date:20130623

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1
 Angstrom. It
 takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance.
 Typical nuclear reaction times are order 1E-23 seconds. I.e. 3 times
 faster.
 In short, long before another atom at normal distances could help out (or
 even
 knew his brother was in trouble), either T or 3He would have been the
 result of
 D-D fusion.


Very interesting.  Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another
at 100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus.  Something
tells me that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a
sufficient spread in the probability distribution of the reaction times to
make fusion non-negligible?

Eric

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

2013-06-23 Thread John Milstone

Alan,

I guess I'm not making myself clear.  There is no need for a DC bias of the 
power input.

The wire trick (simply running a complete second circuit with both conductors 
hidden in a single wire), uses only the normal A/C voltage supplied by the 
mains.

It isn't the voltage that is rigged, it is the current.  The report states that 
the phase 3 hot wire appeared to have no current flow.  If that wire were 
rigged so it provided the same amount of power as the other two legs, then the 
actual staady-state power input would be completely normal A/C, but varying 
between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts, instead of the measured 800 Watts and 0 
Watts.  This provides an apparent COP of 2.5, which is exactly what they 
measured.

Your model shows that there is no apparent excess power until the E-Cat 
reaches operating temperature.  This could be easily accomplished with the 
addition of a thermostatically-controlled switch for the 3rd phase line (thus 
being totally automatic in operation).

John

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

2013-06-23 Thread John Milstone

Jack Cole said:

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

2013-06-23 Thread John Milstone

Jack Cole said:
This is easily disproved.  Look at the temperature output graph.  How does
you notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips
as rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with
the measured power on cycles.

I'm not saying anything of the sort.

What I am saying is that the there was an EXTRA 400 Watts, supplied 
continuously, in addition to the measured power.  Thus, the same 33% duty cycle 
would vary between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts.  Imagine the existing chart, but 
with the power in line moved UP by 1/3.  This makes the power out line look 
just like a lump of steel, with no signs of excess power.

I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the 3-phase 
power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing nothing.  If 
the testers really were doing their own surgery on the power in lines, why 
did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached between the power 
outlet and the E-Cat controller?  If they weren't doing their own surgery, 
then it would have been trivial to wire the 3rd, supposedly dead power line 
to produce the desired effect.

Re: [Vo]:A simple question...

2013-06-23 Thread John Berry

Actually let me improve these instructions.

I decided to test with other body parts (arms felt very little, a foot felt
something after a few seconds and some movement).
But then I retested with my hands trying not to feel, this lessened the
sensation a lot.

I found that the key to NOT feeling was to have my hand really relaxed, to
move it over the image and not to move it toward and away from the image.

By doing this I could only feel it very vaguely where with my hand tensed
and a bit of movement it is actually painfully strong.

So my new instructions are to lightly tense the muscles and skin on the
surface of your palm, and to move toward and away from the image.

Still I can often feel the energy on my face or eyes.

John

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 But an important one.
 I have had quite a few Vorts report feeling energy from my images in the
 past, but I have no idea how many might not have reported a negative result.

 I'd love if everyone that reads this could go to my site:
 http://aethericsciences.net78.net/

 And feel at least the top image (the very center especially), maybe the
 next 2 also.

 And simply report back if you felt any sensation, anything subtle (or
 strong): Warmth/Heat, Cool, Pressure, tingle or buzz or even something
 indescribable.

 And also report back if you don't feel anything.

 Light is an electromagnetic flux that does effect the fabric of space (the
 aether, but substitute for virtual quantum foam and higgs boson field if
 you prefer) by it's passage, this allows for engineering of space with
 images.

 By doing this I will get an idea just how ready my science is, and how
 ready people are for it.

 Now I have in the past had some people reply to me in private only, that
 is fine, your name will not be revealed, but you can help with the stats.

 Thanks in advance,
 John

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,  
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.


Ed
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR  
reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken  
down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so  
derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process  
indefinitely.


For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it  
fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then  
fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over  
and over again.


In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of  
metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.  
The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of  
operation.


As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction  
can operate for months of years without reload.


This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit  
on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of  
nuclear power.



On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an  
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three  
reactions proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power,  
the rate must be between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that  
the reactants must move at this rate from where they are normally  
located in the material by diffusion and assemble where the nuclear  
reaction can occur.  Which model do you think can be consistent with  
such a reaction rate?


 In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted  
in one year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is  
easily contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to  
be contained and would have to be added from an outside source to  
produce this much energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted  
to Cu. This means that ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would  
have to be converted to copper to achieve this much energy. Why do  
you think this might be possible?


Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used  
as the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.


1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while  
using H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling  
enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine  
the practical use of this energy source.


2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a  
typical charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large  
number of small Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni  
in many particles would be converted to Cu? This requirement is  
based on the logical assumption that many particles would be dead,  
typical of normal Ni, while a few particles would be active and have  
to suffer complete conversion to account for the claimed amount of  
energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the reaction might occur,  
which creates an entirely different problem. Once all of the Ni is  
converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not converted  
to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model that  
requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these  
questions into account.


Ed

d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

2013-06-23 Thread Randy Wuller

Your analysis requires fraud.  There is no evidence of fraud, at best what you 
have proposed is a remote possibility assuming the testers failed to closely 
evaluate the wires.  

Nothing close to something a reasonable person would conclude as the likely 
event.

That's the problem with your analysis.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:05 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Jack Cole said:
 This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does you 
 notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips as 
 rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with the 
 measured power on cycles.
 
 I'm not saying anything of the sort.
 
 What I am saying is that the there was an EXTRA 400 Watts, supplied 
 continuously, in addition to the measured power.  Thus, the same 33% duty 
 cycle would vary between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts.  Imagine the existing 
 chart, but with the power in line moved UP by 1/3.  This makes the power out 
 line look just like a lump of steel, with no signs of excess power.
 
 I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the 3-phase 
 power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing nothing.  If 
 the testers really were doing their own surgery on the power in lines, why 
 did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached between the power 
 outlet and the E-Cat controller?  If they weren't doing their own surgery, 
 then it would have been trivial to wire the 3rd, supposedly dead power line 
 to produce the desired effect.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving many 
protons.  These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have seen, in 
which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as important.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 3:26 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?


On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:



Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1 Angstrom. It
takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance.
Typical nuclear reaction times are order 1E-23 seconds. I.e. 3 times faster.
In short, long before another atom at normal distances could help out (or even
knew his brother was in trouble), either T or 3He would have been the result of
D-D fusion.



Very interesting.  Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another at 
100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus.  Something tells me 
that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a sufficient spread 
in the probability distribution of the reaction times to make fusion 
non-negligible?


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary  
ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a  
critique is difficult.  The problem is made worse when the description  
is second hand.  Many statements made in the first paragraph have no  
relationship to observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and  
collectively make the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to  
discuss his ideas, he publish them in a paper where they can be  
studied and evaluated, after which we can discuss what he means.  If  
he has published a paper, please send it to me.


I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on  
Vortex. This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide  
variety of conditions. The description Ron gives (through you) simply  
does not fit with what I know to be true. For example, atoms DO NOT  
spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in normal  
material. Therefore, the close proximity in a lattice is irrelevant  
and starting with such an assumption is useless. Anything assumed  
after this initial assumption is made has no relationship to reality.  
You (Ron) need to start with an assumption that fits what is known.   
This is like starting with the assumption that the earth is flat and  
then proceed to explain earthquakes. Nothing after the original  
assumption would be real no matter how cleverly stated.


Ed


On Jun 22, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

Ed, these are very good questions.  At the risk of reiterating  
points made in older threads, I'll attempt to address each question  
as I am able.


On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without  
particles being emitted?


It's not my theory -- it's Ron Maimon's.  He's saying that in a Pd/D  
system, specifically, there is a set of conditions in which two  
deuterons will approach a palladium nucleus simultaneously.  The  
close proximity of the deuterons to the palladium nucleus will have  
two effects.  The first effect is to focus their de Broglie waves  
in a way that will make it more likely for them to overlap.  The  
second effect is to cause the d+d→4He+Q branch to become much  
preferred over the d(d,p)t and d(d,n)3He branches seen in plasma  
fusion.  The reason it becomes preferred is that the Q is dumped  
as an electrostatic impulse that is shared between the daughter 4He  
and spectator palladium nucleus once the metastable [4He]*  
transitions to ground, rather than being emitted as a gamma ray.   
Electrostatic dumping happens quickly, and hence is more probable,  
while the emission of a photon takes a long time.  This  
electrostatic dumping of the energy translates into kinetic energy,  
as might happen with an Auger electron in other contexts.  The  
reason the other two d+d branches are competitively disfavored, as  
far as I can tell, is that the modified d(d,Q)4He branch becomes all  
the more likely.  The reason it becomes very likely is that there  
are 46 protons in the palladium nucleus with which to interact via  
the electrostatic force.


Ron talks about the Pd/D system, and I have graciously borrowed his  
ideas and attempted to apply them to other systems such as Ni/H.


This account does imply the emission of particles.  So an important  
question is under what conditions they are produced and whether we  
have done adequate work in ruling out prompt radiation when excess  
heat is underway.  There are plenty of experiments showing only  
marginal levels of prompt radiation emerging from the substrate.   
There are paltry few experiments, as far as I can tell, showing that  
when there is excess heat there is no prompt radiation taking place  
at some depth within the substrate.


How is momentum conserved?

The momentum of a fusion reaction is shared between the daughter or  
daughters and the metal spectator nucleus.  So in branches where a  
photon would normally be emitted, there is instead recoil of the  
metastable daughter during the transition to ground and no need for  
photon emission.


Kinetic energy is defined as something moving with a velocity. How  
is this velocity created from initially still objects while momentum  
is conserved.


In the case of Pd/D, this is understood to happen electrostatically  
with the decay of the metastable [4He]* daughter.  The 4He is pushed  
off of the nearby palladium nucleus, like a bullet from the back of  
the chamber of a rifle.


Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What  
rule makes this the easiest way?


I'm not sure.  This is one of the many questions I have.  I have  
been trying to understand the system sufficiently to gain insight  
into these questions, but it's been a slow learning process.


Just to anticipate an objection that this account implies energetic  
particles, and energetic particles and their side effects are

RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

2013-06-23 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

 Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in
QM
 tunneling.

Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.


Roarty does this. And every so often, it is worth dredging up the RPF
hypothesis - Reversible Proton Fusion which can be made compatible with ZPE
as the energy source.

This route to gain would consume no hydrogen, produce no radioactivity, and
could be compatible with a ZPE portal to mass-energy transfer. However,
doing so would imply that much of our Sun's output is related to ZPE as
well, since the RPF is the most common reaction on the Sun by far.

The gain in RPF has been attributed to QCD mass-to-energy conversion via
magnon coupling (color change) of excess proton mass - in that fraction of
protons which is heavier than average. However, this mass depletion in
protons could be regained by ZPE exposure in a similar way Puthoff suggests.

Jones

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:


 The wire trick (simply running a complete second circuit with both
 conductors hidden in a single wire), uses only the normal A/C voltage
 supplied by the mains.


A wire cannot be hidden. It is not invisible. It is a macroscopic object.
Anyone can see it at a glance. As I pointed out several times, the
researchers said the measured voltage, meaning they strippped the wires.
They would have seen a second conductor. You should address this fact.



 I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the
 3-phase power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing
 nothing.


It was attached to the power meter, so if it was doing something that would
be measured.



   If the testers really were doing their own surgery on the power in
 lines, why did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached between
 the power outlet and the E-Cat controller?


I do not know but I suppose there is a reason. In any case, it was metered,
so there is no chance extra power was surreptitiously added to the cell
with this wire.


  If they weren't doing their own surgery . . .


They say they attached the voltmeter and examined the wires themselves. In
other words, they say they did their own surgery. They said this very
clearly. You can deny it all you like, but facts are facts.

As Randy Wuller says, the only way your claim could be true would be if all
seven researchers are conspiring with Rossi. It is not possible they failed
to see a wire!

If they are conspiring they would have made up the whole story out of whole
cloth without actually doing any tests. They would not have included
anything confusing, and they would not have left any loose ends, such as
the non-functional wire you describe. For that matter, they would have said
that Rossi delivered a device and they tested it another location. If this
were a lie told by conspirators it could easily be made more convincing
than it is.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

2013-06-23 Thread ChemE Stewart

Jones,

I believe most of the Sun's energy is expelled as ZPE making up our quantum
gravity field.  It is decaying on the way to Earth. I believe Roarty is
correct.  These energetic particles are in our jet streams and create our
weather.  They pull a vacuum and condense water vapor in our atmosphere.
 The Sun is a particle collider and collapser.  It is the 95% dark energy
and it is orbiting through and around us.  Spacetime around the sun is not
just warped, it is also collapsed around these particles in the solar wind.

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 -Original Message-
 From: Terry Blanton

  Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in
 QM
  tunneling.

 Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.


 Roarty does this. And every so often, it is worth dredging up the RPF
 hypothesis - Reversible Proton Fusion which can be made compatible with ZPE
 as the energy source.

 This route to gain would consume no hydrogen, produce no radioactivity, and
 could be compatible with a ZPE portal to mass-energy transfer. However,
 doing so would imply that much of our Sun's output is related to ZPE as
 well, since the RPF is the most common reaction on the Sun by far.

 The gain in RPF has been attributed to QCD mass-to-energy conversion via
 magnon coupling (color change) of excess proton mass - in that fraction of
 protons which is heavier than average. However, this mass depletion in
 protons could be regained by ZPE exposure in a similar way Puthoff
 suggests.

 Jones

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

2013-06-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

The freedom let to have access independently to the socket, the entry
cable, and the reactor exterior, let few possibility for fraud.

If a fraud is done, it should not be possible to detect it with the freedom
taht Rossi concede to the testers.

the coaxial hypothesis, is technically hard since the inside and the
outside conductors, plus the insulators should sustain the voltage and the
current.
since the wires were having a normal diameter, the coaxial conductors would
be overloaded.
To avoid that current limit, the voltage should be high, but the insulator
would be overloaded too..

moreover the plug was observed by Essen team, and if there was a coaxial
plug, it would be visible, especially if that connector support high
current or high voltage.
Connectors are even more sensible than cables, and I have observed that
fire start from sockets not from cables.

no question whether Essen have well checked the socket.
the question if someone smart could have, even with some luck, found the
trick. if true, there is no chance for a fraud.

anyway, the real problem is different, we all know it.

It is assumed LENR is impossible, thus Rossi , Defkalion, Brillouin,
Celani, Piantelli, Miley,HAVE TO be fraud.

since LENR IS REAL, the simplest solution is that all that have to be
analysed like we consider the claim of Peugeot when claiming they designed
a new diesel engine with turbo.

I just hope that we will keep the memory of the pile of delusion and
stupidity that is expressed, for history.
I'm afraid as said in another thread that all will be forgotten and that
MIT and Cal-tech will invent LENR in 2015, as Taleb explain.



2013/6/23 Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com

 Your analysis requires fraud.  There is no evidence of fraud, at best what
 you have proposed is a remote possibility assuming the testers failed to
 closely evaluate the wires.

 Nothing close to something a reasonable person would conclude as the
 likely event.

 That's the problem with your analysis.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:05 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
 wrote:

 Jack Cole said:
 This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does
 you notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips
 as rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with
 the measured power on cycles.

 I'm not saying anything of the sort.

 What I am saying is that the there was an EXTRA 400 Watts, supplied
 continuously, in addition to the measured power.  Thus, the same 33% duty
 cycle would vary between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts.  Imagine the existing
 chart, but with the power in line moved UP by 1/3.  This makes the power
 out line look just like a lump of steel, with no signs of excess power.

 I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the
 3-phase power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing
 nothing.  If the testers really were doing their own surgery on the power
 in lines, why did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached
 between the power outlet and the E-Cat controller?  If they weren't doing
 their own surgery, then it would have been trivial to wire the 3rd,
 supposedly dead power line to produce the desired effect.

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

Transmutation has been observed as follows:

http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%
20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf




On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
 transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

 Ed

 On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
 reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down
 by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived
 could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.


 For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it fissions
 to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to Ti, then
 fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again.


 In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of metal
 and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The mass of
 the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation.


 As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction can
 operate for months of years without reload.


 This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit on
 the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear power.


 On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an energy
 consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions proposed to
 occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be between
 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move at this
 rate from where they are normally located in the material by diffusion and
 assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur.  Which model do you think
 can be consistent with such a reaction rate?

  In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in one
 year while 10 kW is made.  The amount of deuterium isotope is easily
 contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained
 and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much
 energy.  Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that
 ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper
 to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible?

 Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as the
 basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.

 1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while using
 H2 only contained in the e-Cat.  So far, no test has run ling enough to
 test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the practical use
 of this energy source.

 2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a typical
 charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number of small
 Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many particles would
 be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the logical assumption
 that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, while a few
 particles would be active and have to suffer complete conversion to account
 for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the
 reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different problem. Once all
 of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not
 converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model
 that requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions
 into account.

 Ed

 d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
 1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
 10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
 p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
 1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
 10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
 62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
 1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
 10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

 From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
 Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:50:21 AM

 Alan,
 
 I guess I'm not making myself clear. There is no need for a DC bias
 of the power input.

[ etc etc ]

In my simulation I refer to DC as a constant source of Spice CURRENT, 
(representing thermal POWER), whether provided by electrical AC, electrical DC 
or a trail of trained ants carrying burning matches (the infamous marching 
fire-ants).

I will change all my descriptions to emphasize that this is a CONSTANT 
component, versus a changing TRANSIENT component.

My thermal curves show that there is NOT a CONSTANT heat input. 

See the fourth curve in  
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_02.png (Presently labelled 
dc_output and dc_fitted -- read this as CONSTANT_output - and 
CONSTANT_fitted --- meaning, of course, the OUTPUT when given a CONSTANT 
INPUT.

There is most likely a TRIANGULAR heat input (the rise and fall times to be 
fine-tuned to give a better match to the observed curve --- which I plan to 
digitize).

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

Also see tables II and III in this reference:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjaved=0CCQQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2FICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdfei=wYdRUO6bKqH20gGC64H4BQusg=AFQjCNGT9S6MSfTNDMcAs1KjI6lnTbzMNAsig2=J0nTrYnPz0dbSOKYgP5VPg

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Transmutation has been observed as follows:

http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%
20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken down
by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so derived
could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process indefinitely.

For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then fission to
Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over and over again.

In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes. The
mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of operation.

As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
can operate for months of years without reload.

This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit on
the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear power.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Regardless of the mechanism, each proposed nuclear reaction has an
energy consequence. Here are the consequences for the three reactions
proposed to occur. Notice that to make one watt of power, the rate must be
between 10^11 and 10^12 events/sec. This means that the reactants must move
at this rate from where they are normally located in the material by
diffusion and assemble where the nuclear reaction can occur. Which model
do you think can be consistent with such a reaction rate?

In addition, notice the amount of reactant that must be converted in
one year while 10 kW is made. The amount of deuterium isotope is easily
contained in the material. The amount of H2 is less likely to be contained
and would have to be added from an outside source to produce this much
energy. Notice that 31 g of Ni would be converted to Cu. This means that
ALL of a typical charge of Ni powder would have to be converted to copper
to achieve this much energy. Why do you think this might be possible?

Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as
the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.

1. Use of H2 has a limit to the duration of energy production while
using H2 only contained in the e-Cat. So far, no test has run ling
enough to test this limit. Nevertheless, the limit will determine the
practical use of this energy source.

2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a typical
charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number of small
Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many particles would
be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the logical assumption
that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni, while a few
particles would be active and have to suffer complete conversion to account
for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not depend on HOW the
reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different problem. Once all
of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why is the Cu not
converted to Zr by addition of another p? I suggest a proposed model
that requires use of transmutation to make energy MUST take these questions
into account.

d+e+d, ~24 MeV/event
1 watt= 2.6x1011 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 0.54 gm D2
p+e+p, ~1.4 MeV/event
1 watt= 4.5x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 4.7 g H2
62Ni + p = 63Cu, ~6.1 MeV/event
1 watt = 1.0x1012 events/sec
10kW for 1 year = 31.0 g Ni

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone  john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com  wrote:

*PLEASE FIX YOUR REPLY-TO ADDRESS **

(Last warning --- I'm not going to reply to anything you send which doesn't go 
straight back to vortex )


 From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
 Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:50:21 AM

 Alan,
 
 I guess I'm not making myself clear. There is no need for a DC bias
 of the power input.

[ etc etc ]

In my simulation I refer to DC as a constant source of Spice CURRENT, 
(representing thermal POWER), whether provided by electrical AC, electrical DC 
or a trail of trained ants carrying burning matches (the infamous marching 
fire-ants).

I will change all my descriptions to emphasize that this is a CONSTANT 
component, versus a changing TRANSIENT component.

My thermal curves show that there is NOT a CONSTANT heat input. 

See the fourth curve in  
http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_spice/130621_spice_02.png (Presently labelled 
dc_output and dc_fitted -- read this as CONSTANT_output - and 
CONSTANT_fitted --- meaning, of course, the OUTPUT when given a CONSTANT 
INPUT.

There is most likely a TRIANGULAR heat input (the rise and fall times to be 
fine-tuned to give a better match to the observed curve --- which I plan to 
digitize).

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In short, in order to make a difference, the helping-hand already needs
 to be
 at hand before the reaction begins.

 (unless momentum can be tunneled, and the tunneling process itself is
 inherently FTL).


Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of
nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster
than light in a sense.  Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron
resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches.  Suppose that
t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the
interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the
nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance.  At that point in time
there will still be an image of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time
t' in the background.  I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will
interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not
matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction
started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over
time and does not changing much.

So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching
towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing
off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

2013-06-23 Thread Leonard Arbuthnot

The graphs in that paper are certainly consistent with the broad spread of 
products I saw back in the 90s.

At the time I had been using a notional working hypothesis of resonant protons 
using quantum tunneling to fuse with heavier nuclei - pushing then into the 
unstable positron emitter / electron captutre isotope region of the next 
element.  But then I saw that the products of the hot gas erosion tests were 
all over the damned place - a wide variety of both heavier and lighter elements 
(as compated to the host metals) - and I realised that something far more 
complex was happening

- Leo




  From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com


 Transmutation has been observed as follows:
 
  
http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, John Milstone
john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.comwrote:

Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
 claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
 furnace.


I recall them specifically stating that they were not permitted to measure
anything coming out of the controller, although I do not have a reference
for this.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

Eric, that is an interesting way to consider the interaction.  I think that 
your ghost friend could emit a magnetic or electric field that interacts at 
the location of the two D's in their local time.  Any movement of a charged 
particle would be effected in that time frame and there would be no need to 
wait for a new response from the originating source.


So, I agree with your statement.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 3:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?


On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:



In short, in order to make a difference, the helping-hand already needs to be
at hand before the reaction begins.

(unless momentum can be tunneled, and the tunneling process itself is
inherently FTL).





Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of nearby 
nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster than light 
in a sense.  Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron resonance is 
about to decay into one of the various branches.  Suppose that t+dt is a point 
later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the interval is shorter 
than the time required for light to travel from the nucleus to the unstable 
two-deuteron resonance.  At that point in time there will still be an image 
of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time t' in the background.  I'm guessing 
that the two-deuteron resonance will interact electrostatically with that 
earlier image and that it does not matter that the influence does not originate 
at time t, when the reaction started, as we are considering a force that is 
relatively constant over time and does not changing much.


So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching towards 
kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing off of the 
ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction?


Eric

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Accidentally sent to John Milstone's personal email address.]

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, John Milstone 
 john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:

  Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports
 your claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the
 tube furnace.


 I recall them specifically stating that they were not permitted to measure
 anything coming out of the controller, although I do not have a reference
 for this.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
 claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
 furnace.


They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth, I
think he was making two points:

1. They might have measured it any time. There were no restrictions. They
told me that, and Rossi also made that clear. So this trick would not work
because they had the means to see through it.

2. Those wires are macroscopic, as I said. They are large objects. You
cannot fail to see one. They are not invisible or as thin as a hair. As
noted in the paper, the authors lifted the controller box off the table and
looked at it, and saw only the wires from the wall going into it. There is
no chance they did not strip down all of the wires going into the
controller to measure voltage. When you strip a wire, there is no chance
you will overlook an extra wire hidden underneath it in separate insulation.

Now, clearly, you do not believe this. You think the authors might have
been fooled. You think they might have overlooked a wire. That is your
opinion and you have a right to it, but I think you should acknowledge the
authors themselves believed they looked for wires and found none. They
stated this clearly. You might also acknowledge that that Jones Beene, I,
and many others believe they can easily check for wires. We think wires are
large objects that no one can overlook. So, let us agree to disagree about
this aspect of the paper.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A simple question...

2013-06-23 Thread John Berry

I got word that the site was down for at least one of you, well it works
for me (5 hours after your email), but if it still isn't working for others:

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3314/rg.png

Thanks,
John

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving
 many protons.  These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have
 seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as
 important.


Now that I've argued myself into a faster-than-light electrostatic
influence of nearby nuclei (I'm hoping Robin will show me my error if I'm
wrong), it seems like there are at least two questions to be addressed in
connection with distributing the electrostatic
impulse across multiple nuclei, in contrast to requiring that it be limited
to a single nucleus that is very close at hand:

   1. Can a quantum of mass-energy be dumped instantaneously into multiple
   recipients, or must it be restricted to a single recipient (e.g., a single
   proton in a nearby nucleus)?
   2. Does the influence of nearby nuclei reach far enough to influence a
   reaction underway, or does some kind of inverse square law effectively
   limit the influence of the electrostatic force to a single nucleus that is
   very close by?

Being new to nuclear physics, I can ask these questions without
feeling embarrassed or self-conscious.  Perhaps you are arguing for an
electrostatic analog of the Mossbauer affect?

Eric

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

[Accidentally sent directly to John Milstone . . .]

John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.comwrote:

Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
 claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
 furnace.


They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth, I
think he was making two points:

1. They might have measured it any time. There were no restrictions. They
told me that, and Rossi also made that clear. So this trick would not work
because they had the means to see through it.

2. Those wires are macroscopic, as I said. They are large objects. You
cannot fail to see one. They are not invisible or as thin as a hair. As
noted in the paper, the authors lifted the controller box off the table and
looked at it, and saw only the wires from the wall going into it. There is
no chance they did not strip down all of the wires going into the
controller to measure voltage. When you strip a wire, there is no chance
you will overlook an extra wire hidden underneath it in separate insulation.

Now, clearly, you do not believe this. You think the authors might have
been fooled. You think they might have overlooked a wire. That is your
opinion and you have a right to it, but I think you should acknowledge the
authors themselves believed they looked for wires and found none. They
stated this clearly. You might also acknowledge that that Jones Beene, I,
and many others believe they can easily check for wires. We think wires are
large objects that no one can overlook. So, let us agree to disagree about
this aspect of the paper.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:09:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of
nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster
than light in a sense.  Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron
resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches.  Suppose that
t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the
interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the
nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance.  At that point in time
there will still be an image of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time
t' in the background.  I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will
interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not
matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction
started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over
time and does not changing much.

So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching
towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing
off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction?

Eric

What you are essentially saying is that momentum is exchanged with the field,
rather than the particle itself. My initial reaction to this was to agree,
however I am left wondering. There are always fields of all particles in the
universe present at every point in the universe, so if such interaction were
possible, then wouldn't it completely alter what we understand as Newton's laws?
(or just explain them?) I suspect that your model would make it possible to
push off against the entire universe, which clearly doesn't happen in reality,
or we would never see the T / 3He reaction at all.

I think that if you are correct, then the strength of the interaction must
depend on the distance, as in Coulomb's law.

BTW I think what you are talking about is the basis of Quantum Electrodynamics
(QED).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving 
many protons.  These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have 
seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as important.


Dave

As I have already mentioned a few times, I don't believe is spooky action at a
distance. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Focardi has died

 From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:35:07 AM
   _
   From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
   Look at the layered materials on this page:
   http://web.brasimone.enea.it/mat/other/bonindex.htm

   W/Ni/Cu/Al/CuCrZr
 One might also suspect that this particular lab would have access to
 isotopes, like Ni-62

June 23rd, 2013 at 12:06 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806cpage=15#comment-724001

Frank Acland:
The contribution of Prof. Sergio Focardi has been mainly in the safety issues: 
without hios help in this matter I couldn’t make my work; beside this, he 
teached to me much of the Physics I needed to know and also made all the 
preliminary measurements that we made on the reactors in 2007, 2008 2009, 2010. 
Thousands of measurements, before daring to make the first presentation in 
January 2011.

In the Brasimone nuclear facility ( in the Italian Appennines, between Bologna 
and Florence) we made tests to measure the radiations outside the reactor at 
full power, in destructive tests. He mastered the situation as only he was able 
to do. By the way, in the same Brasimone center he had made an important 
experiment regarding the search of gravitons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 00:25:43 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Very interesting.  Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another
at 100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus.  Something
tells me that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a
sufficient spread in the probability distribution of the reaction times to
make fusion non-negligible?

Eric

The light travel time for 100 Fermi is 3E-22 sec., which may be ok. (The figure
of 1E-23 I mentioned before is a bit rubbery.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 I recall them specifically stating that they were not permitted to measure
 anything coming out of the controller, although I do not have a reference
 for this.


There has been some talk about that, but they did not mention restrictions
in the paper. Except to say that the waveform is secret:

. . . They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted
each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an
industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly
activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power
consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test.

They told me there were no restrictions. Presumably Rossi would ask them to
sign an NDA if they saw the waveform. Anyway, he was absent much of the
time and they might easily have checked it surreptitiously if they
suspected he was cheating somehow.

I think we have beaten this subject to death. I do not think it is possible
to hide a wire of this size. Milstone, Yugo and others think it is
possible. We should agree to disagree, and drop the subject.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

OK Einstein.  Sorry, I mean Robin. ;)  I am on the fence about this one as 
well, but there are many claims that it has been shown true.  I guess 
everything boils down to trust.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 5:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving 
many 
protons.  These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have seen, in 
which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as important.


Dave

As I have already mentioned a few times, I don't believe is spooky action at a
distance. ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary ideas
 without any connection to what is known that even starting a critique is
 difficult.  The problem is made worse when the description is second hand.
 Many statements made in the first paragraph have no relationship to
 observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and collectively make
 the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to discuss his ideas, he
 publish them in a paper where they can be studied and evaluated, after
 which we can discuss what he means.  If he has published a paper, please
 send it to me.


Ron has only himself to blame for not writing up his thoughts in a paper
that goes beyond the long physics.stackexchange.com post that he posted.
 But he did not ask me to be the unofficial booster for his theory on this
list; I assumed that role voluntarily.  Any errors in the discussion of it
are mine.  I personally do not care all that much about the completeness or
polish of the presentation of idea -- obviously, a nice, professional
presentation is desirable.  But it's hardly a requirement, since truth can
be lying anywhere, even in the remarks of someone who knows very little
about a subject (which is not at all the case with Ron).  My hunch is that
the physics establishment failed to look into cold fusion largely for this
reason -- it was not packaged in the way that they wanted, and the
presentation of the evidence for the anomaly did not go through the proper
channels.  As a consequence, the delay in looking into it has been there
loss, and ours as well.

There are few arbitrary ideas in Ron's theory, as far as I can tell.  There
are gaps that must be filled, but that's the nature of a theory in
progress.  One would prefer that there be gaps than that there be mistaken
ideas that will derail further exploration of a possibility.  I believe
that one idea that is likely to be mistaken and that thereby risks
derailing further exploration is that you can have a gradual release of
mass-energy from a nuclear reaction -- when presented with evidence that
leads to this hypothesis, I think one should first look at whether one's
interpretation of the evidence might not be mistaken before coming back to
it.  This is what I'm trying to do.

I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on Vortex.
 This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide variety of
 conditions. The description Ron gives (through you) simply does not fit
 with what I know to be true. For example, atoms DO NOT spontaneously
 initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in normal material.


I think you've misunderstood the hypothesis.  Ron is not suggesting that
atoms spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction.  He posits an effect,
similar to the Auger process, in which an incoming x-ray will lead to an
impulse (~20 keV) being delivered to a nearby deuterium nucleus through the
mediation of a palladium atom.  This sets the deuterium nucleus on its way
and leads to the other things that have been discussed.  It is not
difficult to imagine that there are plenty of x-rays of sufficient energy
to kick off such events, whether coming from cosmic rays or from other
noise in the background.  The larger concept is that a palladium lattice is
could be a lot like a pinball machine -- it is easy for
the deuterium nuclei within it to be bounced around and approach lattice
sites.  Robin has clarified that because it takes time for the deuterons to
rebound, there is an enhanced probability that they will overlap.  All of
this sounds pretty reasonable.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

Robin,


I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting.  Regardless of how many 
charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields 
due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions.  The 
superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that 
interacts.  The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D 
site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the 
nearest ones would generally dominate.


For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a moving 
charged particle's path is curved at that point.  The potentially far off 
source of that field does not have to get information about the movement of 
that particle before the force is felt.  This type of thought fits into the 
concept that local time is what counts for a reference frame.  Distance makes 
the local times different between the friend nucleus and the interacting D's.


If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the friends 
nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required for 
light speed fields to reach them.  After that period has elapsed, they would be 
subject to potentially large dynamic forces.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?


In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:09:38 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of
nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster
than light in a sense.  Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron
resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches.  Suppose that
t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the
interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the
nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance.  At that point in time
there will still be an image of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time
t' in the background.  I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will
interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not
matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction
started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over
time and does not changing much.

So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching
towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing
off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction?

Eric

What you are essentially saying is that momentum is exchanged with the field,
rather than the particle itself. My initial reaction to this was to agree,
however I am left wondering. There are always fields of all particles in the
universe present at every point in the universe, so if such interaction were
possible, then wouldn't it completely alter what we understand as Newton's laws?
(or just explain them?) I suspect that your model would make it possible to
push off against the entire universe, which clearly doesn't happen in reality,
or we would never see the T / 3He reaction at all.

I think that if you are correct, then the strength of the interaction must
depend on the distance, as in Coulomb's law.

BTW I think what you are talking about is the basis of Quantum Electrodynamics
(QED).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

2013-06-23 Thread Mark Gibbs

If it can be agreed that the IR measurements were, to within some
reasonable margin of error, accurately measuring output power then the only
issue in dispute is how much input power was provided. If, and this
obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and the only
point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be taken (as
before)  was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below and further
assuming that Rossi won't allow anyone to see him start the E-Cat what
tamper-proof measuring system would you insert at 'X'?


E-Cat --- Controller -X--Wall socket


So, let's assume we have a test protocol such that:

1. The tamper-proof measuring system is taken to the lab and plugged in and
may not be unplugged.
2. The test team leaves.
3. Rossi brings in the E-Cat, plugs the controller into the tamper-proof
measuring system, and starts it.
4. The test team re-enter, confirm the tamper-proof measuring system has,
indeed, not been tampered with and set up the rest of their test gear.

So, what does the tamper-proof measuring system?

Would that satisfy everyone?

[m]


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Please provide the page and/or diagram from the report which supports your
 claim that they measured input power in between the controller and the tube
 furnace.


 They did not. You misunderstand. Not to put words in Jones Beene's mouth,
 I think he was making two points:

 1. They might have measured it any time. There were no restrictions. They
 told me that, and Rossi also made that clear. So this trick would not work
 because they had the means to see through it.

 2. Those wires are macroscopic, as I said. They are large objects. You
 cannot fail to see one. They are not invisible or as thin as a hair. As
 noted in the paper, the authors lifted the controller box off the table and
 looked at it, and saw only the wires from the wall going into it. There is
 no chance they did not strip down all of the wires going into the
 controller to measure voltage. When you strip a wire, there is no chance
 you will overlook an extra wire hidden underneath it in separate insulation.

 Now, clearly, you do not believe this. You think the authors might have
 been fooled. You think they might have overlooked a wire. That is your
 opinion and you have a right to it, but I think you should acknowledge the
 authors themselves believed they looked for wires and found none. They
 stated this clearly. You might also acknowledge that that Jones Beene, I,
 and many others believe they can easily check for wires. We think wires are
 large objects that no one can overlook. So, let us agree to disagree about
 this aspect of the paper.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?



On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms  
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:


Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary  
ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a  
critique is difficult.  The problem is made worse when the  
description is second hand.
Many statements made in the first paragraph have no relationship to  
observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and collectively  
make the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to discuss his  
ideas, he publish them in a paper where they can be studied and  
evaluated, after which we can discuss what he means.  If he has  
published a paper, please send it to me.


Ron has only himself to blame for not writing up his thoughts in a  
paper that goes beyond the long physics.stackexchange.com post that  
he posted.  But he did not ask me to be the unofficial booster for  
his theory on this list; I assumed that role voluntarily.  Any  
errors in the discussion of it are mine.  I personally do not care  
all that much about the completeness or polish of the presentation  
of idea -- obviously, a nice, professional presentation is  
desirable.  But it's hardly a requirement, since truth can be lying  
anywhere, even in the remarks of someone who knows very little about  
a subject (which is not at all the case with Ron).


That is were we differ, Eric. A well thought out paper is essential  
because otherwise a person can not know what is being claimed. Too  
often the ideas are simply word salads and make no sense. As for  
knowledge, are you suggesting that a person who has no knowledge  
about, say genetic theory, might actually suggest a useful idea to an  
expert? I find this possibility so unlikely that it should be treated  
the same way winning the lottery would be treated.  Yes, someone will  
win, but I would not bet the farm or even a buck.



 My hunch is that the physics establishment failed to look into cold  
fusion largely for this reason -- it was not packaged in the way  
that they wanted, and the presentation of the evidence for the  
anomaly did not go through the proper channels.  As a consequence,  
the delay in looking into it has been there loss, and ours as well.


NO Eric. The physics community looked into CF very carefully. But when  
it failed to be replicated by the right people and the hot fusion  
people realized the threat, they came out strong against the idea.  
This reaction was not based on trivial marketing. It was based on well  
understood and rational self-interest. Most physicists are not fools.  
They know what will advance their careers and what will not. That self  
interest still stops support even though the experimental support is  
overwhelming. Now, most skepticism is driven by ignorance.


There are few arbitrary ideas in Ron's theory, as far as I can  
tell.  There are gaps that must be filled, but that's the nature of  
a theory in progress.  One would prefer that there be gaps than that  
there be mistaken ideas that will derail further exploration of a  
possibility.  I believe that one idea that is likely to be mistaken  
and that thereby risks derailing further exploration is that you can  
have a gradual release of mass-energy from a nuclear reaction --  
when presented with evidence that leads to this hypothesis, I think  
one should first look at whether one's interpretation of the  
evidence might not be mistaken before coming back to it.  This is  
what I'm trying to do.


I have explained how this slow release works. My explanation is  
different from Ron's and from the many other efforts to explain the  
same thing.  Each method has its limitations, mine included. We have  
to choose a method that has the fewest limitations and does not  
conflict with well understood behavior. Ron does not do this.  His  
mechanism is filled with conflicts- too many for me to spend time  
describing.


I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on  
Vortex. This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide  
variety of conditions. The description Ron gives (through you)  
simply does not fit with what I know to be true. For example, atoms  
DO NOT spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in  
normal material.


I think you've misunderstood the hypothesis.  Ron is not suggesting  
that atoms spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction.  He posits an  
effect, similar to the Auger process, in which an incoming x-ray  
will lead to an impulse (~20 keV) being delivered to a nearby  
deuterium nucleus through the mediation of a palladium atom.


If this is the idea, then it is useless out of the box. First of all,  
X-rays are not normally applied, yet LENR occurs. Second, when X-rays  
have been applied to all kinds of materials, including PdD, NO LENR is  
observed.  When high energy IS applied by ion bombardment, the result  
is HOT FUSION not COLD FUSION.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:15:27 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,
[snip]
OK Einstein.  Sorry, I mean Robin. ;)  I am on the fence about this one as 
well, but there are many claims that it has been shown true.  I guess 
everything boils down to trust.


Dave

I have yet to see a single entanglement experiment that can't be explained by
assuming that the entities involved, simply remember the correlation they
acquired when they were entangled.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

I try to react to experimental evidence when formulating LENR theory.
Others gain solace by choosing to understand experimental evidence to suit
their theory(s) and political stances. They say that certain observations
are due to contamination or error in measurements and so on and even the
assertion of fraud.

The denialists tend to use this sort of myopic deluded intellectual
behavior in their interpretation of facts. They go way too far in coming up
with arguments to support their assertions based on inconsistent
examinations of reality.

Both the denialists and the stubborn LENR theorists should just embrace the
dictates of detailed reality in the formulation of theory and avoid cheery
picking.

Personally, I only say that “That’s my story and I am sticking to it” as
ironic disparagement of the myopic mind set which is too often apparent in
theoretical discourse.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Also see tables II and III in this reference:

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Transmutation has been observed as follows:

http://64.142.106.183/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dash-Effect%20of%
20Recrystallization-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
can operate for months of years without reload.

This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of nuclear
power.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

Of course, different amounts of power and total energy can be used as
the basis for the calculations, but several basic facts remain.

2. Use of transmutation requires a large fraction of the Ni in a
typical charge be converted. How is this possible? How can a large number
of small Ni particles be made active such that all of the Ni in many
particles would be converted to Cu? This requirement is based on the
logical assumption that many particles would be dead, typical of normal Ni,
while a few particles would be active and have to suffer complete
conversion to account for the claimed amount of energy. This fact does not
depend on HOW the reaction might occur, which creates an entirely different
problem. Once all of the Ni is converted to Cu in an active particle, why
is the Cu not converted to Zr by addition of another p? I

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,

The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply taking off
with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else
(potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it.

We don't see this happen. 

Robin,


I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting.  Regardless of how many 
charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields 
due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions.  The 
superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that 
interacts.  The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D 
site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the 
nearest ones would generally dominate.


For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a 
moving charged particle's path is curved at that point.  The potentially far 
off source of that field does not have to get information about the movement 
of that particle before the force is felt.  This type of thought fits into the 
concept that local time is what counts for a reference frame.  Distance makes 
the local times different between the friend nucleus and the interacting D's.


If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the friends 
nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required 
for light speed fields to reach them.  After that period has elapsed, they 
would be subject to potentially large dynamic forces.


Dave
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:

If, and this obviously may not happen, Rossi were to allow another test and
 the only point at which electrical measurements were allowed to be
 taken (as before)  was on the input side at 'X' in the diagram below . . .


He has agreed to another test. They are getting ready to do it. I believe
the seven researchers prefer to measure between the wall and the controller
box. I would, if I were doing it. Also, the skeptics would never believe
measurements made between the controller and the reactor.



 So, let's assume we have a test protocol such that:



1. The tamper-proof measuring system is taken to the lab and plugged in and
 may not be unplugged.


A modern watt meter IS a tamper-proof measuring system. As I mentioned,
they are made with integrated circuits these days. You cannot open one up
and change the way it works. You can only wreck it. Decades ago these
instruments had discrete components and I think an expert might have
modified one to produce a fake answer.

Also, any watt meter will measure any possible combination of waveforms and
power settings correctly. Meters nowadays sample the power at rapid
intervals, so the waveform is irrelevant. Decades ago I think some of them
extrapolated power based on waveforms, but sampling is so fast now, there
is no need for that.

A $20 Kill-a-Watt meter that plugs in between the wall and the equipment
plug is probably better and more reliable than a $1000 watt meter was in
1980. It is also made from just a few IC chips. Levi uses one of these as a
reality check device. (I don't think they have 3-phase models.)

If a watt meter underestimated power a great deal, or if it missed a large
amount of electric power (like 200 W) it would cause an accident. It might
kill an electrician or destroy equipment. There would be lawsuits galore.
That simply does not happen. There is no way you can fool a watt meter or a
utility billing watt meter. If Rossi -- or anyone -- knew how to make 900 W
look like 300 W, the power companies would be bankrupt. You can make 901.6
W look like 899.2. In other words, the errors are about 1%.



 2. The test team leaves.
 3. Rossi brings in the E-Cat, plugs the controller into the tamper-proof
 measuring system, and starts it.


There is no need to do this. Rossi is happy to let the team stay as long as
they want. They told me that, and he told me that. The entire test run is
performed with a video camera on the equipment to prevent him or anyone
else from tampering with it.



 Would that satisfy everyone?


It would never satisfy the skeptics. Nothing will satisfy them, except the
endorsement of the establishment. Shanahan told me he will not accept the
thermocouple reading because they did not present the entire data set. They
said only that it tracked the IR camera to within 2 deg C. I am sure that
if they did present the entire data set, he would find some other reason to
reject the results.

Finally, Shanahan, Yugo, Robert Park and the other skeptics will say there
might an undetected error so we cannot believe this. They do not
understand when I tell them that cannot be tested or falsified, and it
applies equally well to every experiment in history.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

If this is the idea, then it is useless out of the box. First of all,
 X-rays are not normally applied, yet LENR occurs.


There is at least one other pathway by which the reaction can get started
-- since Ron's mechanism is thought to be sustained by energetic alpha
particles exciting k-shell levels in palladium atoms, it could be initiated
by the alpha decay of a radioactive impurity atom in the lattice.  This is
just one example; there are no doubt many other pathways by which to
achieve the same effect.  I think you have more work to do to establish
that the idea is useless on this particular basis.


 Second, when X-rays have been applied to all kinds of materials, including
 PdD, NO LENR is observed.


I would be very interested in any references to experiments in which 20+
keV x-rays were applied to loaded palladium deuteride.

When high energy IS applied by ion bombardment, the result is HOT FUSION
 not COLD FUSION.


There is obviously experimental evidence for the hot fusion branches in the
ion beam experiments (e.g., branches leading to n, t and 3He daughters).
 But I think it is an assumption that only these branches are seen during
ion bombardment and that LENR is not also taking place.  This assumption
could be mistaken.

Cold fusion will occur without any energy being applied and become more
 intense if applied energy is increased. Therefore, LENR is not started by
 any applied energy other than normal temperature or small chemical effects.
  Furthermore, this process simply CAN NOT occur in a normal material. Ron
 ignores this fact.


None of these statements conflict with Ron's theory, except perhaps the
very last two, which appear to import assumptions relating to Gibbs free
energy and the establishment of an NAE, and so on, which are your ideas.
 They are no doubt very useful ideas, but I have yet to be convinced that
they are hard and fast requirements in view of what might be different
behavior in some gas phase experiments.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00 -0600:
Hi,
The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,  
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation must be ruled
out.

Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the broadest
sense). ;)


Ed
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR  
 reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken  
 down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so  
 derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process  
 indefinitely.

 For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it  
 fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then  
 fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over  
 and over again.

 In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of  
 metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.  
 The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of  
 operation.

 As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction  
 can operate for months of years without reload.

 This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit  
 on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of  
 nuclear power.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
 mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply taking
 off
 with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else
 (potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it.

 We don't see this happen.


What about when Coulomb's law and a resulting drop-off in electrostatic
influence on the basis of distance is factored in?  In that case I wouldn't
you see the usual d+d branches (e.g., t+p)?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:36:17 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
 mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply taking
 off
 with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else
 (potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it.

 We don't see this happen.


What about when Coulomb's law and a resulting drop-off in electrostatic
influence on the basis of distance is factored in?  In that case I wouldn't
you see the usual d+d branches (e.g., t+p)?

...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when not?
How strong does the force have to be?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions



On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00  
-0600:

Hi,

The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.


It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation  
must be ruled

out.


Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The  
targets cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is  
located in a particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the  
target in that small particle or the particle is dead and no  
transmutation can occur in that particle. The target cannot move to  
where the NAE might be located. This severely limits how much energy  
can come from this source, which is less than is reported.   Hydrogen  
as a source of energy does not have this problem because, as a gas, it  
can seek out every NAE in each active particle and continue to make  
energy as long as the gas is supplied.




Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the  
broadest

sense). ;)


No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be  
clear how we define words because otherwise we will never understand  
the process. I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor  
consequence of fusion in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be  
in the wrong place at the wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does  
not occur.


Ed




Ed
On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken
down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so
derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process
indefinitely.

For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then
fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over
and over again.

In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.
The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of
operation.

As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
can operate for months of years without reload.

This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of
nuclear power.

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when
 not?
 How strong does the force have to be?


I think it would be analogous to the pull of gravity by the sun on the
earth, except in the opposite direction (a repelling force rather than an
attractive force).  Suppose the sun went supernova (for some unclear
reason).  My understanding is that earth would happily continue in its
present orbit for 8 minutes and 20 seconds before taking into account that
something bad has happened.

So the boundary conditions would be something like this -- the geometry of
the effect of the nucleus on the nuclear reaction underway would be the
same as in the current calculations; i.e., a far-away nucleus would have a
vanishingly trivial influence.  Only the dimension of time would be
relevant.  If the nucleus was in the same location at some point prior to
the reaction, and then for some reason disappeared, it would take the
amount of time required for the travel of the speed of light before the
effect would be felt by a series of fusion reactions.  The earlier ones in
the series would take the nucleus into account and the later ones would
not.  More likely, the nucleus would not disappear in a puff of smoke, and
you would just get a smearing effect within the dimension of time of the
influence of the nucleus that was for all practical intents
indistinguishable from an instantaneous influence.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding a subtlety of your question.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

The NAE is a topological construction. It appears whenever the required
shape comes into existence.


Once created, the NAE can be static, or it can come into existence and then
disappear in a variable timeframe; I call this a dynamic NAE.


The energy produced by a dynamic NAE is proportional to its production rate
compared to its destruction rate.

What is important to the effectiveness of a NAE in LENR is the output of
the NAE; that output is its ability to produce an anapole magnetic field.

Examples of NAE are cavitation bubbles, Solitons of surface plasmons as
formed between nanoparticles, ring current on the surfaces of nanowires,
stress cracks in metal lattices, ring electron currents on, in, and around
nano-protrusions on metallic surfaces. Magnetic nano-clusters formed on the
surface of nickel and other magnetic materials when the temperature of the
magnetic material exceeds its curie temperature.

Also see the following as a source of anapole magnetic fields in spin ice:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1174.pdf

Dirac Strings and Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice Dy2Ti2O7




On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:


 On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00 -0600:
 Hi,

 The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
 transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.


 It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
 transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation must be
 ruled
 out.


 Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The targets
 cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is located in a
 particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the target in that
 small particle or the particle is dead and no transmutation can occur in
 that particle. The target cannot move to where the NAE might be located.
 This severely limits how much energy can come from this source, which is
 less than is reported.   Hydrogen as a source of energy does not have this
 problem because, as a gas, it can seek out every NAE in each active
 particle and continue to make energy as long as the gas is supplied.



 Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the
 broadest
 sense). ;)


 No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be clear
 how we define words because otherwise we will never understand the process.
 I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor consequence of fusion
 in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be in the wrong place at the
 wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does not occur.

 Ed



 Ed
 On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

  The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
 reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken
 down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so
 derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process
 indefinitely.

 For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
 fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then
 fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over
 and over again.

 In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
 metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.
 The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of
 operation.

 As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
 can operate for months of years without reload.

 This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
 on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of
 nuclear power.

 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.**com/project.htmlhttp://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:34:27 PM

 He has agreed to another test. They are getting ready to do it. I
 believe the seven researchers prefer to measure between the wall and
 the controller box. I would, if I were doing it. Also, the skeptics
 would never believe measurements made between the controller and the
 reactor.

My $0.02  :

1. Run the 3-phase electric supply through a 3-phase isolation transformer.
   NO DC, and precious little HF can pass.
   If you're really, really worried about the HF, use a motor-generator.

2. Measure the voltage and current on all 4 lines (3 phases and neutral): 
measure the current by the voltage drop across calibrated inline resistors. Log 
the results in a text file at a suitable time interval (1 second for a 
half-year test -- 20 million x 8 channels x 24 characters -- hardly 1G of data.)


3. Use two thermocouples for the entire test (also logged) -- eCat cylinder 
(test point chosen by use of IR camera) and ambient.

4. Periodically and randomly (average N times a day) record and log all 8 
voltages with a wide-band oscilloscope (100khz) for a few AC cycles.


5. All of the log files being broken into separate files periodically (eg per 
day) and uploaded (eg dropbox). All of this logging to be done for the complete 
cold-hot-cold cycle.

Nobody's pointed it out, but the LEAST accurate measurement is the CONVECTION, 
which when done indoors can be affected by stable air-patterns.

6. I'd be inclined to add a chimney over the ecat, stir up the air-flow with 
baffles and/or fans, and log the temperature at several points at the top of 
the chimney. 

7. Include a blank (1-day test), also for a cold-hot-cold cycle, including the 
35/65 heater pulse.

My $0.04 :

8. Try and get Rossi to use the Penon version with the hole in the middle. 
(At very least, remove the flange) Place one IR camera looking into the exit 
hole from this perfect black-box.

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

Proton21 transmutation results:

http://www.proton21.com.ua/publ/Proton21_Energy_EN.pdf


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The NAE is a topological construction. It appears whenever the required
 shape comes into existence.


 Once created, the NAE can be static, or it can come into existence and
 then disappear in a variable timeframe; I call this a dynamic NAE.


 The energy produced by a dynamic NAE is proportional to its production
 rate compared to its destruction rate.

 What is important to the effectiveness of a NAE in LENR is the output of
 the NAE; that output is its ability to produce an anapole magnetic field.

 Examples of NAE are cavitation bubbles, Solitons of surface plasmons as
 formed between nanoparticles, ring current on the surfaces of nanowires,
 stress cracks in metal lattices, ring electron currents on, in, and around
 nano-protrusions on metallic surfaces. Magnetic nano-clusters formed on the
 surface of nickel and other magnetic materials when the temperature of the
 magnetic material exceeds its curie temperature.

 Also see the following as a source of anapole magnetic fields in spin ice:

 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1174.pdf

 Dirac Strings and Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice Dy2Ti2O7




 On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:


 On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

  In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00 -0600:
 Hi,

 The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
 transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.


 It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
 transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation must be
 ruled
 out.


 Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The
 targets cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is
 located in a particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the
 target in that small particle or the particle is dead and no transmutation
 can occur in that particle. The target cannot move to where the NAE might
 be located. This severely limits how much energy can come from this source,
 which is less than is reported.   Hydrogen as a source of energy does not
 have this problem because, as a gas, it can seek out every NAE in each
 active particle and continue to make energy as long as the gas is supplied.



 Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the
 broadest
 sense). ;)


 No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be
 clear how we define words because otherwise we will never understand the
 process. I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor consequence of
 fusion in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be in the wrong place
 at the wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does not occur.

 Ed



 Ed
 On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

  The transmutation model that I believe that the ash assays of LENR
 reactors point to is a quark plasma model in which nuclei are broken
 down by fission and concurrently built up by fusion. The elements so
 derived could be reprocessed by a reaction reformulation process
 indefinitely.

 For example, Ni fusions to Cu by addition of another p, then it
 fissions to Co, then fissions to Fe, then fission to Cr, then
 fission to Ti, then fusions to V, then fusions to Cr and so on over
 and over again.

 In this way, the energy (E=Mc2) content of the initial fuel load of
 metal and gas is gradually released by repetitive nuclear processes.
 The mass of the fuel load gradually evaporates over months of
 operation.

 As your calculations show, this is the only way that a Ni/H reaction
 can operate for months of years without reload.

 This long duration reaction fuel load requirement puts a tight limit
 on the reactions that can produce this long duration release of
 nuclear power.

 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.**com/project.htmlhttp://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?


If you take an extreme example it makes the process clear.  Suppose there 
exists a large current loop located a mile away from an electron source.  The 
point where the electron exits the gun has a magnetic field that is measurable 
arising from this source and at right angles to the path it will take.  The 
instant the electron leaves the source it become deflected by the magnetic 
field that exists at that precise point in time.  It does not have to wait 
until its motion is detected at the loop to begin the curvature.

In this case, the electron is subject to a right angle force immediately due to 
the field being present and not after a few microseconds of delay.  Notice that 
there would be no deflection had there not been an existing magnetic field.

An electric field from a large charge at a mile would behave in a similar 
manner.  In that case, the electron would immediately begin accelerating toward 
the positive charge source and actually gaining energy as well as momentum.  
The field itself must be the source of the force being experienced by the 
electron since the actual charge causing the field is not aware of the 
existence of the electron for the same delay due to light having a finite speed.

I tend to think of these types of processes as being influenced by changes in 
local time due to distance between objects.  In this case the electron is 
responding to the source fields associated with an earlier time of their 
existence from the source frame point of view.  From the electron's point of 
view, it is responding to its real time environment.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?


In reply to  David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT):
Hi,

The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating
mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply taking off
with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else
(potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it.

We don't see this happen. 

Robin,


I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting.  Regardless of how many 
charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields 
due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions.  The 
superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that 
interacts.  The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D 
site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the 
nearest ones would generally dominate.


For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a 
moving 
charged particle's path is curved at that point.  The potentially far off 
source 
of that field does not have to get information about the movement of that 
particle before the force is felt.  This type of thought fits into the concept 
that local time is what counts for a reference frame.  Distance makes the local 
times different between the friend nucleus and the interacting D's.


If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the friends 
nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required for 
light speed fields to reach them.  After that period has elapsed, they would be 
subject to potentially large dynamic forces.


Dave
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 3. Use two thermocouples for the entire test (also logged) -- eCat
 cylinder (test point chosen by use of IR camera) and ambient.


I believe the IR camera has an on-board thermocouple for ambient.

Another would not hurt.



 Nobody's pointed it out, but the LEAST accurate measurement is the
 CONVECTION, which when done indoors can be affected by stable air-patterns.

 6. I'd be inclined to add a chimney over the ecat, stir up the air-flow
 with baffles and/or fans . . .


Been there. Done that. I don't recommend it. Just ignore convection if you
don't believe the textbooks. You get significant excess even if you leave
it out.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:25:47 PM

 Been there. Done that. I don't recommend it. Just ignore convection
 if you don't believe the textbooks. You get significant excess even if you
 leave  it out.

Agreed. Quite a big component for the March COP=3 test -- insignificant for a 
6-month test.

Re: [Vo]: About the March test


At 11:03 AM 6/23/2013, Alan Fletcher wrote:

John Milstone  john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com  wrote:
*PLEASE FIX YOUR REPLY-TO ADDRESS 
**
(Last warning --- I'm not going to reply to anything you send which 
doesn't go straight back to vortex )


I guess the headers say it IS going to vortex, despite the name 
(which is all that shows up in Zimbra web, which tries to be TOO 
clever with email addresses)


From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
Reply-To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com  ==

You're off my ignore list, then.

Re: [Vo]: About the March test

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 I guess the headers say it IS going to vortex, despite the name (which is
 all that shows up in Zimbra web, which tries to be TOO clever with email
 addresses)

 From: John Milstone john_sw_orlan...@yahoo.com
 Reply-To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com  ==


There is a better way to do this, but I do not know what it is. This method
is confusing.

- Jed

[Vo]:What puts the curl in a curling stone? Uppsala connection

2013-06-23 Thread H Veeder

What puts the curl in a curling stone?
This is a question that has interested me for about 10 years.
Since Uppsala university is now involved in both cold fusion and curling
the first tenuous link has been made between the two fields. ;-)
As the article points out many explanations have been proposed and they
all have shortcomings. The creators of this newest explanation seem
overlook the force required to _carve_ the scratches at the leading edge.
This activity, I think, would tend to make the stone curl in the opposite
direction or at least cancel the effect of  the curling force produced by
the scratches on the trailing edge.
Harry



The mechanism that puts the curl in curling revealed
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-mechanism-stone-revealed.html
quotes:

Researchers from Uppsala University in Sweden can now reveal the
mechanism behind the curved path of a curling stone. The discovery by the
researchers, who usually study friction and wear in industrial and
technical applications, is now published in the scientific journal Wear.

As the stone slides over the ice the roughness on its leading half will
produce small scratches in the ice. The rotation of the stone will give the
scratches a slight deviation from the sliding direction. When the rough
protrusions on the trailing half shortly pass the same area, they will
cross the scratches from the front in a small angle. When crossing these
scratches they will have a tendency to follow them. It is this
scratch-guiding or track steering mechanism that generate the sideway force
necessary to cause the curl.

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-mechanism-stone-revealed.html

[Vo]:Could organizations like ALEC destroy CF/LENR's chances?

2013-06-23 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

If CF/LENR technology finally manages to get off the ground in the
commercial sense it may still face a very difficult uphill political battle.
It's possible obscure organizations, like ALEC, American Legislative
Exchange Council, may try their best to destroy cold fusion's commercial
potential before it has a chance to get out of the starting gate. ALEC is
well funded by corporations with deep pockets who want to get their business
agendas passed through both the state and national legislative branches.
They accomplish this by remaining as discretely as possible under the radar
of public awareness. 

 

Bill Moyers June 23, 2013 installment documents recent successes ALEC has
managed to pull off. You can stream the show from your computer or IPAD at:

 

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-united-states-of-alec-a-follow-up/

 

http://tinyurl.com/knpthqk

 

It would appear that this particular installment spends some time analyzing
ALEC related influences that recently transpired in Wisconsin. ALEC was very
much interested in making sure Scott Walker got elected Governor of the
state. What happened immediately after Scott's election is now a matter of
record, as well as the occasionally intense and acrimonious controversy that
followed. I am a Wisconsinite who has lived Madison since 1967. As such, I
expect to see some familiar faces pop up in the Moyer's show.

 

But this particular Bill Moyers show is not really about what happened,
exclusively, in Wisconsin. It's much bigger than that. Collectively
speaking, as a nation of individuals, it's important that the population be
aware of just how powerful corporate run organizations ALEC have now become,
and what they are capable of doing to our lives.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

[Vo]:New W-L paper proposes a cause of transmutations

2013-06-23 Thread pagnucco

Electrostrong Nuclear Disintegration in Condensed Matter

ABSTRACT:

Photo- and electro-disintegration techniques have been traditionally used
for studying giant dipole resonances and through them nuclear structure.
Over a long period, detailed theoretical models for the giant dipole
resonances were proposed and low energy electron accelerators were
constructed to perform experiments to test their veracity. More recently,
through laser and smart material devices, electrons have been
accelerated in condensed matter systems up to several tens of MeV. We
discuss here the possibility of inducing electro-disintegration of nuclei
through such devices. It involves a synthesis of electromagnetic and
strong forces in condensed matter via giant dipole resonances to give an
effective electro-strong interaction - a large coupling of
electromagnetic and strong interactions in the tens of MeV range.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5165

Re: [Vo]:What puts the curl in a curling stone? Uppsala connection

2013-06-23 Thread H Veeder

I just realised my criticism is invalid. An asymmetric force will not arise
from the action of carving since the stone is simultaneously carving the
ice all around the ring of contact rather than just at the leading
edge. This means the scratches left behind in the ice will be enough to
cause the stone to curl as the trailing edge bumps into those scratches.

Harry


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:40 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 What puts the curl in a curling stone?
 This is a question that has interested me for about 10 years.
 Since Uppsala university is now involved in both cold fusion and curling
 the first tenuous link has been made between the two fields. ;-)
 As the article points out many explanations have been proposed and they
 all have shortcomings. The creators of this newest explanation seem
 overlook the force required to _carve_ the scratches at the leading edge.
 This activity, I think, would tend to make the stone curl in the opposite
 direction or at least cancel the effect of  the curling force produced by
 the scratches on the trailing edge.
 Harry



 The mechanism that puts the curl in curling revealed
 http://phys.org/news/2013-05-mechanism-stone-revealed.html
 quotes:

 Researchers from Uppsala University in Sweden can now reveal the
 mechanism behind the curved path of a curling stone. The discovery by the
 researchers, who usually study friction and wear in industrial and
 technical applications, is now published in the scientific journal Wear.

 As the stone slides over the ice the roughness on its leading half will
 produce small scratches in the ice. The rotation of the stone will give the
 scratches a slight deviation from the sliding direction. When the rough
 protrusions on the trailing half shortly pass the same area, they will
 cross the scratches from the front in a small angle. When crossing these
 scratches they will have a tendency to follow them. It is this
 scratch-guiding or track steering mechanism that generate the sideway force
 necessary to cause the curl.

 Read more at:
 http://phys.org/news/2013-05-mechanism-stone-revealed.html

Re: [Vo]:The Unnatural Universe

2013-06-23 Thread John Berry

Reading that page I came across: In peril is the notion of “naturalness,”
Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful,
inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh
prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random
fluctuations in the fabric of space and time.

This is precisely what I have been saying abut engineering the aether
causes the rules to change!
Consider the Hutchinson effect, or the inexplicable qualities of cold
fusion's 'NAE's.

Additionally there is evidence of biological transmutation, which appears
impossible from a conventional perspective of the conditions required.

John


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:30:39 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 
 https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/is-nature-unnatural/
 
 On an overcast afternoon in late April, physics professors and
 students crowded into a wood-paneled lecture hall at Columbia
 University for a talk by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a high-profile theorist
 visiting from the Institute for Advanced Study in nearby Princeton,
 N.J. With his dark, shoulder-length hair shoved behind his ears,
 Arkani-Hamed laid out the dual, seemingly contradictory implications
 of recent experimental results at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.
 
 “The universe is inevitable,” he declared. “The universe is impossible.”
 
 The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a
 nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass,
 which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans.
 “The fact that it was seen more or less where we expected to find it
 is a triumph for experiment, it’s a triumph for theory, and it’s an
 indication that physics works,” Arkani-Hamed told the crowd.
 
 However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or
 equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a
 swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.


 Hmm. Do I smell an Ultraviolet Catastrophe in the wind?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The Unnatural Universe

2013-06-23 Thread ChemE Stewart

I believe the nature of quantum gravity makes certain that there will
always be uncertainty.  If we want more certainty in our lives we need to
go to an area of spacetime with a lower energy gravity field with less
energetic quantum particles.  It might be boring though, as our lives
currently unfold each day from our Sun.


On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:45 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Reading that page I came across: In peril is the notion of
 “naturalness,” Albert Einstein’s dream that the laws of nature are
 sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists
 face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy
 outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time.

 This is precisely what I have been saying abut engineering the aether
 causes the rules to change!
 Consider the Hutchinson effect, or the inexplicable qualities of cold
 fusion's 'NAE's.

 Additionally there is evidence of biological transmutation, which appears
 impossible from a conventional perspective of the conditions required.

 John


 On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:30:39 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 
 https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/is-nature-unnatural/
 
 On an overcast afternoon in late April, physics professors and
 students crowded into a wood-paneled lecture hall at Columbia
 University for a talk by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a high-profile theorist
 visiting from the Institute for Advanced Study in nearby Princeton,
 N.J. With his dark, shoulder-length hair shoved behind his ears,
 Arkani-Hamed laid out the dual, seemingly contradictory implications
 of recent experimental results at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.
 
 “The universe is inevitable,” he declared. “The universe is impossible.”
 
 The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a
 nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass,
 which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans.
 “The fact that it was seen more or less where we expected to find it
 is a triumph for experiment, it’s a triumph for theory, and it’s an
 indication that physics works,” Arkani-Hamed told the crowd.
 
 However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or
 equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a
 swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.


 Hmm. Do I smell an Ultraviolet Catastrophe in the wind?

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Consequence of various nuclear reactions

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:51:45 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]

On Jun 23, 2013, at 4:37 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 07:03:00  
 -0600:
 Hi,
 The sequence you suggest is not observed!! Therefore, we must agree,
 transmutation CAN NOT be the source of heat from an e-Cat.

 It is not logical to state that because the results of a particular
 transmutation theory are not in evidence, then all transmutation  
 must be ruled
 out.

Yes, all transmutation as a source of energy can be ruled out. The  
targets cannot move. They cannot seek out the NAE. Either the NAE is  
located in a particle, in which case the reaction can exhaust all the  
target in that small particle or the particle is dead and no  
transmutation can occur in that particle. The target cannot move to  
where the NAE might be located. This severely limits how much energy  
can come from this source, which is less than is reported.   Hydrogen  
as a source of energy does not have this problem because, as a gas, it  
can seek out every NAE in each active particle and continue to make  
energy as long as the gas is supplied.


 Oh, and BTW, your own theory is also a transmutation theory (in the  
 broadest
 sense). ;)

No, my theory is based on FUSION of hydrogen isotopes. We need to be  
clear how we define words because otherwise we will never understand  
the process. 

I did say in the broadest sense. The word transmute simply means to change. In
that sense, all nuclear reactions where one isotope changes into another, are
transmutation reactions. However I grant that in the context of CF it has
commonly come to mean an isotopic change of the host lattice.

I believe that transmutation takes place as a minor  
consequence of fusion in the same NAE if a target nuclei happens to be  
in the wrong place at the wrong time. Otherwise, transmutation does  
not occur.

IOW transmutation as you define it does occur sometimes, and therefore does
contribute some energy. This is a little different to your first statement
here-above.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:New W-L paper proposes a cause of transmutations