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf *| P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary (Date textdate; Received textdate; Revised textdate; Accepted textdate; Published textdate) Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. PACS numbers: 25.70.Jj, 25.45.-z, 25.40.-h Keywords: fusion and fusion-fission reactions, 2H-induced nuclear reactions, nucleon induced reactions --- VI. SUMMARY It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like (positive) charge of low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles of a nuclear reaction of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering process on a free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great momentum, that is determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the hindering Coulomb barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in cases when the rate would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d → 4He process has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged particles are created, that can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy charged particles of intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can assist nuclear reactions too. It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb potential has no effect on the mechanisms discussed. Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9] according to which the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the so called solid state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal conversion process [10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in solid material, in which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away by an electron of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d → 3He nuclear transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an alternative version of the solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party of the initial particles of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged particle of the solid material (e.g. of a metal). There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed mechanism may have been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a systematic overview these fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly related or explained by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening effect observed in low energy accelerator physics investigating astrophysical factors of nuclear reactions of low atomic numbers [11]. The other one is the family of low energy nuclear fusion processes. The physical background, discussed in the Introduction and in the first part of Section V., was questioned by the two decade old announcement [12] on excess heat generation due to nuclear fusion reaction of deuterons at deuterized Pd cathodes during electrolysis at near room temperature. The paper [12] initiated
[Vo]:OT (sort of) Edison vs Tesla
A sign of the times in terms of contemporary communication arts is the following You Tube clip depicting the epic battle between Nikola Tesla vs Thomas Edison, done in Rap. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0feature=em-share_video_user feature=em-share_video_user The production was brought to you by EPIC RAB BATTLES of HISTORY. They're You Tube channel is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1Mz7kGVf0feature=em-share_video_user feature=em-share_video_user Other epic rap productions include: Gandi vs Martin Luther King Jr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6G6CZT7h4k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6G6CZT7h4klist=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-5 7VMCkOWindex=2 list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-57VMCkOWindex=2 Mosus vs Santa Claus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kRAKXFrYQ4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kRAKXFrYQ4list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-5 7VMCkOWindex=3 list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-57VMCkOWindex=3 Bruce Lee vs Clink Eastwood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCyaJS4Cbs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCyaJS4Cbslist=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-5 7VMCkOWindex=4 list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-57VMCkOWindex=4 Darth Vader vs Hitler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFA-rOls8YA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFA-rOls8YAlist=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-5 7VMCkOWindex=7 list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-57VMCkOWindex=7 Einstein vs Stephen Hawking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn7-fVtT16k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn7-fVtT16klist=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-5 7VMCkOWindex=8 list=PLQ-7WiWmOuK-55mfcd_tdcvy-57VMCkOWindex=8 .and many, many other epic battles! Enjoy! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:EckhartTolle...spooky Here?
On 3/29/2013 11:17 PM, Harvey Norris wrote: Take your babbling shit elswhere, none of us want to hear it! Beg your pardon, I'm fascinated. But maybe it shouldn't be here... Ol' Bab
RE: [Vo]:EckhartTolle...spooky Here?
Regarding a RECENT TORRENT of Vort VeRbAgE ORIGINATING from O'SULLIVAN. Harvey Norris sez: Take your babbling shit elswhere, none of us want to hear it! Babcock sez: Beg your pardon, I'm fascinated. But maybe it shouldn't be here... Ol' Bab Indeed, these would be a very appropriate discussion threads for the distinguished VoB list group. Perhaps the venerable Mr. Grok will chime in with his sage advice. PS: I have yet to understand what O'Sullilvan has against Eckhart Tolle. It would appear that Tolle has somehow morphed into the equivalent of the anti-christ.. Maybe it has something to do with a ...soul-doping planetary fascist-utopia... but I dunno. The way Jack patches and strings sentences together absolutely baffles me. It's like watching Dr. Frankenstein stapling his creation together on the laboratory slab. I-Gore! I need more brains! Actually... Rossi came to mind too! I KNOW he's crazy. Crazy enuf to have actually created an authentic e-Cat! ;-) Perhaps it's my own dyslexia. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Emergent Quantum Mechanics
Very interesting. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 12:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Emergent Quantum Mechanics On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nonlinearstudies.at/quantummechanics.php Emergent Quantum Mechanics One is here reminded of Feynman’s famous discussion of the double slit, and his introductory remark: We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way and has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. However, the above-mentioned recent classical physics experiments not only disprove Feynman’s statement w.r.t. the double slit, but prove that a whole set of “quantum” features can be shown to occur in completely classical ones, among them being the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, indeterministic behaviour of a particle despite a deterministic evolution of its statistical ensemble over many runs, nonlocal interaction, tunnelling, and, of course, a combination of all these. We are referring to the beautiful series of experiments performed by the group of Yves Couder using small liquid drops that can be kept bouncing on the surface of a bath of the same fluid for an unlimited time when the substrate oscillates vertically. These “bouncers” can become coupled to the surface waves they generate and thus become “walkers” moving at constant velocity on the liquid surface. A “walker” is defined by a lock-in phenomenon so that the drop falls systematically on the forward front of the wave generated by its previous bouncings. It is thus a “symbiotic” dynamical phenomenon consisting of the moving droplet dressed with the Faraday wave packet it emits. Couder and Fort report on single-particle diffraction and interference of walkers. They show “how this wavelike behaviour of particle trajectories can result from the feedback of a remote sensing of the surrounding world by the waves they emit”. Of course, the “walkers” of Couder’s group, despite showing so many features they have in common with quantum systems, cannot be employed one-to-one as a model for the latter, with the most obvious difference being that quantum systems are not restricted to two-dimensional surfaces. However, along with the understanding of how the Schrödinger equation can be derived via nonequilibrium thermodynamics, also the mutual relationship of particle and wave behaviour has become clearer. A video of the walkers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets Harry
RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as the likely source but it could be another isotope or several. However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side. As for now, I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell. From: Kevin O'Malley Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. --- VI. SUMMARY It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like
Re: [Vo]:Emergent Quantum Mechanics
Harry, This fits nicely into place with my technique for analyzing electromagnetic systems. I start with something that is well understood and easy to measure such as a very low frequency electromagnetic wave and mentally increase its frequency. Zero frequency is valid so you can measure the electric field from the device as well as the magnetic field. Since these are both static in this case, it is not too difficult to determine how these fields behave. It is quite apparent that there is no particle like behavior in this case. So, I ask why should there be a difference in basic form as the frequency rises. The question arises as to when the other behavior starts and I can not determine a reason for a special cut off point to exist. I use this logic to keep increasing the frequency upwards. The double slit as well as all other similar experiments fall into place very well when I consider electromagnetic phenomena as composed of waves. The main experiment that I recall which causes me trouble is when a single photon of light passes through the double slit and can be detected at only one location that matches the underlying interference pattern. A continuous wave should not behave in this manner according to my understanding. To counter the above situation is the measurement of diffraction for atoms, electrons, and etc. These are understood to be point like objects which should pass through just one slit. The fact that these projectiles also generate interference patterns suggests that something unusual is occurring that is not restricted to waves alone. Perhaps the discussion that you have posted below can help to clarify the true situation. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 11:46 pm Subject: [Vo]:Emergent Quantum Mechanics Robin, Sorry I did some googling and I learned there are ways you can derive some quantum conditions from classical physics. What remains to be seen is if all features of quantum mechanics can be derived classically, but it appears from reading the essay below, that more and more features are coming to have a classical explanation. Harry http://www.nonlinearstudies.at/quantummechanics.php Emergent Quantum Mechanics An Approach via Sub-Quantum Thermodynamics Considering a theory as emergent if it “contains or reduces to another theory in a significant manner or if its laws are tied to those of another theory via mathematical connections” [Robert Carroll], we propose that quantum mechanics is such a theory. More precisely, we propose that quantum theory emerges from a deeper, more exact theory on a sub-quantum level. In our approach, one assumes that the latter can be described with the aid of nonequilibrium thermodynamics. We ask ourselves how quantum theory would have evolved, had the “tool” of modern nonequilibrium thermodynamics existed, say, a century ago. As has recently been shown, one can derive the exact Schrödinger equation with said tool, where the relation between energy and frequency, respectively, is used as the only empirical input [Grössing], with the additional option that even the appearance of Planck’s constant may have its origin in classical physics. For an extensive review of our respective papers, and for connections to similar work, and, in particular, to Fisher information techniques, see [Carroll 2010]. In a recent review for Entropy (2010), to be published shortly, we have summarized the results of our works relating to the derivation from purely classical physics of the following quantum mechanical features: Planck’s relation E=hbar.omega for the energy of a particle, the Schrödinger equation for conservative and non-conservative systems, the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, the quantum mechanical superposition principle, Born’s rule, and the quantum mechanical “decay of a Gaussian wave packet”. We have, a.o., also proven that free quantum motion exactly equals sub-quantum anomalous (i.e., “ballistic”) diffusion, and, via computer simulations with coupled map lattices, we have shown how to calculate averaged (Bohmian) trajectories purely from a real-valued classical model. This was illustrated with the cases of the dispersion of a Gaussian wave packet, both for free quantum motion and for motion in a linear (e.g., gravitational) potential. The results are shown to be in excellent agreement with analytical expressions as they are obtained both via our approach, and also via the Bohmian theory. However, in the context of the explanation of Gaussian wave packet dispersion, quantitative statements on the trajectories’ characteristic behavior are presented, which cannot be formulated in any other existing model for quantum systems. As is well known, the main features of quantum mechanics, like the Schrödinger equation, for example, have only been postulated,
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Thanks for the information. I only had time to skim over the paper which left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the result of an experiment. Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis? If so, please help me find that reference. I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this. Dave -Original Message- From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 9:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes P´eter K´alm´an∗ and Tam´as Keszthelyi Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary (Date textdate; Received textdate; Revised textdate; Accepted textdate; Published textdate) Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. PACS numbers: 25.70.Jj, 25.45.-z, 25.40.-h Keywords: fusion and fusion-fission reactions, 2H-induced nuclear reactions, nucleon induced reactions --- VI. SUMMARY It is found that, contrary to the commonly accepted opinion, in a solid metal surrounding nuclear reactions can happen between heavy, charged particles of like (positive) charge of low initial energy. It is recognized, that one of the participant particles of a nuclear reaction of low initial energy may pick up great momentum in a Coulomb scattering process on a free, third particle of the surroundings. The virtually acquired great momentum, that is determined by the energy of the reaction, can help to overcome the hindering Coulomb barrier and can highly increase the rate of the nuclear reaction even in cases when the rate would be otherwise negligible. It is found that the electron assisted d + d → 4He process has the leading rate. In the reactions discussed energetic charged particles are created, that can become (directly or after Coulomb collisions) the source of heavy charged particles of intermediately low (of about a few keV ) energy. These heavy particles can assist nuclear reactions too. It is worth mentioning that the shielding of the Coulomb potential has no effect on the mechanisms discussed. Our thoughts were motivated by our former theoretical findings [9] according to which the leading channel of the p + d → 3He reaction in solid environment is the so called solid state internal conversion process, an adapted version of ordinary internal conversion process [10]. In the process formerly discussed [9] if the reaction takes place in solid material, in which instead of the emission of a photon, the nuclear energy is taken away by an electron of the environment (the metal), the Coulomb interaction induces a p + d → 3He nuclear transition. The processes discussed here can be considered as an alternative version of the solid state internal conversion process since it is thought that one party of the initial particles of the nuclear process takes part in Coulomb interaction with a charged particle of the solid material (e.g. of a metal). There may be many fields of physics where the traces of the proposed mechanism may have been previously appeared. It is not the aim of this work to give a systematic overview these fields. We only mention here two of them that are thought to be partly related or explained by the processes proposed. The first is the so called anomalous screening effect observed in low
[Vo]:Powerful EMF concentration
The gap between two nanowires (nanoantenna) measuring at or under .5 NM can concentrate an EMF field by a factor of *10 to the 13 power.* This ability to concentrate EMF quantified in experiments exceeds quantum mechanical predictions by a factor of 3. This can result in an EMF singularity limited only by electron tunneling over the gap. The size of the gap is proportional to the energy of the free electrons on the surface of the nanowires. Higher energy electrons can support a smaller gap, which means higher EMF confinement. On another related point as follows: http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.106803 Can Spasers go Electric? The LENR+ reactors by Rossi and DGT have solved this problem. These reactors feed their spacer arrays using induced surface currents.
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
I think it would be best to discard fusion as a minor reaction in LENR and concentrate on improving fission. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as the likely source but it could be another isotope or several. However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side. As for now, I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell. From: Kevin O'Malley Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d + d → 4He process. ---
Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
On Mar 30, 2013, at 12:16 AM, David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: The full dynamic range of the eye is 1:100 which requres encoding of 20 bits per color or 60 bits per pixel, and the static range is 1:1 representable with 14 or 42 bits. Such pixels would be a much better choise compared top increasing the megapixel to absurd levels. My camera has 41 megapixel sensor and it does splendid work. In camera technology the megapixel count does not matter itself, but how large is the sensor. And indeed this 41 Mpix sensor is the largest of its class and thus the performance is best of its class. Because the individual pixels cannot get any smaller, then the actual sensor must be made larger to fit 41 Mpix. Therefore we need 100 megapixel camera sensors, because they collect light from large area and as a bonus they leave a lot of room for zooming in good lighting conditions. Perhaps you did not realize that in digital photography, the megapixel counting is not about making higher quality raw pictures but it is left there for zooming and cropping purposes and for low light performance and for noise cancellation. What if you retrospectively want to zoom into small detail of the picture, e.g. to identify what was that bird that was captured in the background? However, why we must mimic eye? Why not just increase the color channels? Birds have four color channels. Why not use six or more color channels in digital cameras? —Jouni
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Jones, do you assume that the RPF is not an elastic collision because the strong force dominates? It is not too difficult to imagine that the two protons are bound together by the strong force for a short period of time as the new nucleus seeks a way to emit the excitation energy that it contains. We know of the beta plus decay leading to deuterium production, but this is rare. It is not clear why the excited pair of protons is not capable of emitting a gamma to lower their energy state, but if this happens the next item on the agenda would be to emit a positron and neutrino as this unstable nucleus changes to D which always would occur given time. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different? This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as the likely source but it could be another isotope or several. However, as we know in Rossi’s case – he claims that both devices are gainful, but one is hotter than the other – which may NOT be the same thing as RPF … unless the colder side is merely colder than the power input used to accelerate decay, but still slightly warm - and is not necessarily gainful. However, there can be net gain in the combined units, since protons pick up slight mass on the cold side and deposit it on the hot side. As for now, I would like to think the theory is more or less correct, and Rossi is more or less exaggerating on this claims. Time will tell. From: Kevin O'Malley Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2994525/posts Institute of Physics, Budafoki ´ut 8. F., H-1521 Budapest, Hungary ^ http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf | P´eter K´alm´an#8727; and Tam´as Keszthelyi http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1078v1.pdf Abstract Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a ”free” electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear reaction with another positively charged, slow, heavy particle can significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the particles momentum distribution in nonideal media http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf N. J. Fisch, 1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N. Starostin2 1 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540, USA 2 SRC RF Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190 Russia 3 Politecnico di Torino Department of Physics, Torino I-10125, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Italy (Dated: October 18, 2011) Abstract This study concerns a situation when measurements of the nonresonant cross-section of nuclear reactions appear highly dependent on the environment in which the particles interact. An appealing example discussed in the paper is the interaction of a deuteron beam with a target of deuterated metal Ta. In these experiments, the reaction cross section for d(d,p)t was shown to be orders of magnitude greater than what the conventional model predicts for the low-energy particles. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the information. I only had time to skim over the paper which left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the result of an experiment. Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis? If so, please help me find that reference. I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this. Dave
Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
David Jonsson davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com wrote: The camera market is strange and weird. They sell 13 megapixel cameras althoug very few can view more than 2 megapixel and commonly we view far less. That can't be right. I have some old photos from 2 MP cameras. They are tiny! They do not begin to fill the screen. A 12 MP image more than fills the biggest computer screen now available. In the future I expect we will have screens 1 m to the side, and eventually wall-sided hi-res screens, so there will always be a use for more megapixels in cameras. One benefit of having a 12 MP camera now is that you can edit the picture, cropping out parts you do not like. The resulting image still has enough detail to be interesting, or attractive. There was a photography expert retired from the NSA who made conventional film cameras with gigantic resolution, which he used to make landscape photos. He would blow them up to wall sized murals and every inch showed astounding detail. It took him days to take a shot sometimes because he had to wait for good weather. I don't recall his name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
Here is another experimental paper Enhancement of the Deuteron-Fusion Reactions in Metals and its Experimental Implications http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.4538.pdf A. Huke,1, * K. Czerski,2, 1 P. Heide,1 G. Rupre ht,3, 1 N. Targosz,2 and W. ebrowski2 1Institut für Optik und Atomare Physik, Technis he Universität Berlin Hardenbergstraÿe 36, 10623 Berlin, Germany 2Institute of Physics, University of Szczecin, Szcze in, Poland 3TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Recent measurements of the reaction 2H(d,p)3H in metallic environments at very low energies performed by different experimental groups point to an enhanced electron screening effect. However, the resulting screening energies differ strongly for divers host metals and different experiments. Here, we present new experimental results and investigations of interfering processes in the irradiated targets On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Enhancement of fusion rates due to quantum effects in the particles momentum distribution in nonideal media http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3482.pdf N. J. Fisch, 1 M. G. Gladush,2 Yu. V. Petrushevich,2 Piero Quarati,3 and A. N. Starostin2 1 Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. 08540, USA 2 SRC RF Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research, Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190 Russia 3 Politecnico di Torino Department of Physics, Torino I-10125, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Cagliari, Italy (Dated: October 18, 2011) Abstract This study concerns a situation when measurements of the nonresonant cross-section of nuclear reactions appear highly dependent on the environment in which the particles interact. An appealing example discussed in the paper is the interaction of a deuteron beam with a target of deuterated metal Ta. In these experiments, the reaction cross section for d(d,p)t was shown to be orders of magnitude greater than what the conventional model predicts for the low-energy particles. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Thanks for the information. I only had time to skim over the paper which left me with the understanding that the paper is a theoretical one and not the result of an experiment. Did I fail to find the experimental evidence to support the hypothesis? If so, please help me find that reference. I hope that more vortex members submit facts such as this. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Why not expect fusion in metals to be different?
From: David Roberson Jones, do you assume that the RPF is not an elastic collision because the strong force dominates? Yes. The strong force is well-named… by far the strongest force in nature. It is not too difficult to imagine that the two protons are bound together by the strong force for a short period of time as the new nucleus seeks a way to emit the excitation energy that it contains. This energy transfer between two protons is not always “emitted” per se – but it can be coupled to other particles as spin waves. The quanta are related to bosons from the quark mass and governed by QCD. These are a Goldstone bosons (pseudo or Nambu Goldstone bosons) which correspond to the spontaneously broken internal symmetry generators, following a strong force reaction; and are characterized by the quantum numbers of these bosons. The magnon is the prime example of the emitted energy – but it is a “spin wave” pseudo particle, and not a photon. We know of the beta plus decay leading to deuterium production, but this is rare. Extraordinarily rare. In LENR, the experimenter would not see a single deuteron in a thousand years. It is not clear why the excited pair of protons is not capable of emitting a gamma to lower their energy state, QCD color charge is not high energy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge but if this happens the next item on the agenda would be to emit a positron and neutrino as this unstable nucleus changes to D which always would occur given time. There is simply not enough energy to play with to even suggest substantial deuterium. Essentially, D never happens (unless that is one of your hypothetical LENR “miracles”). The excess (or deficit) energy per proton over the average mass is a fraction of the maximum of 70 parts per million (of the total mass-energy of the proton) and only the Boltzmann tail of that distribution is “useable” maybe 4-5%. It can show up as anomalous gain or as anomalous loss (internal heat sink). As gain, it can materialize as “thermal energy” due to magnetic induction (in ferromagnetic metals like nickel) since the magnon spin wave is the prime example of bosonic mass/energy transfer. As loss it can materialize as a magneto-caloric effect. -Original Message- This paper confirms more than ever that D+D fusion is a fundamentally different phenomenon than proton-only reactions (DGT, Rossi, Mills etc), which leave no ash and emit no significant gamma radiation. To understand LENR, we need two completely different theories. Ockham be damned. There is an excellent model for proton-only reactions which leave no ash - P+P reversible fusion (RPF) and the model is our Sun. Almost all solar fusion is P+P RPF. Wiki has an entry, so this is (almost) mainstream physics so far. It is also standard physics that reversible fusion is real fusion (not an elastic collision) and that it involves quantum color changes in the 6 quarks involved and that there is no net gain on our sun. However, the two protons coming into RPF are NOT the same two coming out, and there will always be slight mass changes between the two fusing protons - which tend to be net neutral (no gain) and tend to equalize proton mass to within a within very tight range. The only thing missing from the solar model – for us to learn something WRT nickel-hydrogen reactions on earth, is to understand how one can engineer a slight bit of asymmetry into the RPF reaction, in order to provide net gain of energy. This is why Rossi’s recent announcement was slightly intriguing to me, despite his theatrical antics and penchant for half-truths. In analyzing how one could use RPF for net gain, the best solution which I could come up with, on paper, is to have two adjoining reactors, one of which gives anomalous heat and the other anomalous cooling. In order to have net gain, the twin reactions would require mass to be converted to energy on the hot side, and the opposite on the cold-side. But one would likely need to convert a different kind of energy than electric input, to pump up depleted mass (on the cold-side). Thus protons can thus be seen as energy transfer carriers using slight mass enhancement via magnons. This “pumping up” or cold-side could be via accelerated nuclear decay energy, for instance. Potassium-40 stands out as
[Vo]:Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARiULhvyjo Rohner Group Demonstrates the Missing Heat Transfer Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless). This is due to noble gas cluster explosion reaction that produces the pressure of gas expansion. cheers: axil
Re: [Vo]:EckhartTolle...spooky Here?
On Mar 30, 2013, at 7:49, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Actually... Rossi came to mind too! I KNOW he’s crazy. Crazy enuf to have actually created an authentic e-Cat! ;-) Actually, I wonder if Rossi is the sanest one around, and his behavior attributable to the unenviable need to suffer all of us in the peanut gallery. Eric
[Vo]:RE: ENERGY. . . VORTEX . . . SPIRIT EDDIES
My 'points of view' are BRUTALLY opinionated. That's a given. And of that salient point I am fully aware. I am an equal opportunity OFFENDER of JUST ABOUT EVERYONE at least some of the time. . .Vortex guys got 'my' number some time ago; and merely, Ho Hum. . . blow it off~:^) So that's why you don't see much 'vorticular over-re-action' to my various POSITS. . . don't take that for approval. . . I assure you, IT IS MOST DEFINITIVELY NOT VORTEX APPROVAL!~:^D And I have no plans in the near future to premeditatedly alter that trajectory. . . . and that is because VORTEX is a clearing house for expositive declaration, of nearly anything scientific; or really ANYTHING that is ENERGY. . . and it's ALLENERGY. . . even where ENERGY becomes SOURCE and was CLASSICALLY CALLED SPIRIT which Alchemists called 'Aether' New Energy folks are calling Zero Point, AexoPlasma etc. . . ~;^D So Man, if you take any 'offense' of that about me that seems rude or OVER STREAM of CONSCIOUSNESS. . . that's a waste of your time; since it's seriously NOTHING PERSONAL. . . I have a 'trajectory' which will not brook much diversion. But, I DO appreciate the exchange. . . be well my friends. . . Jack Harbach O'Sullivan
Re: [Vo]:Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless).
The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation. In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARiULhvyjo Rohner Group Demonstrates the Missing Heat Transfer Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless). This is due to noble gas cluster explosion reaction that produces the pressure of gas expansion. cheers: axil
Re: [Vo]:Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless).
Bob Rohner said: To continue. People have joined with me to get this done and hopefully make a profit for their effort. I am a believer in greed, I am a believer in incentive, I am a believer in the American system of free enterprise. I do not believe in open sourcing. It results only in a free ticket for the rich to control and provides no incentive to bring a product to market. Anything I say to you tonight could be on someone else's provisional patent tomorrow. I appreciate your comments. Does anyone know patent law? I thought that Papp had all this stuff covered in his patents. How can Bob Rohner claim intellectual property on this technology when so many others have covered the same subject with patents that have expired? Cheers:Axil On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation. In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARiULhvyjo Rohner Group Demonstrates the Missing Heat Transfer Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless). This is due to noble gas cluster explosion reaction that produces the pressure of gas expansion. cheers: axil
[Vo]:test
test -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:It is fission dear fellows; clear your minds of confusion
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:48:47 -0400: Hi, [snip] There is a limit to stability, once stability reaches that limit, there is no way to go but toward instability. As the EMF grows in strength, the nuclear forces become increasingly unstable. Given a sufficiently intense EMF field, sufficient instability can be achieved to overcome the fission limit. The key is to produce an irresistibly strong disruptive EMF to overcome the fission limit of the nucleus. This is the engineering challenge. Cheers:Axil [snip] A sufficiently strong gamma ray will sometimes cause fission in a Uranium nucleus. The gamma needs be in the ball park of 10 MeV. That's because that's approximately the energy needed to fission the nucleus, i.e. to overcome the difference in energy between the volume term and the rest. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: only a perfect LENR theory should attack other theories
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:38:47 -0400: Hi, [snip] Sorry Harry, I don't think so. In fact probably the reverse. The h_bar arises because that's the angular momentum of a photon. Natural constant. Consequence of the makeup of the fabric of space-time (IMO). Any jiggling that occurs based on the motion of the nucleus might however help in making forbidden transitions somewhat possible. Ok, but earlier you said Maxwellian EM dynamics leaves out hbar. When I heard this I thought you were claiming that it is possible to derive the existence of hbar by way of a mathematical argument, just as Einstein derived the relation E=mc^2. However, h is a condition imposed on the equations of Maxwell's EM dynamics to make them consistent with observations. Just as photons have angular momentum so do Mawellian EM waves, but the latter does not have to be quantized. Harry I think Plank's constant needs to be worked into the equations somewhere, since they deal with EM fields, and Plank's constant is an implicit property of such fields IMO. If this were done, then I think it would become obvious why the Hydrogen ground state doesn't radiate. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Emergent Quantum Mechanics
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:46:30 -0400: Hi, [snip] As has recently been shown, one can derive the exact Schrödinger equation with said tool, where the relation between energy and frequency, respectively, is used as the only empirical input [Grössing], with the additional option that even the appearance of Plancks constant may have its origin in classical physics. Note that Plancks constant has the dimension of energy x time, so when they introduce the relation between energy and frequency, respectively, is used as the only empirical input they are in fact introducing Plancks constant. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:3*20 bit cameras wanted
On 30 March 2013 19:46, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There was a photography expert retired from the NSA who made conventional film cameras with gigantic resolution, which he used to make landscape photos. He would blow them up to wall sized murals and every inch showed astounding detail. It took him days to take a shot sometimes because he had to wait for good weather. I don't recall his name. Yep, and then he bought Nokia's Pureview smartphone, with gigantic 41 MPix sensor and was amazed what he can do with 41 megapixels. He appeared on Nokia's commercial promotion video. I too do not remember his name. 41 Mpix sensors are amazing in good lighting conditions. —Jouni
[Vo]:New Wired UK Article (David Hambling)
Cold fusion research continues in 2013 as further experiments are planned http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/30/rossi Covers the state of the Martin Fleishmann Memorial Project and Rossi's announcement of the completion of third-part tests. (Nothing new, but good to see they're tracking it) (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK Article (David Hambling)
Same report, cleansed of Rossi's references, for purposes of publication elsewhere. There has been steady progress in the world of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), better known as Cold Fusion, in the last few months. The main commercial players have been quiet but the open-source Martin Fleishmann Memorial Project http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/home (MFMP) has made some big steps towards its goal of proving the reality of LENR to a skeptical world. Bob Greenyerhttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/facilitators/32-bob-greenyeris one of the driving forces behind the MFMP. He's a successful entrepreneur, having run a diverse portfolio of businesses in the fields of pharmaceuticals, finance, advertising and education. But now he's in a business that costing him money rather than making it, and he loves it. Like the other MFMP team members, he has put in a lot of his own time and money because he believes in the cause. MFMP has no interest in intellectual property, says Greenyer. It wants to share it with the world. One of the MFMP's first aims is a cheap, simple apparatus that can be easily replicated and which shows that new fire (as MFMP terms the reaction) produces energy. It aims to do this as transparently as possible, in an exercise in crowd-sourced engineering. Greenyer calls it science by the people for the people. He has seen the disruptive effects of big egos elsewhere in LENR research and wants to avoid the destructive patterns of rivalry and secrecy which can result. We will work with anyone, whether they are a barrow boy or a nuclear physicist, says Greenyer. In contrast to normal practice where everything is behind closed doors until a paper is published, with the MFMP it's right out in the open. Experimental protocols and detailed results are published day by day on the Replicate section of its website http://www.quantumheat.org/. The only thing that does remain secret is the identity of some of their collaborators, as any association with cold fusion could damage the reputation of most scientists. Greenyer says this open approach has been very successful because it has identified possible flaws in the experimental procedure and allows his team to identify potential criticisms of its setup. This means it should be able to come up with a foolproof demonstration by the end of the process. The MFMP's experiments are based on the work of Italian physicist Francesco Celani, who has made the details of his research available to the group. Celani has given several successful demonstrations over the past year, and his work has beenreplicated by third partieshttp://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/celani-announces-3rd-party-replication/. The apparatus consists of a nanostructured nickel wire weighing 275 mg loaded with hydrogen. The wire produces roughly four watts extra of excess heat in addition to the fifteen watts supplied. This continues for many hours, showing that far more energy is produced than could be accounted for by a chemical reaction. The challenge is of course in the detail of the setup and ensuring that there is no possible source of error. Four watts from a small length of wire represents a high energy density, But why not crank it up and produce more power to make it that much more obvious? Greenyer says that this would be possible, but the team needs to understand more before it can be done safely. There have been explosions and injuries in LENR labs before now, and a well-designed experiment should be able to provide proof of new fire at the power levels they have. Greenyer notes that the MFMP is well behind where some of the competitors claim to be. But he believes that the advantage of its setup is that it cannot simply be bought out by hostile interests. In addition, its progress may force other researchers into the open if they want to be seen to be ahead. It doesn't matter if we prove it, or if we force others to, says Greenyer. What's important is that this gets recognition. The next few weeks will see some improved experimental approaches that will provide better figures and eradicate possible sources of error. An elaborate protocol will see live and inert wires tested side by side, with the same tests being carried out inmultiple laboratorieshttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc. The live and inert wires are the same except for the nanostructure in which the reaction occurs. While this may not be the final configuration, if the results continue as they have done it's getting pretty close to a setup that produces measurable amounts of excess heat reliably and repeatably -- what cold fusion researchers have been trying to achieve for 20 years. The next stage for MFMP is to raise funds to demonstrate the technology to the world, using Kickstarter. Greenyer says that one experiment would cost around £50k, if it raises £150k it can set up three independent replications in different countries, £350k would be enough for ten
Re: [Vo]:Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless).
Papp's patents are obviously invalid as no one skilled in the art has been able to take his patent disclosures and realize beneficial use from them. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Rohner said: To continue. People have joined with me to get this done and hopefully make a profit for their effort. I am a believer in greed, I am a believer in incentive, I am a believer in the American system of free enterprise. I do not believe in open sourcing. It results only in a free ticket for the rich to control and provides no incentive to bring a product to market. Anything I say to you tonight could be on someone else's provisional patent tomorrow. I appreciate your comments. Does anyone know patent law? I thought that Papp had all this stuff covered in his patents. How can Bob Rohner claim intellectual property on this technology when so many others have covered the same subject with patents that have expired? Cheers:Axil On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The feedback current motor stopped spinning near the end of the video. This is concerning because something is stopping the feedback current generation. In a two cylinder Papp engine, the feedback current should be constant to power the other cylinder. On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARiULhvyjo Rohner Group Demonstrates the Missing Heat Transfer Bob Rohner demonstrates that the Papp reaction is endothermic (heatless). This is due to noble gas cluster explosion reaction that produces the pressure of gas expansion. cheers: axil
Re: [Vo]:Electricity from solar and wind in Germany
Thanks for sharing this, German electricity production is very interesting topic, because it is sort of a sneak peak into the near future of energy. Having such a detailed graphs around is very nice. See especially page 16 graph. it is very interesting to see how well wind and solar are actually complementing each other. —Jouni On Mar 29, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A good set of slides: http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2012.pdf
