Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
But, what of the excess heat Pons allegedly saw in the H cell(s)? Paul Breed wrote: > I've read behind the paywall... > > It looks like the two D cells made He4 significantly above background He4. > One of the H cells started with no He4 and ended with no He 4... > > The other H cell had a slowly increasing He4, but it seemed to asymptotic > with back ground Atmospheric He4... never higher than background... > so I would suspect a leak before He4 generation.. > The run time was 95 days, so it would not take much of a leak > [...]
[Vo]:Science fiction stop action movie by my son Saverio-Madis
My son Saverio Madis made a pretty good stop action movie about space exploration and an eventful encounter between galactic civilizations. Please support this budding science-artist and visit his youtube page, like and leave a comment if you can. Thank you for your support, Giovanni We come in peace by Saverio Madis Santostasi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKWB0mGdLGc&feature=youtu.be
Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
Jed, I've read behind the paywall... It looks like the two D cells made He4 significantly above background He4. One of the H cells started with no He4 and ended with no He 4... The other H cell had a slowly increasing He4, but it seemed to asymptotic with back ground Atmospheric He4... never higher than background... so I would suspect a leak before He4 generation.. The run time was 95 days, so it would not take much of a leak On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery wrote: > > What is your diagnosis of Krivit? >> > > I don't know what to make of him. I have not been paying attention to him > for some time now. > > I do not know what to make of this article because it is behind a paywall. > I do not know what paper at SRI he refers to. If I had the whole article I > would look up the SRI paper and see how it compares to Krivit's > description. Sometimes he gets it right, but sometimes he gets it wrong. He > needs an editor. > > The part about Pons is silly, as I said. It is common knowledge that they > got heat from H2O. Krivit is presenting it as some sort of revelation. > Anyone who has been following the literature since 1989 will have seen this > many times. I will grant, it does not fit some of the models. Maybe > Hagelstein's is among them? My feeling is that you will never find a model > or a theory that fits all of the data, because some of the data is > mistaken. Some of the claims have only rarely been seen, at small s/n > ratios. They may be mistakes. > > Perhaps F&P were wrong about this. No one knows. You would need a magic > touchstone to know. Until the claim is widely replicated there is no way to > know. > > Other data may not be mistaken, but it may be misinterpreted. For example, > there is no doubt that cold fusion is sometimes accompanied by neutrons, > but Storms believes these are from fractofusion, a prosaic effect. He > thinks they have nothing to do with the cold fusion nuclear reaction. If he > is right then trying to shoehorn the neutrons into a nuclear theory is a > mistake. They are caused by a well-known physical effect that happens to > occur at the same time because this is a highly loaded, stressed metal > lattice. The neutrons are coincidental with a common cause to cold fusion, > but no deep significance. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:05:40 -0400: Hi, [snip] >My feeling is that you will never find a model >or a theory that fits all of the data, because some of the data is >mistaken. Some of the claims have only rarely been seen, at small s/n >ratios. They may be mistakes. Bingo! Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Pons-Fleischmann also saw heat from light water in 1989
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:21:36 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, wrote: > >1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4 >> > >It would be interesting to see the paper they're referring to. Note that >one of the reactions with lithium (which might be in an electrolyte or an >impurity in the cathode) is: > >p+7Li ? 2 * 4He + 16.8 MeV > >So if you have fast protons shooting out of the cathode (if it is an >electrolytic experiment), and LiOH or LiOD is being used, you could get >4He. In this case a "significant" amount might be a lot but less than can >account for the excess heat that was observed. > >Eric I note that Steve Krivit says they produced He4 from alight water experiment, (and makes a big deal of it), but then at the bottom only says that they admitted to detecting excess heat from a light water experiment. Therefore based on the info as provided, it's quite possible that they did indeed detect excess heat, but that He4 was not the product. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Pons-Fleischmann also saw heat from light water in 1989
I wrote: So if you have fast protons shooting out of the cathode (if it is an > electrolytic experiment), and LiOH or LiOD is being used, you could get 4He. > Reading more carefully, I see that it was a "light-hydrogen" gas experiment. The light hydrogen part rules out LiOD (if it were an electrolytic experiment). And the gas part suggests that if lithium were involved, it might need to be an impurity in the substrate. But it would be nice to see the paper. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Pons-Fleischmann also saw heat from light water in 1989
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, wrote: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4 > It would be interesting to see the paper they're referring to. Note that one of the reactions with lithium (which might be in an electrolyte or an impurity in the cathode) is: p+7Li → 2 * 4He + 16.8 MeV So if you have fast protons shooting out of the cathode (if it is an electrolytic experiment), and LiOH or LiOD is being used, you could get 4He. In this case a "significant" amount might be a lot but less than can account for the excess heat that was observed. Eric
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
I think that the isothermal temperature mapping will correspond to the extent of the Bose Einstein condensate. The temperature will be equalized inside this condensate. This includes the nickel powder. The fact that the nickel powder does not melt points to the establishment of a BEC. Inside the superfluid of the BEC, the heat is spread equally. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > > If the thermalization is on the nickel powder ... then things are >> complicated : will the powder melt? >> > > This was one of Joshua Cude's questions. It's a very interesting > question. I think it was passed by too quickly during the Armageddon mele. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
James Bowery wrote: What is your diagnosis of Krivit? > I don't know what to make of him. I have not been paying attention to him for some time now. I do not know what to make of this article because it is behind a paywall. I do not know what paper at SRI he refers to. If I had the whole article I would look up the SRI paper and see how it compares to Krivit's description. Sometimes he gets it right, but sometimes he gets it wrong. He needs an editor. The part about Pons is silly, as I said. It is common knowledge that they got heat from H2O. Krivit is presenting it as some sort of revelation. Anyone who has been following the literature since 1989 will have seen this many times. I will grant, it does not fit some of the models. Maybe Hagelstein's is among them? My feeling is that you will never find a model or a theory that fits all of the data, because some of the data is mistaken. Some of the claims have only rarely been seen, at small s/n ratios. They may be mistakes. Perhaps F&P were wrong about this. No one knows. You would need a magic touchstone to know. Until the claim is widely replicated there is no way to know. Other data may not be mistaken, but it may be misinterpreted. For example, there is no doubt that cold fusion is sometimes accompanied by neutrons, but Storms believes these are from fractofusion, a prosaic effect. He thinks they have nothing to do with the cold fusion nuclear reaction. If he is right then trying to shoehorn the neutrons into a nuclear theory is a mistake. They are caused by a well-known physical effect that happens to occur at the same time because this is a highly loaded, stressed metal lattice. The neutrons are coincidental with a common cause to cold fusion, but no deep significance. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: If the thermalization is on the nickel powder ... then things are > complicated : will the powder melt? > This was one of Joshua Cude's questions. It's a very interesting question. I think it was passed by too quickly during the Armageddon mele. Eric
Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
What is your diagnosis of Krivit? The reason I ask is that his site has provided important information available nowhere else online that I can see, which means that his bad information does more damage. A diagnosis would help calibrate. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > The account at New Energy Times seems garbled to me. > > I have not heard of an experiment at SRI that produced helium starting > from hydrogen. As far as I know, the Ni-H experiments at SRI did not work. > I do not recall anyone who looked for helium or deuterium in Ni-H or Pd-H > experiments. > > As readers here know, Storms thinks that Ni-H produces deuterium. > > This is typical nonsense from Krivit: > > Pons reluctantly admitted to reporters that the experimental data he and > Fleischmann had accumulated suggested that they had observed excess heat in > light-water (H2O) electrolytic cells as well as in heavy-water (D2O) > cells. > > He did not seem "reluctant" to me. He was matter-of-fact. He and Martin > often discussed this. These results are described in ICCF1 as I recall and > in many other papers. I think it is in "Fire from Ice" too. In other words, > this is common knowledge. Storms discussed it too. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Alan Fletcher wrote: > From: "H Veeder" > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:49:37 PM > > > > Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what > > the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. . . . > > Not right, because it doesn't matter for a black box test. There's only > one place for the heat to get OUT -- the surface. > Well now, Harry has a good point. We do not know the temperature at the centre (center). I sure would like to know it! I suppose that is where your Spice thermal simulation comes in. It should tell us how hot it got. That might be valuable information indeed. You reiterated the points I was trying to make to Milstone over at Forbes: it is a black box test and there is only one way out. He doesn't get it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
> From: "H Veeder" > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:49:37 PM > Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what > the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. The production of > energy and the transformation of the energy into heat do not have to > occur in the same place. For example if a bristle brush is spun > inside a tube the walls the tube will get hot from friction but the > heat is not flowing from the centre of the brush. > > Harry Not right, because it doesn't matter for a black box test. There's only one place for the heat to get OUT -- the surface. I've nearly finished my Spice thermal simulation with actual material values (as far as I have them). If the thermalization is on the nickel powder ... then things are complicated : will the powder melt? But once the heat gets to the inner steel cylinder, there's very little temperature drop to the outside, because Corundum has almost the same (or greater!) thermal conductivity as steel. (I'm not sure it IS solid corundum ... one of the little details missing from the paper).
Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
The account at New Energy Times seems garbled to me. I have not heard of an experiment at SRI that produced helium starting from hydrogen. As far as I know, the Ni-H experiments at SRI did not work. I do not recall anyone who looked for helium or deuterium in Ni-H or Pd-H experiments. As readers here know, Storms thinks that Ni-H produces deuterium. This is typical nonsense from Krivit: Pons reluctantly admitted to reporters that the experimental data he and Fleischmann had accumulated suggested that they had observed excess heat in light-water (H2O) electrolytic cells as well as in heavy-water (D2O) cells. He did not seem "reluctant" to me. He was matter-of-fact. He and Martin often discussed this. These results are described in ICCF1 as I recall and in many other papers. I think it is in "Fire from Ice" too. In other words, this is common knowledge. Storms discussed it too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
H Veeder wrote: > Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what the > temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. > Yes. I went on to say that. I did not quote my entire response. I also said: ". . . Presumably the anomalous reaction occurred in the inner cylinder, but thermodynamically it makes no difference where, exactly, it originated. It might have been in the oven but that would not affect the conclusion. All the heat must emerge from the surface. All is accounted for." He did not understand. He again accused me of lying. He does not seem to know much about heat. He also thinks that the third wire is "extra" or "dead." I wrote to him: "There is not an extra wire. It is not dead. This is 3-phase power. Please look that up if you do not understand the concept. Please do not touch an exposed wire in a 3-phase plug. It is not 'dead.' It will shock you." People sometimes make assertions with assurance and a loud voice inversely proportional to their knowledge. As Yeats put it, in the Second Coming: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Also, Millstone has apparently never heard of the second law of > thermodynamics. He keeps insisting we can't be sure the heat originates > from inside the cell because they measure the temperature at the outside > wall. He said, quote: > > "The actual E-Cat, supposedly producing the 'excess' heat, was a separate > cylinder inside the electric oven. The testers only observed the > temperature of the outside of the oven. > > The fact that you [Jed] can’t get this simple fact right shows how sloppy > and biased your comments are. . . ." > > Perhaps he is worried about fraud and imagines the Ecat is being heated externally by infrared lasers or some other nefarious device. > Very odd. > > I explained, but I doubt he understands: > > "Whatever was inside the oven has to be the source of anomalous heat. The > oven as a whole was the hottest object in the room. Heat only goes from a > hotter body to a cooler body. This is elementary thermodynamics. . . ." > > Irrespective of fraud, he is technically right. We don't know what the temperature is at the centre of the Ecat. The production of energy and the transformation of the energy into heat do not have to occur in the same place. For example if a bristle brush is spun inside a tube the walls the tube will get hot from friction but the heat is not flowing from the centre of the brush. Harry
Re: [Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
Robert Park mentions it on p.24 of his book "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud". See - books.google.com/books?isbn=0198604432 > http://goo.gl/zn1Lb > > Is this a known expriment? >
RE: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
Oh, yes, if your budget is short, you can get static mixers in some epoxy glue kits for cheap. D2 From: djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:26:21 -0600 Be sure to use inline static mixers up stream from your sensors. I don't see that stated. It is very important. Also me sure that the leads/shield probe length to the sensor are in the flow for a good distance so there is no "wicking" of temperature. D2 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:01:15 -0400 From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has built a flow calorimeter for their next series of tests. Lots of pictures of the apparatus: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-3/280-multi-wire-test-to-be-run-with-new-flow-calorimeter#!DSC05822__Medium_ Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
DJ Cravens wrote: Be sure to use inline static mixers up stream from your sensors. > I don't see that stated. > Yeah, I thought about those in-line mixers you use when I read this. You should go on the MFMP site and recommend those things. Give them the part name and number. 15 ml/min. is too slow. They need mixing. Even the in-line mixers may not be enough. I think a faster flow rate might be advisable. As I recall, McKubre once told me it should never be less than 30 ml. Or was it 60? 1 per second? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
Oh I should say that 15 ml / min is OK, depending on what your expected heat output is. It is almost the "magic" 14.33 ml/min that gives you 1 degree / watt. My guess is that they may practically get to about +/- 50 mW with the system. I would worry that the hot glue and heat shrink may cause problem if something goes wrong. (and it usually does). D2 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:51:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That's something. It is sort of the opposite of most calorimeters, but I guess it should work. It says: "Instead of measuring the exact mass flow rate, or the volume flow rate, however, we measure the heat capacity flow rate." What they mean is, they have a "metering heater." That's the second heater, placed in line just before the copper cell. It adds a precise amount of heat to the flow, and they measure the temperature rise from that. The next temperature rise -- from the copper cell -- can then be compared to the "metering heater" temperature change. The flow rate is only 15 ml/minute which makes me worry that the mixing may not be effective. There may be streamlines. They did give some thought to mixing, putting the sensors after right angle tube connections. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
just a right angle bend is usually not enough. The flow at low rates is not well mixed and the placement of the sensor in the radial direction becomes important. You need a mixer that mixes the outer and inner radial parts of the flow. D2 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:51:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That's something. It is sort of the opposite of most calorimeters, but I guess it should work. It says: "Instead of measuring the exact mass flow rate, or the volume flow rate, however, we measure the heat capacity flow rate." What they mean is, they have a "metering heater." That's the second heater, placed in line just before the copper cell. It adds a precise amount of heat to the flow, and they measure the temperature rise from that. The next temperature rise -- from the copper cell -- can then be compared to the "metering heater" temperature change. The flow rate is only 15 ml/minute which makes me worry that the mixing may not be effective. There may be streamlines. They did give some thought to mixing, putting the sensors after right angle tube connections. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
Be sure to use inline static mixers up stream from your sensors. I don't see that stated. It is very important. Also me sure that the leads/shield probe length to the sensor are in the flow for a good distance so there is no "wicking" of temperature. D2 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:01:15 -0400 From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has built a flow calorimeter for their next series of tests. Lots of pictures of the apparatus: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-3/280-multi-wire-test-to-be-run-with-new-flow-calorimeter#!DSC05822__Medium_ Harry
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Also, Millstone has apparently never heard of the second law of thermodynamics. He keeps insisting we can't be sure the heat originates from inside the cell because they measure the temperature at the outside wall. He said, quote: "The actual E-Cat, supposedly producing the 'excess' heat, was a separate cylinder inside the electric oven. The testers only observed the temperature of the outside of the oven. The fact that you [Jed] can’t get this simple fact right shows how sloppy and biased your comments are. . . ." Very odd. I explained, but I doubt he understands: "Whatever was inside the oven has to be the source of anomalous heat. The oven as a whole was the hottest object in the room. Heat only goes from a hotter body to a cooler body. This is elementary thermodynamics. . . ." He reminds me of a Wikipedia editor. - Jed
[Vo]:@NewEnergyTimes: 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4
http://goo.gl/zn1Lb Is this a known expriment?
Re: [Vo]:Pons-Fleischmann also saw heat from light water in 1989
Here is the URL - http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/06/19/1998-sri-international-hydrogen-lenr-experiment-produces-helium-4/ > 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4 > > EXCERPT: > New Energy Times has discovered that a 1998 light-hydrogen gas LENR > experiment performed at SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., > unexpectedly produced a significant amount of helium-4. > ... > At the Dallas, Texas, American Chemical Society national meeting on April > 12, 1989, reporters asked cold fusion co-discoverer Stanley Pons about > the obvious control experiment of running with all conditions identical > but with normal water rather than heavy water. > ... > Pons reluctantly admitted to reporters that the experimental data he and > Fleischmann had accumulated suggested that they had observed excess heat > in light-water (H2O) electrolytic cells as well as in heavy-water (D2O) > cells.
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
There have been a few responses over at Forbes. I have a feeling these people are reaching the end of the road in some sense. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel. They now make assertions directly contradicted by the paper. Three examples: - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kirk Shanahan published a long response claiming that the IR camera may not have worked. I hope I am not simplifying his reason, which is that the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power law makes the numbers increase quickly. That's a valid point. Also he said: "We know the surface temp is inhomogeneous, so more than one spot needs to be checked." He did not realize that the IR camera does read the entire surface, and it does show inhomogeneities. That's the whole point of it. Shanahan mistakenly thought they used the thermocouple on only one spot with "a non-loaded Ecat." He confused test #2 and test #3. Here is part of my response: You wrote: “Actually, they checked the temp of one spot on a non-loaded Ecat.” They checked it with the thermocouple continuously, for the entire run. You are confusing the second and third runs. The paper says: “A K-type thermocouple heat probe was placed under one of the dots, to monitor temperature trends in a fixed point. The same probe had also been used with the E-Cat HT2 to double check the IR camera readings during the cooling phase.” The temperature did not vary much from one spot to the next. The differences is about 5 deg C. It makes no sense for you to assert that the IR camera happened to measure the temperature correctly in the spot measured with the thermocouple, but it got all of the other temperatures wrong. It would take a huge difference to erase the excess heat. There is no way a steel surface could have gigantic temperature differences in any case. Steel conducts heat too well for that. The lower temperatures are far from the heat source, as shown in the profile. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yugo wrote: "This entire adventure is very bizarre. There was no need to go to a far more complicated and difficult to measure “new” and “hot” ecat unless the whole idea was to confuse the experimenters and to hide deliberate errors in the measurement. . . ." MY RESPONSE: There is nothing complicated or difficult about this measurement. This technique is used millions of times around the world in industrial applications. The instruments are industry standard, off-the-shelf, and intended for this purpose. There is not the slightest chance Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is wrong or this technique does not work. . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - And, finally John Milstone: jedrothwell said: “Others claim that there are extra hidden wires under the insulation and no one checked for that, which is preposterous.” So, after claiming that they did check for hidden conductors in the wire, you now admit that it is just your assumption that they checked for it. . . . RESPONSE: No, as Ian Walker already pointed out to you, it says in the Appendix they checked for it. Also they told me they did. Figure 1 shows a direct connection to each of the 3 wires (for voltage) in addition to the clamp on ammeters. It is not possible they stripped the wires for voltage measurement and somehow failed to notice there were two conductors. In any case, the two conductors would short out. The paper says: “Figure 1 shows the wiring diagram of the PCE-830. All cables were checked before measurements began. The ground cable, the presence of which was necessary for safety reasons, was disconnected. The container holding the electronic control circuitry was lying on a wooden plank and was lifted off the surface it was resting on, and checked on all sides to make sure that there were no other connections. . . ." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pons-Fleischmann also saw heat from light water in 1989
No neutrons required. Remember that He4 most probably is a product from alpha emission. The probability of hydrogen fusion is very low. On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, wrote: > 1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4 > > EXCERPT: > New Energy Times has discovered that a 1998 light-hydrogen gas LENR > experiment performed at SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., > unexpectedly produced a significant amount of helium-4. > ... > At the Dallas, Texas, American Chemical Society national meeting on April > 12, 1989, reporters asked “cold fusion” co-discoverer Stanley Pons about > the “obvious control experiment of running with all conditions identical > but with normal water rather than heavy water.” > ... > Pons reluctantly admitted to reporters that the experimental data he and > Fleischmann had accumulated suggested that they had observed excess heat > in light-water (H2O) electrolytic cells as well as in heavy-water (D2O) > cells. > > >
[Vo]:Pons-Fleischmann also saw heat from light water in 1989
1998 SRI International Hydrogen LENR Experiment Produces Helium-4 EXCERPT: New Energy Times has discovered that a 1998 light-hydrogen gas LENR experiment performed at SRI International, in Menlo Park, Calif., unexpectedly produced a significant amount of helium-4. ... At the Dallas, Texas, American Chemical Society national meeting on April 12, 1989, reporters asked cold fusion co-discoverer Stanley Pons about the obvious control experiment of running with all conditions identical but with normal water rather than heavy water. ... Pons reluctantly admitted to reporters that the experimental data he and Fleischmann had accumulated suggested that they had observed excess heat in light-water (H2O) electrolytic cells as well as in heavy-water (D2O) cells.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
That's something. It is sort of the opposite of most calorimeters, but I guess it should work. It says: "Instead of measuring the exact mass flow rate, or the volume flow rate, however, we measure the heat capacity flow rate." What they mean is, they have a "metering heater." That's the second heater, placed in line just before the copper cell. It adds a precise amount of heat to the flow, and they measure the temperature rise from that. The next temperature rise -- from the copper cell -- can then be compared to the "metering heater" temperature change. The flow rate is only 15 ml/minute which makes me worry that the mixing may not be effective. There may be streamlines. They did give some thought to mixing, putting the sensors after right angle tube connections. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Casimir Effect -great summation!
Jones, I recall phonons are wave propagation on a sea of surface electrons rather than electron flow through the medium but I wasn't aware they or even plasma were capable of modifying casimir force. Your citation suggests both are well known properties. I agree plasmons make an ideal tool for modifying Casimir geometry via laser stimulation and would seem to support the majority opinion that most of these anomalies occur near the surface where plasmons are created as waves on the sea of surface electrons. Modell has done the math based on SED that there is no "push back" from the hydrogen atoms relative to change in Casimir geometry when pumping hydrogen through changes in casimir geometry so modification of force by changes in the "effective" plate position due to phonons in the plate geometry should modify casimir force at no energy cost. Those fractional hydrogen atoms close to the threshold between 2 different fractional states could be synchronized to the phonon frequency ...and then once you get 20% synchronized ..the metronome n platform effect? Their mention of plasma as a known modifier of Casimir effect also has me wondering about the hydrogen ions in surface clouds along the mirror surface - if they can also affect the value dynamically.. It is starting to sound like a static casimir value is already a rare thing for a stationary observer inside a cavity much less a moving gas atom or molecule, you have sound, piezoelectric, magnetic fields, laser stimulated plasmons and plasma generation all modifying casimir from the value established by the geometry. DCE may actually be harder to avoid than induce but we really don't know how large these variations are or need to be to cause anomalous heat. I think that gas loading is crucial to establish firm linkage between the fractional hydrogen in the cavity and those in the lattice surface. The self-organizing lock step may be like a low frequency carrier establishing the linkage to the vacuum modified hydrogen in the cavity but still needs a synchronization scheme and an energy rectification scheme, plenty of theories to choose from on what causes the energy rectification but phonon synchronization of the "metronome" sounds plausible via the gas loaded "platform". Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 11:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Casimir Effect -great summation! From: Roarty, Francis X I went looking for temporal anomalies related to casimir effect. This link, http://www.andersoninstitute.com/casimir-effect.html Fran, Don't know if you have already mentioned this paper, but it fills in another part of the Ni-H puzzle or thermal gain with no nuclear indicia. http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1184 "The Role of Surface Plasmons in The Casimir Effect" by Intravaia et al 2007 "We evaluate analytically the contribution of the plasmonic modes to the Casimir energy. Surprisingly we find that this becomes repulsive for intermediate and large mirror separations." END Since micron-sized particles with nano-sized inclusions (such as the Ahern/Arata powder) combine large separation geometries with the surface features that promote plasmons, we have now apparently found the way that the Casimir force becomes involved. This is not at all suggestive of an effect which would enhance nuclear fusion, which would seem to require an attraction force. Instead it is suggestive of superradiance, where thermal coherence develops from group dynamics of particles moving together with more energy than is input into the system. When phonon and photons vibrational dynamics merge at a single frequency in the 8-20 THz range, they would become self reinforcing. This would be nearly lossless, but not gainful in itself. Gain would derive from outside the system in several possible ways: 1)ZPE as introduced by the Casimir force in a dynamical way 2)Electron angular momentum, due to ground state redundancy 3)A combination effect where 1) is responsible for 2). This coupling of phonons and photons is pretty close to the definition of the polariton. Now we know a more precise methodology in which Casimir force can also contribute in a dynamical way via surface plasmon interaction ... and we know the precise thermal range where this happens. Jones
[Vo]:MFMP has built a flow calorimeter
The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has built a flow calorimeter for their next series of tests. Lots of pictures of the apparatus: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-3/280-multi-wire-test-to-be-run-with-new-flow-calorimeter#!DSC05822__Medium_ Harry
RE: [Vo]:Liquid Jet Fuel Doesn't Explode?
Wiki has already updated their entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800 and include radar data, and a photo of the "streak of light" (purported missile)... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Two days before the opening of the Summer Olympics here in Atlanta, it is likely that terrorists launched a missile from a boat off the NY coast and took down TWA Flight 800. It was discussed extensively here (and everywhere); but, few here believed the explanation that a tank of jet fuel exploded due to a spark. Now, this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/twa-flight-800-investigators-break-sile nce-in-new-documentary-claim-original/ "A group of whistleblowers, including a number of aviation experts, have come forward in a new documentary to claim that the official explanation for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was wrong and a gas tank explosion did not bring down the flight off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago. They claim that at the time, they were placed under a gag order by the NTSB, which they charged falsified the official conclusion of the cause of the crash." The coverup which ensued tried to minimalize the effect on the Olympics. Oh, and I believe it was a presidental re-election year.
RE: [Vo]:Casimir Effect -great summation!
From: Roarty, Francis X I went looking for temporal anomalies related to casimir effect. This link, http://www.andersoninstitute.com/casimir-effect.html Fran, Don't know if you have already mentioned this paper, but it fills in another part of the Ni-H puzzle or thermal gain with no nuclear indicia. http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1184 "The Role of Surface Plasmons in The Casimir Effect" by Intravaia et al 2007 "We evaluate analytically the contribution of the plasmonic modes to the Casimir energy. Surprisingly we find that this becomes repulsive for intermediate and large mirror separations." END Since micron-sized particles with nano-sized inclusions (such as the Ahern/Arata powder) combine large separation geometries with the surface features that promote plasmons, we have now apparently found the way that the Casimir force becomes involved. This is not at all suggestive of an effect which would enhance nuclear fusion, which would seem to require an attraction force. Instead it is suggestive of superradiance, where thermal coherence develops from group dynamics of particles moving together with more energy than is input into the system. When phonon and photons vibrational dynamics merge at a single frequency in the 8-20 THz range, they would become self reinforcing. This would be nearly lossless, but not gainful in itself. Gain would derive from outside the system in several possible ways: 1)ZPE as introduced by the Casimir force in a dynamical way 2)Electron angular momentum, due to ground state redundancy 3)A combination effect where 1) is responsible for 2). This coupling of phonons and photons is pretty close to the definition of the polariton. Now we know a more precise methodology in which Casimir force can also contribute in a dynamical way via surface plasmon interaction . and we know the precise thermal range where this happens. Jones
[Vo]:Casimir Effect -great summation!
I went looking for temporal anomalies related to casimir effect. This link, http://www.andersoninstitute.com/casimir-effect.html is an excellent review and update but did not lend much support to my quest despite the title. There was also an important reminder regarding the real world limits on the effect. [snip]above the plasma frequency metals become transparent to photons (such as x-rays), and dielectrics show a frequency-dependent cutoff as well. This frequency dependence acts as a natural regulator. There are a variety of bulk effects in solid state physics, mathematically very similar to the Casimir effect, where the cutoff frequency comes into explicit play to keep expressions finite. (These are discussed in greater detail in Landau and Lifshitz, "Theory of Continuous Media".) [/snip] Fran
[Vo]:Liquid Jet Fuel Doesn't Explode?
Two days before the opening of the Summer Olympics here in Atlanta, it is likely that terrorists launched a missile from a boat off the NY coast and took down TWA Flight 800. It was discussed extensively here (and everywhere); but, few here believed the explanation that a tank of jet fuel exploded due to a spark. Now, this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/18/twa-flight-800-investigators-break-silence-in-new-documentary-claim-original/ "A group of whistleblowers, including a number of aviation experts, have come forward in a new documentary to claim that the official explanation for the crash of TWA Flight 800 was wrong and a gas tank explosion did not bring down the flight off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago. They claim that at the time, they were placed under a gag order by the NTSB, which they charged falsified the official conclusion of the cause of the crash." The coverup which ensued tried to minimalize the effect on the Olympics. Oh, and I believe it was a presidental re-election year.
