[Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
Likely this has been discussed on list before, but here goes: Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf (the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion .pdf So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? Charles
[Vo]:More about Rydberg matter clusters and fusion:
Ultrahigh-density deuterium of Rydberg matter clusters for inertial confinement fusion targets http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS%26PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.comwrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
Use of K carbonate with Ni for generation of excess heat: You might want to check the work of Thermocore circa 1994 and the NASA replication (Tech Memorandum 107167). I would doubt that its use with Ni for heat production via hydrogen reactions could be patentable today. It , as the use of other alkaline materials, is well known to those skilled in the art. i.e. those that actually are working with physical items within the field. D2 From: fran...@datacomm.ch To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:29:51 +0200 Subject: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate Likely this has been discussed on list before, but here goes: Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf(the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? Charles
Re: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:34 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Use of K carbonate with Ni for generation of excess heat: You might want to check the work of Thermocore circa 1994 and the NASA replication (Tech Memorandum 107167). The document he references from Jed's site *is* the Thermacore report.
RE: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields. That is the thing that help convince me. Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields? The impedance match of the ceramic based materials is a lot of work. I applaud MS's work and efforts. I basically gave up working at the high impedance levels and moved to carbon based material as a way to isolate the particles. My electronic design skills were not the match for high R's and the lower R is easier for me to work with. If people doubt Mitch's work, I would point out that the NANOR's where run at MIT within the a department dealing with Electronics. I am sure that any obvious errors would be quickly ruled out. D2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question From: jcol...@gmail.com To: m...@theworld.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
Charles, Jones Beene often reiterates the importance of Thermacore with citations and I would be surprised if he hasn't mentioned this one specifically, The report does support a molecular form of hydrogen [hydrino] and it places it still detectable via spectrpscopy on the surface of Ni cathode used in electrolysis of K2CO3. It remains unknown if the hydrino is still in situ or if the molecule can exit the geometry and remain intact..and if so does it reside in a vacancy like a hydrogen proton in the lattice or does it become squeezed out? Does the lattice structure reinforce the novel structure or expel it? Fran The electron of the hydrogen atom is predicted by Mills to transition to fractional energy levels releasing energy when contacting an energy sink resonant with the hydrogen energy released. The ash of the process is the shrunken hydrogen atom called a hydrino. Lehigh University (Dr. A. Miller), Bethlehem, PA, using ESCA (Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis)'6' has found the hydrino molecule absorbed on the surface of nickel cathodes used in electrolysis of K2CO3. This work shows a peak near 55 eV which is predicted by Mill's to be the binding energy of the electron for a hydrino molecule. Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanation for this peak. From: Charles Francis [mailto:fran...@datacomm.ch] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate Likely this has been discussed on list before, but here goes: Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf (the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? Charles
Re: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf *Extension of many-electron theory and approximate density functionals to fractional charges and fractional spins* An explanation for electrons with fractional charges and fractional spins? The collective interactions of electrons in condensed matter is hard to observe and understand, but progress is being made. Could 'hydrinos' be a result of this multi-electron theory describing fractional-charge and fractional-spin systems? Could 'hydrinos' be a misinterpretation of experimental observations of electrons in condensed matter? Could 'hydrinos' be electrons as quasi-particles in quasi-orbtals? On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Charles, Jones Beene often reiterates the importance of Thermacore with citations and I would be surprised if he hasn’t mentioned this one specifically, The report does support a molecular form of hydrogen [hydrino] and it places it still detectable via spectrpscopy on the surface of Ni cathode used in electrolysis of K2CO3. It remains unknown if the “hydrino” is still in situ or if the molecule can exit the geometry and remain intact..and if so does it reside in a vacancy like a hydrogen proton in the lattice or does it become squeezed out? Does the lattice structure reinforce the novel structure or expel it? Fran ** ** The electron of the hydrogen atom is predicted by Mills to transition to fractional energy levels releasing energy when contacting an energy sink resonant with the hydrogen energy released. The ash of the process is the shrunken hydrogen atom called a hydrino. Lehigh University (Dr. A. Miller), Bethlehem, PA, using ESCA (Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis)'6' has found the hydrino molecule absorbed on the surface of nickel cathodes used in electrolysis of K2CO3. This work shows a peak near 55 eV which is predicted by Mill's to be the binding energy of the electron for a hydrino molecule. Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanation for this peak. ** ** *From:* Charles Francis [mailto:fran...@datacomm.ch] *Sent:* Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:30 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate ** ** Likely this has been discussed on list before, but here goes: ** ** Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). ** ** I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf (the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) ** ** Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf ** ** So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? * *** ** ** Charles ** **
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You obviously try to twist things. Are you really expecting people to present papers and descriptions of demos before the demos? Yes, absolutely. I expect a demo to be accompanied with a complete description of the planned even. Of course it may not come off as planned, but it should be planned. No company does that. On the contrary, they all do. Professionals do not go to trade shows without documents and without rehearsing their spiel. Programmer?? For example, do you expect a programmer to post source code before the public release and show? No one posts source code. I expect copies of a user manual pre-print to be distributed with the demo. Or release a journal paper and presentation before the demo of a new program/ like a video game. Absolutely they should. A pre-print is essential. Or a car company to present technical specs before they take it to a show. Who said anything about before the show? You release the technical specs at the show. They are all ready to go, along with brochures and whatnot. Why oh why do you conclude that just because I (or anyone) do not tell YOU ever thing before a demo that I do not have data, and other information? You sound clueless to me! Like CETI was in California. I hope it works out better than that. Good luck and have fun! If you had not been kicked out of CMNS (or run off?) . . . . I quit, because I do not want to read any secrets. They want to keep the contents confidential. I have no objection to confidential discussion but I do not want to take part in them. , you would have even been able to find the months of prep leading up to this . . . So you ARE prepared. Good. I suggest you write a report, now. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
Charles, Potassium is the most notorious of the so-called Mills catalysts for forcing ground state redundancy, well known from the Thermacore patent and experiments going back to the early 1990s for DARPA (Gernert paper). But the reason for the greater effectiveness of the carbonate is not clear to everyone, especially since it has been noted that KOH is no more active than NaOH in electrolysis, so what gives? The apparent Rydberg multiple which is applicable for K is deep (3rd or 3x 27.2 = 81.6 eV) similar to lithium, and only a plasma would provide that much energy for occasional deep ionization in a reliable way - so at first K would not seem to be valuable for low energy redundancy reactions, in any form and especially not electrolysis. The first ionization potential for K is 4.34 eV and the second is 31.63 with the difference being 27.29 eV and that would have certain implications for a catalytic fit in a convoluted way (which is one reason why Mills' rules for catalysis have been criticized). One scenario for the Gernert gas-phase paper would involve double ionization of K due to a UV limited chain reaction as hydrogen exits the nickel capillary tubing - in the presence of some non-ionized H2 where the first IP of molecular hydrogen (4.48) returned the first 4S electron to the K leaving the ~27.2 hole. If one were to re-analyze Gernert today - knowing what has transpired since the Rossi HotCat, then one would probably be looking for a plasmon/ polariton connection between the nickel tubing and the K2CO3. This would explain the persistence of UV light and offer easy falsifiability. Another possible rationale for the effectiveness of K2CO3 relates to the carbonate anion and its oxides. One of the better catalysts for photochemistry turns out to be triple oxides like rust. This catalyst uses the UV component of solar light as well. Three oxygen atoms at angstrom spacing may have special affinity for UV (e.g. ozone layer). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23226798 http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085438_is-rust-the-key-to-cleaner-solar -generated-hydrogen From: Charles Francis Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf (the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion .pdf So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? Charles attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 09:24 AM 7/11/2013, Dennis Cravens wrote: One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields. That is the thing that help convince me. Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields? ... D2 Thanks, Dennis. That is so true. and would add that that is verified when such similar changes are not seen effecting the ohmic controls at the same location, as you know. Also quite reassured when we see large progressive rises in excess heat (beyond the expected thermal dissipation) with small increases in input power as we ascend the OOP manifold. Published some of the effects of applied H-fields on CF/LANR aqueous systems (impact is, at least in part, on loading) in Swartz, M.R. Impact of an Applied Magnetic Field on the Electrical Impedance of a LANR Device, Volume 4 JCMNS, Proceedings of the March 2010, New Energy Technology Symposium held at the 239th American Chemical Society National Meeting and Exposition in San Francisco (2011) which is at the uncensored, terrific, CMNS site. For me, loading the lattice has been the key to active CF/LANR systems since March 23, '89. Am busy working on a write-up of the effects wrought upon nanostructured CF/LANR systems by applied magnetic field intensities, at this very moment. Best regards, Mitchell -- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question From: jcol...@gmail.com To: m...@theworld.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
Jones Beene said [snip]Three oxygen atoms at angstrom spacing may have special affinity for UV (e.g. ozone layer).[/snip] Or the repeating crystalline structure based upon those three Oxygen atoms may form a geometry with UV affinity? Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate Charles, Potassium is the most notorious of the so-called Mills catalysts for forcing ground state redundancy, well known from the Thermacore patent and experiments going back to the early 1990s for DARPA (Gernert paper). But the reason for the greater effectiveness of the carbonate is not clear to everyone, especially since it has been noted that KOH is no more active than NaOH in electrolysis, so what gives? The apparent Rydberg multiple which is applicable for K is deep (3rd or 3x 27.2 = 81.6 eV) similar to lithium, and only a plasma would provide that much energy for occasional deep ionization in a reliable way - so at first K would not seem to be valuable for low energy redundancy reactions, in any form and especially not electrolysis. The first ionization potential for K is 4.34 eV and the second is 31.63 with the difference being 27.29 eV and that would have certain implications for a catalytic fit in a convoluted way (which is one reason why Mills' rules for catalysis have been criticized). One scenario for the Gernert gas-phase paper would involve double ionization of K due to a UV limited chain reaction as hydrogen exits the nickel capillary tubing - in the presence of some non-ionized H2 where the first IP of molecular hydrogen (4.48) returned the first 4S electron to the K leaving the ~27.2 hole. If one were to re-analyze Gernert today - knowing what has transpired since the Rossi HotCat, then one would probably be looking for a plasmon/ polariton connection between the nickel tubing and the K2CO3. This would explain the persistence of UV light and offer easy falsifiability. Another possible rationale for the effectiveness of K2CO3 relates to the carbonate anion and its oxides. One of the better catalysts for photochemistry turns out to be triple oxides like rust. This catalyst uses the UV component of solar light as well. Three oxygen atoms at angstrom spacing may have special affinity for UV (e.g. ozone layer). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23226798 http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085438_is-rust-the-key-to-cleaner-solar-generated-hydrogen From: Charles Francis Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf (the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? Charles
[Vo]:OT: Typewriters in the news
Kremlin Turns Back To Typewriters To Avoid Security Leaks A Russian state service in charge of safeguarding Kremlin communications is looking to purchase an array of old-fashioned typewriters to prevent leaks from computer hardware, sources said Thursday... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/kremlin-typewriters_n_3579184.html?utm_hp_ref=world Harry
RE: [Vo]:News about Defkalion Europe...
Aggravated is a good term. They had me down in the Motorola deal for a 6 figure salary plus a car. But then if Jim could not reproduce the beads from scratch then it is likely best that the deal was not done. D2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:53:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:News about Defkalion Europe... From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Jim P. Yes, that was sad. ( I actually thought the number was $30 M from Motorola and $20M from State water heaters ). Was it that much? What a nightmare. I just remember hearing $20 million and feeling SO AGGRAVATED. Yet another lost opportunity for cold fusion. Oy veh. I have been feeling the same way about Rossi, on and off, for a while. Yet another golden opportunity, gradually fading away . . . I feel differently now with the Levi report and the report of production in the U.S. Still nervous, but more optimistic. A lot could still go wrong. I wish I could make those beads. I wish you could too! I don't think that Jim could recreate them either. He told me he could anytime, but he never did. As far as I know he never did. Maybe he never tried? He lost heart after Reding died. That was so awful. It is human drama that causes these lost opportunities. Patterson, IMRA Europe, the NHE project . . . It is always people and their emotions and politics that cause disaster. Someone dies young; someone is broken hearted; or someone is so pig headed and self destructive he would rather die with nothing than give up a few percent of a potential multi-trillion dollar fortune. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
You and your motives are very hard to understand and do not seem inconsistent. First you say ” nothing, anywhere, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week”. (incomplete sentence) Again you make a big negative assumption about others. How do you know if I do or do not have a writeup?I will grant you it is not complete since my data acq system is in Austin getting a NI program installed and written,but there is a write up and even a folder with the user manuals for the major equipment items and chemical sources.Learn to check facts before you throw out automatic condemnations. When I point out that I have posted descriptions and pictures both via Vortex and CMNS you then back track and say“I mean a scientific paper. In a proceedings or journal.” (incomplete sentence) When I say that is not proper to present papers on demos that have not yet be preformed, you then say“I expect a demo to be accompanied with a complete description of the planned even (sic).” I would normally take that to mean you would not expect a full description until the planned event but that is in direct conflict of what I would normally understand from your first complaint. It is your continued use of incomplete sentences and misspelling in a public forum that make me very hesitant to accept your editing offer. I accept it from the science researchers but they do not profess to be editors. I suggest you write a report, now. You haven't even seen my first report about my demo. Why should I write another report? D2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:09:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You obviously try to twist things. Are you really expecting people to present papers and descriptions of demos before the demos? Yes, absolutely. I expect a demo to be accompanied with a complete description of the planned even. Of course it may not come off as planned, but it should be planned. . So you ARE prepared. Good. I suggest you write a report, now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
Axil, WOW! Great citation - didn't realize these questions are now partially answered - Rydberg d[1] and inverted d[-1] are pretty much permanent when formed. Exist in the defects, on the surface AND in the lattice.. only half way thru reading but this really helps! Are you suggesting these inverted Rydberg are acting like electrons around normal protons or deuterons in a lattice instead of a molecular bond? Would that still come close to Mills predicted spectrum that the Thermacore report mentions? Thanks Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:43 AM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf Extension of many-electron theory and approximate density functionals to fractional charges and fractional spins An explanation for electrons with fractional charges and fractional spins? The collective interactions of electrons in condensed matter is hard to observe and understand, but progress is being made. Could 'hydrinos' be a result of this multi-electron theory describing fractional-charge and fractional-spin systems? Could 'hydrinos' be a misinterpretation of experimental observations of electrons in condensed matter? Could 'hydrinos' be electrons as quasi-particles in quasi-orbtals? On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.commailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: Charles, Jones Beene often reiterates the importance of Thermacore with citations and I would be surprised if he hasn't mentioned this one specifically, The report does support a molecular form of hydrogen [hydrino] and it places it still detectable via spectrpscopy on the surface of Ni cathode used in electrolysis of K2CO3. It remains unknown if the hydrino is still in situ or if the molecule can exit the geometry and remain intact..and if so does it reside in a vacancy like a hydrogen proton in the lattice or does it become squeezed out? Does the lattice structure reinforce the novel structure or expel it? Fran The electron of the hydrogen atom is predicted by Mills to transition to fractional energy levels releasing energy when contacting an energy sink resonant with the hydrogen energy released. The ash of the process is the shrunken hydrogen atom called a hydrino. Lehigh University (Dr. A. Miller), Bethlehem, PA, using ESCA (Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis)'6' has found the hydrino molecule absorbed on the surface of nickel cathodes used in electrolysis of K2CO3. This work shows a peak near 55 eV which is predicted by Mill's to be the binding energy of the electron for a hydrino molecule. Lehigh's exhaustive evaluations have found no other explanation for this peak. From: Charles Francis [mailto:fran...@datacomm.chmailto:fran...@datacomm.ch] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 5:30 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate Likely this has been discussed on list before, but here goes: Concerning his recent patent update, Andrea Rossi apparently removed claims to the catalyst (re: the Cat in E-Cat) and it was suggested that this might have to do with prior use of his secret ingredient (i.e., perhaps he borrowed the recipe from elsewhere or inadvertently rediscovered it). I just noticed that anomalous heat production from Potassium Carbonate in combination with atomic hydrogen and nickel is mentioned in this unclassified 1994 military report: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf (the authors, incidentally, seem to be those today linked with BlackLight Power) Moreover, purportedly leaked notes from a 2012 Defkalion visit again mention Potassium Carbonate: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Summary-of-Visit-to-Defkalion.pdf So is Potassium Carbonate used in the Rossi/Defkalion devices? And is powdering nickel sufficiently innovative to be protected by a Rossi patent? Would the Potassium Carbonate/Nickel/Hydrogen combination for energy production be under patent somewhere else or is it in the public domain? Charles
Re: [Vo]:OT: Typewriters in the news
funny because they have invented passive transducers to hear typewriters... because until few decade ago, no secret service was stupid enough to use a computer... 2013/7/11 H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Kremlin Turns Back To Typewriters To Avoid Security Leaks A Russian state service in charge of safeguarding Kremlin communications is looking to purchase an array of old-fashioned typewriters to prevent leaks from computer hardware, sources said Thursday... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/kremlin-typewriters_n_3579184.html?utm_hp_ref=world Harry
[Vo]:OT photonic breakthrough
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130710141854.htm researchers at MIT have discovered a new method to trap light that could find a wide variety of applications.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? Harry On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an interesting detail that the particles were emitted from the backside of the Ti/D thin foil. But I don't recall there being a detector on the front side of the foil, so I don't think much can be concluded about directionality of the reaction in that particular instance. Eric
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: You and your motives are very hard to understand and do not seem inconsistent. You are mistaken. I am a very simple person. My only motivation is to promote the success of cold fusion by any means. You can always take my words at face value. I do not have ulterior motives and I do not try to disguise the meaning. I think you misunderstand because you do not take me literally. You look for hidden meanings where there are none. For example, I say I wish you had money because it is a useful tool to conduct research. You seem to have acquired the notion that I care whether you become rich or poor. That is completely incorrect. I would like to see you equipped with a few million dollars worth of scientific instruments. Whether you personally make any money or not is absolutely no concern of mine. I could not care less. First you say ” *nothing, anywhere*, ever about the kind of device you plan to show at NI Week”. (incomplete sentence) ** Again you make a big negative assumption about others. How do you know if I do or do not have a writeup? It is simple. I asked if you have a report. You responded: Strange, you expect a write up of a demo before it happens. I take that to mean no. Perhaps I misunderstand. Again, I take things literally. Yes, I do expect a write up before a demo. I take it you do not. Therefore this must mean you have not prepared a document describing the demo. Your previous demonstrations did not include any reports or explanatory material that I recall. I never saw anything from you after the demonstrations. No video, no reports. Perhaps you published something but I missed it. So again, I take that to mean you are unprepared. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think we should drop the subject. but there is a write up and even a folder with the user manuals for the major equipment items and chemical sources. Where? Where is this write up? I don't see it. Maybe it was attached and it got lost. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
I wrote: but there is a write up and even a folder with the user manuals for the major equipment items and chemical sources. Where? Where is this write up? I don't see it. Maybe it was attached and it got lost. Ah. You mean there exists a write up. I thought this meant here in this message (or in this link) is a write up. I thought you were directing my attention to said write-up. I hope it is a good write-up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mo wins
I think it might be related (in an oblique way) to the Kaye effect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrVlq2AgwyA Harry On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* H Veeder ** ** The problem with the explanation offered in the video is that it could apply to a rope but ropes don't behave like that so the explanation is not specific to the behaviour of the chain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=6ukMId5fIi0 ** ** Wire could behave like the chain in the video, or maybe stiff rope. Think “slinky” … ** ** … you probably need a certain amount of stiffness to get a spring effect in the uncoiling. It is more than momentum. ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Mo wins
Paper on the Kaye effect http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603183 Shear-thinning fluids exhibit surprisingly rich behaviour. One example is the Kaye effect which occurs when a thin stream of a solution of polyisobutylene in Decalin is poured into a dish of the fluid. As pouring proceeds, a small stream of liquid occasionally leaps upward from the heap. This surprising effect, which lasts only a second or so, is named after its first observer A. Kaye, who could offer no explanation for this behaviour. Later, Collyer and Fischer suggested from 250 frames per second cine recordings that the fluid must be highly shear thinning as well as elastic and 'pituitous'. In addition, they concluded that a rigid surface is required to back the reflected liquid stream. While the words bouncing and reflection are associated with non-continuous and elastic effects, we will show here that the Kaye effect is in fact a continuous flow phenomenon. We show that the Kaye effect works for many common fluids, including shampoos and liquid soaps. We reveal its physical mechanism (formation, stability and disruption) through high-speed imaging. The measurements are interpreted with a simple theoretical model including only the shear thinning behaviour of the liquid; elastic properties of the liquid play no role. We show that the Kaye effect can be stable and that it can be directed. We even demonstrate a stable Kaye effect on a thin soap film excluding the necessity of a rigid backing surface. Harry On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:19 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I think it might be related (in an oblique way) to the Kaye effect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrVlq2AgwyA Harry On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* H Veeder ** ** The problem with the explanation offered in the video is that it could apply to a rope but ropes don't behave like that so the explanation is not specific to the behaviour of the chain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=6ukMId5fIi0 ** ** Wire could behave like the chain in the video, or maybe stiff rope. Think “slinky” … ** ** … you probably need a certain amount of stiffness to get a spring effect in the uncoiling. It is more than momentum. ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate
The mentioned NASA replication (Tech Memorandum 107167) is available here: http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/19960016952_1996035672.p df Incidentally, an extract of a NASA presentation following their trip to see Rossi's E-Cat can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djBIWTsnwjY From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 July 2013 14:54 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Potassium Carbonate On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:34 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: Use of K carbonate with Ni for generation of excess heat: You might want to check the work of Thermocore circa 1994 and the NASA replication (Tech Memorandum 107167). The document he references from Jed's site is the Thermacore report.
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 07:17 AM 7/11/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? Jack, Yes. And we put a measured range of input powers through both the ohmic control and device which are adjacent; so all extremes are examined. Achieving this is complicated for both, and very difficult with the nanomaterials. . The PHUSORs (aqueous CF/LANR) are in low paramagnetic heavy water with cell impedances ca. 300 kilohms to 800 kilohms, which are probably an impedance higher than your typical electrolytic systems. This resistance decreases (degrades) over months to ~5 to 20 kilohms, as described in the many papers on this (eg. from ICCF10). The NANORs (dry preloaded CF/LANR components) start at gigohms or higher, and are driven to resistances ca. megohms to tens of kilohms depending upon the type of NANOR. Some change is degradation, some is material change including redistribution associated with dielectric polarization (such conduction is, of course, necessarily connected through Hilbert space and the imaginary part of the complex permittivity), and some catastrophic changes under conditions associated with what appears to be avalanche electron breakdown, as we reported in several papers. If my email works tonight, you should shortly have copies of the papers; two are preprints from the upcoming Proc. ICCF-17. Hope that helps. Good luck. Mitchell Swartz Under the right conditions, even the smallest ripple can create a mighty wave. Zensunni maxim On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:23:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] I stand corrected. On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The fact that no (or few?) reactions are detected on the front side shows that the reaction is not a typical hot fusion reaction. If this is a reference to the Chambers experiment in 1990, it is an interesting detail that the particles were emitted from the backside of the Ti/D thin foil. But I don't recall there being a detector on the front side of the foil, so I don't think much can be concluded about directionality of the reaction in that particular instance. Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:11:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? Harry It can only happen when energy is released somehow. Presumably this (and the back side measurement) is why the authors thought it worth reporting in the first place. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? It was closer to 15,000 times the original energy (5,000,000 eV / 350 eV), after having traversed ~1 um of titanium (or, possibly, some daughter particle resulting from a chain reaction of some kind that occurred closer to the exiting side of the foil). The presence of the foil complicates things, because it's not clear how far the daughter had to travel through it. The longer it had to travel, the more it would slow down, I think, especially if it was not initially aligned along an open pathway in the crystal structure. The authors speculated that the mystery particle was tritium on the basis of the energy difference in the energy peak when the 200 V detecter bias was turned off (silicon surface-barrier detector spectra respond to changes in voltage, apparently). The authors did not offer a possible reaction. Another possibility apart from a nuclear reaction was that background radiation was mistakenly associated with the incoming beam collisions. They only saw events in four of nine experiments, and the particles could have been cosmic rays or something similar. Also interesting is the fact that there was an earlier experiment by a group in Germany with a very similar setup that I just read about, and they saw nothing that could not be explained by normal dd reaction cross sections. But I don't think they saw anything above noise in the 300 eV range, and their foils were 3 um thick. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Puzzling phenomena: Gamma-ray pulse precedes lightning flash
In fluid dynamics, a Kármán vortex street (or a von Kármán vortex sheet) is a repeating pattern of swirling vortices caused by the unsteady separation of flow of a fluid around blunt bodies. It is named after the engineer and fluid dynamicist Theodore von Kármán, and is responsible for such phenomena as the singing of suspended telephone or power lines, and the vibration of a car antenna at certain speeds. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant is in Niigata. This city is surrounded by five mountains, These mountains will produce Kármán vortex streets in the atmosphere under appropriate conditions. These vortexes of air will produce LENR effects similar to the processes that occur in cavitation. On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:47 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Japanese team sees gamma-ray pulse before lightning flash http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jul/10/japanese-team-sees-gamma-ray-pulse-before-lightning-flash Also see the preprint by the same team: Hardening and termination of long-duration gamma rays detected prior to lightning http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2388
[Vo]:Was sonofusion actually disproved?
A belated reply to criticism of sonofusion experiments -- Comments on Letter (Phys. Rev. L, Vol.89, No. 10,2002) by D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, Colin D. West, JaeSeon Cho, Richard T. Lahey, Robert I. Nigmatulin, Robert C. Block http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3217 ABSTRACT: This article focuses on correcting several factual errors and critiques in the previously published Letter in Phys. Rev. L, Vol. 89, No. 10, 2022, by D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh. The authors of the Letter did not perform their own independent experiments as claimed; they did not perform control experiments with normal acetone; and, neither did they monitor for tritium. It their Letter, the authors (D. Shapira and M. Saltmarsh) failed to disclose that the data they collected actually confirmed our claims of having observed statistically significant nuclear emissions in chilled, cavitated deuterated acetone.
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:22 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:11:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? Harry It can only happen when energy is released somehow. Presumably this (and the back side measurement) is why the authors thought it worth reporting in the first place. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Yes. If the energy incoming particles were focused to arrive at the same time at the same place it might result in hot fusion as one sees in inertial confinement fusion. However, since the apparent energy release stems from incoming particles arriving in a stream it may be an anomalous nuclear effect. (ANE - another name for CF ;-) ) Until an effort is made to detect particle emissions in every direction, I don't think it is significant that high energy particles were detected leaving the backside of the foil. In my mind the most intriguing observation is the production of high energy particles. However, I believe Ed Storms said he is going to explain this apparent anomaly with conventional nuclear physics at ICCF 18 so we shouldn't get excited that it is evidence of an anomalous nuclear effect. Harry
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: How many well known collisions produce outgoing particles who kinetic energy is approx. 100 times that of the incoming particles? Can it be compared with known collisions? It was closer to 15,000 times the original energy (5,000,000 eV / 350 eV), after having traversed ~1 um of titanium (or, possibly, some daughter particle resulting from a chain reaction of some kind that occurred closer to the exiting side of the foil). The presence of the foil complicates things, because it's not clear how far the daughter had to travel through it. The longer it had to travel, the more it would slow down, I think, especially if it was not initially aligned along an open pathway in the crystal structure. Thanks for the clarification. I knew it was large, but since I couldn't immediately recall the figures I deliberately under estimated. The authors speculated that the mystery particle was tritium on the basis of the energy difference in the energy peak when the 200 V detecter bias was turned off (silicon surface-barrier detector spectra respond to changes in voltage, apparently). The authors did not offer a possible reaction. Another possibility apart from a nuclear reaction was that background radiation was mistakenly associated with the incoming beam collisions. They only saw events in four of nine experiments, and the particles could have been cosmic rays or something similar. Also interesting is the fact that there was an earlier experiment by a group in Germany with a very similar setup that I just read about, and they saw nothing that could not be explained by normal dd reaction cross sections. But I don't think they saw anything above noise in the 300 eV range, and their foils were 3 um thick. Assuming it is a real anomaly, it suggests a memory effect whereby each incoming particle serves to nudge the nuclei closer together. Harry Eric
