RE: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

Vorl Bek  wrote:

People on this list should enjoy this 400-second video

http://tinyurl.com/m7b6wvr

Thank you Vorl.  That was really neat.

Also a cautionary tale -- this is what will happen to a
person if you're cut loose and your jet pack malfunctions.


Nicely done … I was never into “glam” rock, or whatever Ziggy called it, but
the comment from Eric may sound a bit familiar to those of a certain age… 

This is Ground Control to Major Tom
You’ve really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it’s time to leave the capsule if you dare ….

….Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear

“am I floating round my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there’s nothing I can do?


<>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Robert Dorr]

I wasn't there and I don't know how their reactor is set up but I know 
that they are constantly monitoring reactor pressure and they could 
easily wire a kill switch, so that if a sudden rise in reactor pressure 
occurred it would kill the H.V. plasma/spark. No spark, no reaction, 
pressure drops.


Bob

I will agree that Mats (and Defkalion folks) are very brave to work
with this so casually.   Isn't anyone ever worried about these things
blowing up?

   


 



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3209/6517 - Release Date: 07/24/13


   

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

did you read?
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx
>

This bothers me. As I said before, this looks like theoretical speculation
which is not backed up with either rigorous experiments or theory
equations. They talk about "'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state."
How do they know these exist? How did they detect and measure this state
(partial ionization)? How do they know the electron's trajectory becomes
elliptic, as stated a few pages down? Do they have instruments to do this?
Did they farm out the study to some other lab?

What is the scientific basis for the claims made in this paper?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Danny Ross Lunsford]

Rydberg matter is a demonstrated fact. In that state the old Bohr-Sommerfeld 
quantum theory is applicable, and that allows elliptical orbits as long as 
angular momentum quantization is respected. The most interesting aspect of 
Rydberg states is their near immortality on the atomic scale. When condensed as 
in Cooper pairing, this could be a royal road to explaining heat-after-death.

-drl


 
---
"I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin





 From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
 


Axil Axil  wrote:


did you read?
> 
>http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx

This bothers me. As I said before, this looks like theoretical speculation 
which is not backed up with either rigorous experiments or theory equations. 
They talk about "'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state." How do they know 
these exist? How did they detect and measure this state (partial ionization)? 
How do they know the electron's trajectory becomes elliptic, as stated a few 
pages down? Do they have instruments to do this? Did they farm out the study to 
some other lab?

What is the scientific basis for the claims made in this paper?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

*"'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state." How do they know these
exist? *

* *

*Dr. Miley has measured this type of hydrogen in cavities of iron oxide. He
has shown that these cavities are superconducting.*

* *


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> did you read?
>>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx
>>
>
> This bothers me. As I said before, this looks like theoretical speculation
> which is not backed up with either rigorous experiments or theory
> equations. They talk about "'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state."
> How do they know these exist? How did they detect and measure this state
> (partial ionization)? How do they know the electron's trajectory becomes
> elliptic, as stated a few pages down? Do they have instruments to do this?
> Did they farm out the study to some other lab?
>
> What is the scientific basis for the claims made in this paper?
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:The Essence Of Science In 61 Seconds (Richard Feynman)

[Patrick Ellul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc#action=share

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!"

-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

This bothers me. As I said before, this looks like theoretical speculation
> which is not backed up with either rigorous experiments or theory equations.
>

It bothers me too.


> They talk about "'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state." How do they
> know these exist? How did they detect and measure this state (partial
> ionization)?
>

I suspect they've done a lot of informal research with their system and
have figured a lot out.  My general impression is that their system is the
real thing.  But with Defkalion, in particular, I am wary of misdirection
-- the mixing of details of real observations together with half-truths and
other tidbits in order to send people off on a wild goose chase, as an IP
protection strategy.  An example is the Rydberg hydrogen.  I wonder in this
case whether the hydrogen is not what is in the excited state, but instead
the nickel atoms.  I have no idea either way, and I'm not in a good
position to speculate, but this is a question that comes to mind.

Eric


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

In engineering, systems work based on solid well researched principles of
operations.

Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this year.
You best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> This bothers me. As I said before, this looks like theoretical speculation
>> which is not backed up with either rigorous experiments or theory equations.
>>
>
> It bothers me too.
>
>
>> They talk about "'excited' hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state." How do
>> they know these exist? How did they detect and measure this state (partial
>> ionization)?
>>
>
> I suspect they've done a lot of informal research with their system and
> have figured a lot out.  My general impression is that their system is the
> real thing.  But with Defkalion, in particular, I am wary of misdirection
> -- the mixing of details of real observations together with half-truths and
> other tidbits in order to send people off on a wild goose chase, as an IP
> protection strategy.  An example is the Rydberg hydrogen.  I wonder in this
> case whether the hydrogen is not what is in the excited state, but instead
> the nickel atoms.  I have no idea either way, and I'm not in a good
> position to speculate, but this is a question that comes to mind.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_atom
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this year.
> You best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.
>

They mention this, they mention that. Where is the experimental proof? They
mentioned that the tried isotopically pure samples of Ni. That is a bold
claim. Where is the test data? How big were the samples? How pure? Where
did they get them? In a scientific presentation these details would be
provided.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

You are beginning to sound like Mary Yugo, such mistrust of your fellow
LENR enthusiasts does not become you. Faith, faith, you need faith.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this
>> year. You best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.
>>
>
> They mention this, they mention that. Where is the experimental proof?
> They mentioned that the tried isotopically pure samples of Ni. That is a
> bold claim. Where is the test data? How big were the samples? How pure?
> Where did they get them? In a scientific presentation these details would
> be provided.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Danny Ross Lunsford]

This is funny, like dissension among the Spartacans after defeating the Roman 
militia. Form up slaves, the legions are still waiting!


 -drl


---
"I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin





 From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l  
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
 


You are beginning to sound like Mary Yugo, such mistrust of your fellow LENR 
enthusiasts does not become you. Faith, faith, you need faith.
 
 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> 
>Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this year. You 
>best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.
>
>
>They mention this, they mention that. Where is the experimental proof? They 
>mentioned that the tried isotopically pure samples of Ni. That is a bold 
>claim. Where is the test data? How big were the samples? How pure? Where did 
>they get them? In a scientific presentation these details would be provided.
>
>- Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket

[Terry Blanton]

It's science fiction but a thriller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4coTNta-YA

Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket

[Danny Ross Lunsford]

Sigh.. I hate to nitpick but - You can't see stars with the bare eyes when the 
Sun is out! And that's not Newton, it's Six Flags Over the Ocean!

-drl


---
"I write a little. I erase a lot." - Chopin





 From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ride a Shuttle Booster Rocket
 



It's science fiction but a thriller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4coTNta-YA 

RE: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Axil,

 

Where can I find the presentation of Kim at ICCF18?

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 30 juillet 2013 16:38
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

 

Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this year.
You best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Alain Sepeda]

probably a question of price
http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/listproducts.cfm?cat_id=49


 NILM-2491NICKEL-58
METAL
(58NI,
99%+) MEPlease Inquire NILM-4446-100NICKEL-60
METAL
(60NI,
99.0%) MGEPlease Inquire NILM-4446-250NICKEL-60
METAL
(60Ni) MGEPlease Inquire NILM-4446-500NICKEL-60
METAL
(60Ni) MGEPlease Inquire NILM-3778NICKEL-61
METAL
(61NI,
92%) MEPlease Inquire NILM-3663NICKEL-62
METAL
(62NI,
98%+) MEPlease Inquire NILM-485-20NICKEL-64
METAL
(64NI,
95%) MEPlease Inquire

since their reactor if few kW wit 6g of nickel,
I imagine that you can observe the re-activity of metal with less than 1g
or less than 100mg


2013/7/30 Jed Rothwell 

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this
>> year. You best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.
>>
>
> They mention this, they mention that. Where is the experimental proof?
> They mentioned that the tried isotopically pure samples of Ni. That is a
> bold claim. Where is the test data? How big were the samples? How pure?
> Where did they get them? In a scientific presentation these details would
> be provided.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!!

[Edmund Storms]

I see no relationship to LENR. This is obviously hot fusion. Neutrons can be 
made at 35kv, as described on the article, but at a low rate. This was not 
understood at the time. Now if is. We do not have to be taught y such early 
experience

Ed 

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 28, 2013, at 5:07 PM, David ledin  wrote:

> Written by Lewis Larsen
> 
> 
> You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant
> LENR-related experimental discovery back in
> 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and
> forgotten by mainstream physics.
> 
> In the history of science, it seems that experimental results that
> don't somehow fit within some sort of
> contemporary conceptual paradigm often tend to get ignored. Sadly, in
> many cases such results are
> never reported anywhere in peer-reviewed journals for posterity. In
> that regard, this cover note is
> combined with scanned page images from Chapter 6 in Dr. Ernest
> Sternglass' little 1997 book, “Before
> the Big Bang - the Origin of the Universe.”
> 
> The excerpted page scans from the above book chapter are those in
> which Dr. Sternglass describes
> some enigmatic experiments that he conducted in the Cornell University
> physics department back in the
> early 1950s.It recounts his work with an old hydrogen-filled X-ray
> tube, as well as a subsequent dialogue
> with Albert Einstein in attempting to understand the (then) utterly
> inexplicable experimental results.
> 
> Seven years ago, relationship to le r , then in his late 80s, told me over the
> telephone that (before he had
> communicated with Einstein about his strange results) the legendary
> Hans Bethe had looked over his
> experimental data and was totally baffled too. Nobody at Cornell
> understood what was happening in the
> experimental setup that could possibly produce the observed fluxes of
> neutrons (obviously, ultra low
> momentum neutrons were not produced in his experiments --- they were
> more akin to what happens in
> high-current exploding wires as opposed to what happens in typical P&F
> aqueous electrolytic cells). So, a
> baffled Bethe called Einstein on the telephone and asked him to help
> PhD candidate Sternglass evaluate
> his unexpected experimental results. The attached chapter taken from
> Sternglass' book relates that story.
> 
> What is truly mind boggling about this tale is that Einstein simply
> looked at Sternglass' data and then
> immediately realized that the observed neutron production must involve
> some sort of many-body
> collective effects with electrons (which we utilize with great
> explanatory power in our theory of LENRs).
> Can you believe it --- what a mind Einstein had  even at that late
> stage in his life!  At that point (1951),
> very few physicists really had any idea of what collective effects
> were about. Well, Einstein surely did.
> 
> Unfortunately, Ernest's bizarre experimental discovery was simply not
> pursued any further. In the end,
> Sternglass didn't heed Einstein's (and Bethe's) strong advice to "be
> stubborn" and publish the deeply
> anomalous results. Sternglass' experiments were subsequently lost and
> largely forgotten by other
> physicists in the ensuing years, just like the work of chemists Wendt
> and Irion at the University of Chicago
> back in 1922 and other related transmutation work published in
> refereed journals circa 1900 - 1927.
> 
> Einstein, the only contemporary scientist who had any real inkling of
> what might be happening in
> Sternglass' puzzling experiments, died just four years after his
> interaction with Sternglass on the
> unexplained neutron fluxes.
> 
> The only surviving document wherein these intriguing experimental
> results were ever mentioned was
> Sternglass' little book published many years later in 1997. In 2006, I
> stumbled across a copy of it in the
> $2.99 discount section at Border's bookstore and, curious, just for
> kicks picked it up to read over the
> weekend. After reading an amazing chapter (see scanned pages), I
> immediately called my theoretical
> collaborators and said, "You guys won't believe what I just found."
> They were equally amazed.
> 
> We plan to specifically discuss and explain the 1951
> Sternglass/Bethe/Einstein saga in an upcoming
> paper; it appears that this experimental anomaly is just another
> aspect of LENRs. Perhaps now, after
> remaining in obscurity for 60 years, there can finally be some
> conceptual closure on Sternglass’ long-lost,
> unpublished experimental results.
> 
> Full article
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2025LatticeEnergyDoc.pdf
> 

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

*http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-5-presentations-and-awards/*

* *

*ICCF-18 Day 5: Presentations and
Awards
*

* *

*An excerpt from the reference.*

* *

* *

*Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for Experimental Results of
Hydrogen-Nickel Systems presented by Yeong Kim was anticipated because of
his recent collaboration with Defkalion Green Technologies, who beamed in a
video of their demonstration of the R-5 reactor in Milan on Tuesday.*

* *

*The Hyperion reactor contains a core of nickel metal foam. Heating the
system to 180 C – 849 C, the Hyperion is then triggered, after which the
magnetic field rose 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla.*

* *

*Kim says, “This indicates that LENRs are producing very strong electric
fields E, currents I, and magnetic fields B.”*

* *

*ICCF-18fKim reported Defkalion tests produced excess heat only with the
even isotopes of Ni (58, 60, 62, and 64), whereas odd isotopes do not
produce excess heat (61).*

* *

*No gammas outside of 50 keV to 300 keV were detected from the Hyperion. *

* *

*Graphs were shown of an excess heat run, and a control run, where the data
showed the power can be cut-off at will, revealing the ability to control
the reaction.*

* *

*Kim then began to describe his theoretical explanation of the data. He
speculated that in the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE), two deuterons making
a Helium-4 require a symmetric release of energy, to conserve total
momentum.*

* *

*For two-particles exiting the reaction, his model shows lower probability.*

* *

*“The problem is solved”, says Kim, and he is willing to talk to other
theorists to help convince them.*

* *

*He then described Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) generalized
to include Hydrogen-Metal Systems. While there are still some unknowns,
namely the S-factor representing the nuclear force strength, and the
probability of the Boson Cluster State (BCS), the predicted reaction rates
can be compared with the experimental reaction rates.*

* *

*Kim speculated that the magnetic fields generated by the triggering could
provide magnetic alignments of Nickel atoms, and these could provide
localized magnetic trap (LMT) potentials for Boson clusters on the surface
of Ni powders, though these traps have short lifetimes.*

* *

*It is Rydberg atoms that then form the BEC cluster state.*

* *

*“H and Ni powders triggered by glow discharge created a magnetic field
causing Rydberg states allowing nano-scale localized magnetic traps,
allowing Hydrogen Boson Cluster States in the LMT on the Ni surfaces.
Fusion between these elements create excess heat and locally produced glow
discharges.”*

* *

*Kim writes, “Transmutation reactions involving Ni isotopes may not be
dominant reaction mechanism but could be part of much weaker secondary
reaction.”*

* *

*Kim believes that self-sustaining reactions could be improved by
increasing the deuterium density, and this will be tested with Hyperion R-6
reactor with the on-line real-time mass spectrometer at Defkalion Lab. *

* *

*1% of Defkalion revenue will be spent on basic scientific research. Moving
forward, Defkalion will be cooperating with National Instruments, as well.*

* *

*
--
*

* *

*IMHO, Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) is a Nanoplasmonic
process.*

* *

*I do not agree with Kim that BEC is the primary LENR mechanism. It is
instead a epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) or a secondary phenomenon
that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon.*

* *

*An epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot affect
a primary phenomenon.*

* *

*In the field of complex systems, the term epiphenomenon tends to be used
interchangeably with "emergent effect".*

* *

**

* *

*In the E-cat, the polariton formation process allows for the formation of
EMF solitons as separate unconnected units at low temperatures. *

* *

*As the temperature rises, polariton formation of global polariton
Bose-Einstein condensation appears as an epiphenomenon. This BEC will
thermalize the gamma radiation via a superatom mechanism.*

* *

*See*

* *

*Spasers explained*

* *

*http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Spaser_Chapter.pdf*

* *

* *


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

>  Axil,
>
> ** **
>
> Where can I find the presentation of Kim at ICCF18?
>
> ** **
>  --
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* mardi 30 juillet 2013 16:38
> *To:* vortex-l
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
> 
>
>   ** **
>
> Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this year. You
> best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.
>

[Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Axil Axil]

Hot nanoparticles stick together.

Hot nanoparticles exist in a dark mode electromagnetically. They absorb
heat and transform that radiation into dipole oscillations. This charge
separation of positive and negative charge in a dipole will attract
nanoparticles like lint sticks to your outfit.

This buildup in charge separation causes a “stark effect”

The underlying basis of the attractive force has actually been known for at
least half a century: blackbody radiation shifts the atomic energy levels
of nearby atoms, molecules, and nanoparticles. In these "Stark shifts," the
ground states of the atom or atomic aggregates are shifted to a lower
energy by an amount that is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the
blackbody's temperature. That is, the hotter the blackbody, the larger the
dipole oscillations become, and the charge separation that is associated
with the dipoles.


While this much has been theoretically known, however, the potential
repercussions on nano-systems of these energy shifts have been overlooked
until recently. In a new study, scientists have for the first time shown
that the Stark shifts induced by blackbody radiation can combine to
generate an attractive optical force that dominates the blackbody's own
repulsive radiation pressure. This means that, despite its outgoing
radioactive energy flow, a hot nano-sized atomic cluster actually attracts
rather than repels neutral atoms and molecules, under most conditions.

This cluster attraction occurs because other atoms and clusters whose
ground states are shifted to lower energy levels are drawn toward regions
of higher radiation intensity—in the case of Ni/H reactors, nano and micro
particle blackbodies. The strength of the attractive force decays with the
third power of the distance from the blackbody. Second, the force is
stronger for smaller objects. Third, the force is stronger for hotter
objects, up to a point. At above a few thousand degrees Kelvin, the force
changes from attraction to repulsion,


What does this say about what goes on inside a Ni/H reactor core?


When nanoparticles are produced by spark discharge or heating elements in
an Ni/H reactor, these clusters are strongly attracted to each other if the
hydrogen is hot enough.


The hydrogen and/or potassium nano-clusters produced by plasma condensation
will rapidly migrate over to the Ni micro particles. The Ni micro particles
are permanent particles that a not created or destroyed during Ni/H reactor
operations. Ni particles are specially prepared using a vender specific
proprietary process in an offline setting. This process may include isotope
enhancement as well as the formation of nano sized nanowires on the surface
of each micro dimensioned nickel particle.


The nanoparticles in the Ni/H reaction are dynamically produced particles
that are generated during every plasma excitation cycle and are gradually
destroyed by LENR reaction activity between plasma excitation cycles. After
these dynamic nanoparticles are created and made clingy by dipole charge
separation, these newly born dust particles rush to join up with the Ni
micro-particles. These small clusters will coat these permanent nickel
particles and their nanowire surfaces in the same way that snow clings to
the branches of an evergreen tree in a snowstorm.


As nuclear activity produces energy, the dynamic particles are blown off
the surface of nickel particles but these dynamic particles are strongly
attracted back to the areas of nuclear activity


As the LENR reaction proceeds between plasma excitation cycles, these
dynamic nanoparticle gradually melt like snow in a springtime hot spell
until they are rebuild by the next plasma excitation activation.

Reference:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-blackbody-stronger-gravity.html

Blackbody radiation induces attractive force stronger than gravity

Re: [Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!!

[pagnucco]

Ed,

You may be correct, but if you could amplify your comment -

  "Neutrons can be made at 35kv, as described on the article,
   but at a low rate."

- I would be interested, since I (perhaps erroneously) thought
that  neutron production was almost impossible in bare
electron-proton(or deuteron) collisions at these energies.
(I assume you are excluding collective effects.)

Perhaps, you are referring to a different phenomenon?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

Edmund Storms wrote:
> I see no relationship to LENR. This is obviously hot fusion. Neutrons can
> be made at 35kv, as described on the article, but at a low rate. This was
> not understood at the time. Now if is. We do not have to be taught y such
> early experience
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 5:07 PM, David ledin 
> wrote:
>
>> Written by Lewis Larsen
>>
>>
>> You may really enjoy reading this amazing tale of a brilliant
>> LENR-related experimental discovery back in
>> 1951 --- followed by its descent into total obscurity. Simply lost and
>> forgotten by mainstream physics.
>> [...]

RE: [Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!!

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com 

Ed,

You may be correct, but if you could amplify your comment -

  "Neutrons can be made at 35kv, as described on the article,
   but at a low rate."

I would be interested, since I (perhaps erroneously) thought
that  neutron production was almost impossible in bare
electron-proton(or deuteron) collisions at these energies.


Lou 

The Farnsworth Fusor has been around for a long time and produces up to
10,000 neutrons per second at 35 kv (or less). This is deuterium fusion but
is often called "warm" instead of "hot" since the input power is fairly low.

This is technically ICF - inertial confinement fusion - since the tube is
spherical and benefits from what is known as "spherical convergence".

If Larsen did not know of this device, it is almost bone-headed, given
Farnsworth's fame (he invented television) and the publicity that the Fusor
has received over the years.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[DJ Cravens]

yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I try to 
use them.  That is why I had to move to nano material held in C or silica.  I 
ended up with just a blob of metal that eventually quite working. at least 
for me.
 
D2

 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:49:17 -0400
From: janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

Hot nanoparticles stick together.
Hot nanoparticles exist in a dark mode electromagnetically. They absorb heat 
and transform that radiation into dipole oscillations. This charge separation 
of positive and negative charge in a dipole will attract nanoparticles like 
lint sticks to your outfit.

This buildup in charge separation causes a “stark effect”
The underlying basis of the attractive force has actually been known for at 
least half a century: blackbody radiation shifts the atomic energy levels of 
nearby atoms, molecules, and nanoparticles. In these "Stark shifts," the ground 
states of the atom or atomic aggregates are shifted to a lower energy by an 
amount that is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the blackbody's 
temperature. That is, the hotter the blackbody, the larger the dipole 
oscillations become, and the charge separation that is associated with the 
dipoles. 


While this much has been theoretically known, however, the potential 
repercussions on nano-systems of these energy shifts have been overlooked until 
recently. In a new study, scientists have for the first time shown that the 
Stark shifts induced by blackbody radiation can combine to generate an 
attractive optical force that dominates the blackbody's own repulsive radiation 
pressure. This means that, despite its outgoing radioactive energy flow, a hot 
nano-sized atomic cluster actually attracts rather than repels neutral atoms 
and molecules, under most conditions.

This cluster attraction occurs because other atoms and clusters whose ground 
states are shifted to lower energy levels are drawn toward regions of higher 
radiation intensity—in the case of Ni/H reactors, nano and micro particle 
blackbodies. The strength of the attractive force decays with the third power 
of the distance from the blackbody. Second, the force is stronger for smaller 
objects. Third, the force is stronger for hotter objects, up to a point. At 
above a few thousand degrees Kelvin, the force changes from attraction to 
repulsion,


What does this say about what goes on inside a Ni/H reactor core?

When nanoparticles are produced by spark discharge or heating elements in an 
Ni/H reactor, these clusters are strongly attracted to each other if the 
hydrogen is hot enough.


The hydrogen and/or potassium nano-clusters produced by plasma condensation 
will rapidly migrate over to the Ni micro particles. The Ni micro particles are 
permanent particles that a not created or destroyed during Ni/H reactor 
operations. Ni particles are specially prepared using a vender specific 
proprietary process in an offline setting. This process may include isotope 
enhancement as well as the formation of nano sized nanowires on the surface of 
each micro dimensioned nickel particle. 


The nanoparticles in the Ni/H reaction are dynamically produced particles that 
are generated during every plasma excitation cycle and are gradually destroyed 
by LENR reaction activity between plasma excitation cycles. After these dynamic 
nanoparticles are created and made clingy by dipole charge separation, these 
newly born dust particles rush to join up with the Ni micro-particles. These 
small clusters will coat these permanent nickel particles and their nanowire 
surfaces in the same way that snow clings to the branches of an evergreen tree 
in a snowstorm.


As nuclear activity produces energy, the dynamic particles are blown off the 
surface of nickel particles but these dynamic particles are strongly attracted 
back to the areas of nuclear activity 

As the LENR reaction proceeds between plasma excitation cycles, these dynamic 
nanoparticle gradually melt like snow in a springtime hot spell until they are 
rebuild by the next plasma excitation activation.

Reference:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-blackbody-stronger-gravity.html
Blackbody radiation induces attractive force stronger than gravity


 
  

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Teslaalset]

That is probably why Defkalion indicates they have such high percentage of
'Light elements' in their reactor content :
see page: 4, 5 of
http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx



On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:23 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I
> try to use them.  That is why I had to move to nano material held in C or
> silica.  I ended up with just a blob of metal that eventually quite
> working. at least for me.
>
> D2
>
>
> --
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:49:17 -0400
> From: janap...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
>
>
> Hot nanoparticles stick together.
> Hot nanoparticles exist in a dark mode electromagnetically. They absorb
> heat and transform that radiation into dipole oscillations. This charge
> separation of positive and negative charge in a dipole will attract
> nanoparticles like lint sticks to your outfit.
> This buildup in charge separation causes a “stark effect”
> The underlying basis of the attractive force has actually been known for
> at least half a century: blackbody radiation shifts the atomic energy
> levels of nearby atoms, molecules, and nanoparticles. In these "Stark
> shifts," the ground states of the atom or atomic aggregates are shifted to
> a lower energy by an amount that is roughly proportional to the fourth
> power of the blackbody's temperature. That is, the hotter the blackbody,
> the larger the dipole oscillations become, and the charge separation that
> is associated with the dipoles.
>
> While this much has been theoretically known, however, the potential
> repercussions on nano-systems of these energy shifts have been overlooked
> until recently. In a new study, scientists have for the first time shown
> that the Stark shifts induced by blackbody radiation can combine to
> generate an attractive optical force that dominates the blackbody's own
> repulsive radiation pressure. This means that, despite its outgoing
> radioactive energy flow, a hot nano-sized atomic cluster actually attracts
> rather than repels neutral atoms and molecules, under most conditions.
> This cluster attraction occurs because other atoms and clusters whose
> ground states are shifted to lower energy levels are drawn toward regions
> of higher radiation intensity—in the case of Ni/H reactors, nano and micro
> particle blackbodies. The strength of the attractive force decays with the
> third power of the distance from the blackbody. Second, the force is
> stronger for smaller objects. Third, the force is stronger for hotter
> objects, up to a point. At above a few thousand degrees Kelvin, the force
> changes from attraction to repulsion,
>
> What does this say about what goes on inside a Ni/H reactor core?
>
> When nanoparticles are produced by spark discharge or heating elements in
> an Ni/H reactor, these clusters are strongly attracted to each other if the
> hydrogen is hot enough.
>
> The hydrogen and/or potassium nano-clusters produced by plasma
> condensation will rapidly migrate over to the Ni micro particles. The Ni
> micro particles are permanent particles that a not created or destroyed
> during Ni/H reactor operations. Ni particles are specially prepared using a
> vender specific proprietary process in an offline setting. This process may
> include isotope enhancement as well as the formation of nano sized
> nanowires on the surface of each micro dimensioned nickel particle.
>
> The nanoparticles in the Ni/H reaction are dynamically produced particles
> that are generated during every plasma excitation cycle and are gradually
> destroyed by LENR reaction activity between plasma excitation cycles. After
> these dynamic nanoparticles are created and made clingy by dipole charge
> separation, these newly born dust particles rush to join up with the Ni
> micro-particles. These small clusters will coat these permanent nickel
> particles and their nanowire surfaces in the same way that snow clings to
> the branches of an evergreen tree in a snowstorm.
>
> As nuclear activity produces energy, the dynamic particles are blown off
> the surface of nickel particles but these dynamic particles are strongly
> attracted back to the areas of nuclear activity
>
> As the LENR reaction proceeds between plasma excitation cycles, these
> dynamic nanoparticle gradually melt like snow in a springtime hot spell
> until they are rebuild by the next plasma excitation activation.
> Reference:
> http://phys.org/news/2013-07-blackbody-stronger-gravity.html
> Blackbody radiation induces attractive force stronger than gravity
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:

yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I
> try to use them.
>

That is why Arata put them in a structure of non-reacting Zr. To hold the
particles apart, you might say.

Takahashi says they are not melting. Hydrogen reactions are causing them to
glom together. I wouldn't know, but that is what he says. He points out
that the temperature is sometimes lower with an active cold fusion run than
with a control run. Yes, but I wonder if the local temperature in the
nanopowder is not higher.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Arnaud Kodeck]

Defkalion is making a lot of claims without proof of what they say.

 

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 30 juillet 2013 18:46
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

 

http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-5-presentations-and-awards/

 

  ICCF-18
Day 5: Presentations and Awards

 

An excerpt from the reference.

 

 

Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for Experimental Results of
Hydrogen-Nickel Systems presented by Yeong Kim was anticipated because of
his recent collaboration with Defkalion Green Technologies, who beamed in a
video of their demonstration of the R-5 reactor in Milan on Tuesday.

 

The Hyperion reactor contains a core of nickel metal foam. Heating the
system to 180 C - 849 C, the Hyperion is then triggered, after which the
magnetic field rose 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla.

 

Kim says, "This indicates that LENRs are producing very strong electric
fields E, currents I, and magnetic fields B."

 

ICCF-18fKim reported Defkalion tests produced excess heat only with the even
isotopes of Ni (58, 60, 62, and 64), whereas odd isotopes do not produce
excess heat (61).

 

No gammas outside of 50 keV to 300 keV were detected from the Hyperion. 

 

Graphs were shown of an excess heat run, and a control run, where the data
showed the power can be cut-off at will, revealing the ability to control
the reaction.

 

Kim then began to describe his theoretical explanation of the data. He
speculated that in the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE), two deuterons making a
Helium-4 require a symmetric release of energy, to conserve total momentum.

 

For two-particles exiting the reaction, his model shows lower probability.

 

"The problem is solved", says Kim, and he is willing to talk to other
theorists to help convince them.

 

He then described Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) generalized to
include Hydrogen-Metal Systems. While there are still some unknowns, namely
the S-factor representing the nuclear force strength, and the probability of
the Boson Cluster State (BCS), the predicted reaction rates can be compared
with the experimental reaction rates.

 

Kim speculated that the magnetic fields generated by the triggering could
provide magnetic alignments of Nickel atoms, and these could provide
localized magnetic trap (LMT) potentials for Boson clusters on the surface
of Ni powders, though these traps have short lifetimes.

 

It is Rydberg atoms that then form the BEC cluster state.

 

"H and Ni powders triggered by glow discharge created a magnetic field
causing Rydberg states allowing nano-scale localized magnetic traps,
allowing Hydrogen Boson Cluster States in the LMT on the Ni surfaces. Fusion
between these elements create excess heat and locally produced glow
discharges."

 

Kim writes, "Transmutation reactions involving Ni isotopes may not be
dominant reaction mechanism but could be part of much weaker secondary
reaction."

 

Kim believes that self-sustaining reactions could be improved by increasing
the deuterium density, and this will be tested with Hyperion R-6 reactor
with the on-line real-time mass spectrometer at Defkalion Lab. 

 

1% of Defkalion revenue will be spent on basic scientific research. Moving
forward, Defkalion will be cooperating with National Instruments, as well.

 


--

 

IMHO, Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) is a Nanoplasmonic process.

 

I do not agree with Kim that BEC is the primary LENR mechanism. It is
instead a epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) or a secondary phenomenon
that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon.

 

An epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot affect a
primary phenomenon.

 

In the field of complex systems, the term epiphenomenon tends to be used
interchangeably with "emergent effect".

 



 

In the E-cat, the polariton formation process allows for the formation of
EMF solitons as separate unconnected units at low temperatures. 

 

As the temperature rises, polariton formation of global polariton
Bose-Einstein condensation appears as an epiphenomenon. This BEC will
thermalize the gamma radiation via a superatom mechanism.

 

See

 

Spasers explained

 

http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/stockman/data/Spaser_Chapter.pdf

 

 

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Arnaud Kodeck 
wrote:

Axil,

 

Where can I find the presentation of Kim at ICCF18?

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 30 juillet 2013 16:38
To: vortex-l


Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

 

Defkelion has mentioned nanoplasmonics in their ICCF-18 via Kim this year.
You best begin your study of this area of scienceto understand LENR.

 

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

*What does proof buy you…*

* *

*When someone tells you something, you can either ignore it or try it out.
If they supply you proof, that just motivates you more to try to replicate
it. If they supply no proof, you may not feel as confident that the thing
will work but you can still try to verify it via experimentation.*

* *

*The function of proof is to just make you feel better that you are not
wasting your time..*

* *


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

>  Defkalion is making a lot of claims without proof of what they say.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>  --
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* mardi 30 juillet 2013 18:46
>
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
> 
>
>  ** **
>
> *http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-5-presentations-and-awards/*
>
> * *
>
> *ICCF-18 Day 5: Presentations and 
> Awards
> *
>
> * *
>
> *An excerpt from the reference.*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for Experimental Results of
> Hydrogen-Nickel Systems presented by Yeong Kim was anticipated because of
> his recent collaboration with Defkalion Green Technologies, who beamed in a
> video of their demonstration of the R-5 reactor in Milan on Tuesday.*
>
> * *
>
> *The Hyperion reactor contains a core of nickel metal foam. Heating the
> system to 180 C – 849 C, the Hyperion is then triggered, after which the
> magnetic field rose 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla.*
>
> * *
>
> *Kim says, “This indicates that LENRs are producing very strong electric
> fields E, currents I, and magnetic fields B.”*
>
> * *
>
> *ICCF-18fKim reported Defkalion tests produced excess heat only with the
> even isotopes of Ni (58, 60, 62, and 64), whereas odd isotopes do not
> produce excess heat (61).*
>
> * *
>
> *No gammas outside of 50 keV to 300 keV were detected from the Hyperion. *
> 
>
> * *
>
> *Graphs were shown of an excess heat run, and a control run, where the
> data showed the power can be cut-off at will, revealing the ability to
> control the reaction.*
>
> * *
>
> *Kim then began to describe his theoretical explanation of the data. He
> speculated that in the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE), two deuterons making
> a Helium-4 require a symmetric release of energy, to conserve total
> momentum.*
>
> * *
>
> *For two-particles exiting the reaction, his model shows lower
> probability.*
>
> * *
>
> *“The problem is solved”, says Kim, and he is willing to talk to other
> theorists to help convince them.*
>
> * *
>
> *He then described Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) generalized
> to include Hydrogen-Metal Systems. While there are still some unknowns,
> namely the S-factor representing the nuclear force strength, and the
> probability of the Boson Cluster State (BCS), the predicted reaction rates
> can be compared with the experimental reaction rates.*
>
> * *
>
> *Kim speculated that the magnetic fields generated by the triggering
> could provide magnetic alignments of Nickel atoms, and these could provide
> localized magnetic trap (LMT) potentials for Boson clusters on the surface
> of Ni powders, though these traps have short lifetimes.*
>
> * *
>
> *It is Rydberg atoms that then form the BEC cluster state.*
>
> * *
>
> *“H and Ni powders triggered by glow discharge created a magnetic field
> causing Rydberg states allowing nano-scale localized magnetic traps,
> allowing Hydrogen Boson Cluster States in the LMT on the Ni surfaces.
> Fusion between these elements create excess heat and locally produced glow
> discharges.”*
>
> * *
>
> *Kim writes, “Transmutation reactions involving Ni isotopes may not be
> dominant reaction mechanism but could be part of much weaker secondary
> reaction.”*
>
> * *
>
> *Kim believes that self-sustaining reactions could be improved by
> increasing the deuterium density, and this will be tested with Hyperion R-6
> reactor with the on-line real-time mass spectrometer at Defkalion Lab. ***
> **
>
> * *
>
> *1% of Defkalion revenue will be spent on basic scientific research.
> Moving forward, Defkalion will be cooperating with National Instruments, as
> well.*
>
> * *
>
> *
> --
> *
>
> * *
>
> *IMHO, Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) is a Nanoplasmonic
> process.*
>
> * *
>
> *I do not agree with Kim that BEC is the primary LENR mechanism. It is
> instead a epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) or a secondary phenomenon
> that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon.*
>
> * *
>
> *An epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot
> affect a primary phenomenon.*
>
> * *
>
> *In the field of complex systems, th

RE: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[DJ Cravens]

yes, zirc oxide works- I am well aware of that - notice my patent using that:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8303865
with Pd and Ni sub 1 micron in size.
 
However, I like my carbon based material better.  I can throw more current 
through it and it makes the size of metal particles right about where I want 
them (normally 9 nm for mesopore C).
 
D2
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:48:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote:




yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I try to 
use them.
That is why Arata put them in a structure of non-reacting Zr. To hold the 
particles apart, you might say.

Takahashi says they are not melting. Hydrogen reactions are causing them to 
glom together. I wouldn't know, but that is what he says. He points out that 
the temperature is sometimes lower with an active cold fusion run than with a 
control run. Yes, but I wonder if the local temperature in the nanopowder is 
not higher.

- Jed
  

RE: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Arnaud Kodeck]

As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations put
one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their speculations.

Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field that
they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are they
hiding the proof?

 

The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the
hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra
energy.

 

I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will open
our eyes to what's going on inside.

 

I don't blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right
direction, and given a lot of hints to the public.

 

They have the device. If they make theory about how it is working, they
should then also provide the clues of their claimed theory. They did not. No
one else could. Everybody can make theory. Only Defkalion can make the final
proof or rejection.

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 30 juillet 2013 22:41
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

 

What does proof buy you.

 

When someone tells you something, you can either ignore it or try it out. If
they supply you proof, that just motivates you more to try to replicate it.
If they supply no proof, you may not feel as confident that the thing will
work but you can still try to verify it via experimentation.

 

The function of proof is to just make you feel better that you are not
wasting your time..

 

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Arnaud Kodeck 
wrote:

Defkalion is making a lot of claims without proof of what they say.

 

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi 30 juillet 2013 18:46


To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

 

http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-5-presentations-and-awards/

 

  ICCF-18
Day 5: Presentations and Awards

 

An excerpt from the reference.

 

 

Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for Experimental Results of
Hydrogen-Nickel Systems presented by Yeong Kim was anticipated because of
his recent collaboration with Defkalion Green Technologies, who beamed in a
video of their demonstration of the R-5 reactor in Milan on Tuesday.

 

The Hyperion reactor contains a core of nickel metal foam. Heating the
system to 180 C - 849 C, the Hyperion is then triggered, after which the
magnetic field rose 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla.

 

Kim says, "This indicates that LENRs are producing very strong electric
fields E, currents I, and magnetic fields B."

 

ICCF-18fKim reported Defkalion tests produced excess heat only with the even
isotopes of Ni (58, 60, 62, and 64), whereas odd isotopes do not produce
excess heat (61).

 

No gammas outside of 50 keV to 300 keV were detected from the Hyperion. 

 

Graphs were shown of an excess heat run, and a control run, where the data
showed the power can be cut-off at will, revealing the ability to control
the reaction.

 

Kim then began to describe his theoretical explanation of the data. He
speculated that in the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE), two deuterons making a
Helium-4 require a symmetric release of energy, to conserve total momentum.

 

For two-particles exiting the reaction, his model shows lower probability.

 

"The problem is solved", says Kim, and he is willing to talk to other
theorists to help convince them.

 

He then described Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF) generalized to
include Hydrogen-Metal Systems. While there are still some unknowns, namely
the S-factor representing the nuclear force strength, and the probability of
the Boson Cluster State (BCS), the predicted reaction rates can be compared
with the experimental reaction rates.

 

Kim speculated that the magnetic fields generated by the triggering could
provide magnetic alignments of Nickel atoms, and these could provide
localized magnetic trap (LMT) potentials for Boson clusters on the surface
of Ni powders, though these traps have short lifetimes.

 

It is Rydberg atoms that then form the BEC cluster state.

 

"H and Ni powders triggered by glow discharge created a magnetic field
causing Rydberg states allowing nano-scale localized magnetic traps,
allowing Hydrogen Boson Cluster States in the LMT on the Ni surfaces. Fusion
between these elements create excess heat and locally produced glow
discharges."

 

Kim writes, "Transmutation reactions involving Ni isotopes may not be
dominant reaction mechanism but could be part of much weaker secondary
reaction."

 

Kim believes that self-sustaining reactions could be improved by increasing
the deuterium density, and this will be tested with Hyperion R-6 reactor
with the on-line real-time mass spectrometer at Defkalion Lab. 

 

1% of Defkalion revenue will be spent on basic scientific research. Moving
forward, Defkalion will be cooperating with National Instruments, a

RE: [Vo]:Einstein and Bethe were involved in Lenr experiment !!!

[pagnucco]

Jones,

First, as an aside, I suggest you avoid snarcasm ("bone-headed"?.)

I would be enormously surprised if the W-L theorists were not totally
familiar with the Farnsworth Fusor.  Also, note that Sternglass publish
his book in 1997.  The Fusor was very well known by then.

We may have a miscommunication due to a typo.
Please replace "35 KV" with "35 KeV" - that is the energy in the Sternglass
experiment.  Also note, (I believe) that he was using pure-H.  Would we
expect much neutron generation in the (presumed) e-p (or any other)
collisions, or would they be virtually all elastic?  If formed by fusion
in an inadvertent Fusor-like environment, shouldn't we expect 2.45 MeV
neutrons?

Is this an experiment worth repeating?
Either definitive success or failure would be interesting.

BTW, time permitting, I will calculate the length+density a 35 KeV
electron plasma beam needs for individual electrons to acquire 780 KeV
of K.E. in collisions via collective effects - using either the vector
magnetic potential, or equivalently, the Darwin Hamiltonian which
Sternglass refers to.  Collective effects can be huge.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jones Beene wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
>
> Ed,
>
> You may be correct, but if you could amplify your comment -
>
>   "Neutrons can be made at 35kv, as described on the article,
>but at a low rate."
>
> I would be interested, since I (perhaps erroneously) thought
> that  neutron production was almost impossible in bare
> electron-proton(or deuteron) collisions at these energies.
>
>
> Lou
>
> The Farnsworth Fusor has been around for a long time and produces up to
> 10,000 neutrons per second at 35 kv (or less). This is deuterium fusion
> but
> is often called "warm" instead of "hot" since the input power is fairly
> low.
>
> This is technically ICF - inertial confinement fusion - since the tube is
> spherical and benefits from what is known as "spherical convergence".
>
> If Larsen did not know of this device, it is almost bone-headed, given
> Farnsworth's fame (he invented television) and the publicity that the
> Fusor
> has received over the years.
>
> Jones

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Teslaalset]

Dr. Cravens, what is the trigger mechanism you apply to your reactor(s)?
(High) voltage, like Defkalion?
By applying carbon materials I presume nano/micro pieze/thermalelectric
materials are out of scope?


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:42 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> yes, zirc oxide works- I am well aware of that - notice my patent using
> that:
> http://www.google.com/patents/US8303865
> with Pd and Ni sub 1 micron in size.
>
> However, I like my carbon based material better.  I can throw more current
> through it and it makes the size of metal particles right about where I
> want them (normally 9 nm for mesopore C).
>
> D2
>
> --
> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:48:02 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
> From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
> yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I
> try to use them.
>
>
> That is why Arata put them in a structure of non-reacting Zr. To hold the
> particles apart, you might say.
>
> Takahashi says they are not melting. Hydrogen reactions are causing them
> to glom together. I wouldn't know, but that is what he says. He points out
> that the temperature is sometimes lower with an active cold fusion run than
> with a control run. Yes, but I wonder if the local temperature in the
> nanopowder is not higher.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Jed Rothwell]

Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:

 As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations put
> one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their speculations.
>

This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything
here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics
conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of
rigor should be higher for that.



>
> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field that
> they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are they
> hiding the proof?
>

I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't
enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis
and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety
of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the
isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you
got them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your
results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was
some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire,
there is no need to list the source.

In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as Johnson
Matthey. The source makes a big difference.


>

> The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the
> hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra
> energy.
>

Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a
careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up.



> I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will
> open our eyes to what’s going on inside.
>

I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and
helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.)


I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right
> direction, and given a lot of hints to the public.
>

I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the
standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these
conferences. I think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them
to the poster sessions.

I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it was supposed to
be the proof for Defkalion's claims. Perhaps it was. It is over my head. It
seems mostly theoretical rather than being based on experimental evidence.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hungarian inventor George Egely claim achieving more than 1 kw excess heat from cold fusion reactor and iron as by product..

[torulf.greek]

I have made some runs of graphite in my microwave oven. First it looks
as 
I got iron. But the graphite was already containing iron in non
magnetic form. 
It become magnetic threw the microwave run. Probably It was as hematite
and become 
reduced by carbon to metallic iron. I tested two different samples sold
as "pure" natural 
graphite.  Natural graphite may often be contaminated with iron and
probably other substances. 
I tested to wash the graphite with hydrochloric acid and the microwave
run 
gave no iron. But the wet chemical test I used is not special
sensitive. 
And it would be better to make a test with synthetic graphite.

I posted a report in this tread at talk polywell.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3531&hilit=torulf+graphite

The idea to use a microwave trigger looks interesting. Better may be to
use metallic 
powder (W or Zr) in hydrogen atmosphere. But this will possible blow up
the 
microwave oven and start a fire. 


On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:36:00 -0400 (EDT), pagnu...@htdconnect.com
wrote:
> He claims more than just magnetic dust.
> 
> See transmutation claims in -
> 
> "Nano Dust Fusion" (table 2)
> 
> http://greentechinfo.eu/sites/default/files/Nano-dust-InfiniteEnergy-article1.pdf
> 
> I believe that several other researchers claim similar results in plasmas.
> I do not know if they, or Egely, are correct, but an independent lab
> should be able to replicate his results.
> 
> -- Lou Pagnucco
> 
> David ledin wrote:
>> blaze
>>
>> Lol you expose him in 10 minute as fraud .but after 2 year flowing
>> e-cat story i still don't know  what to think about e-cat.
>>
>> On 7/28/13, blaze spinnaker  wrote:
>>> Graphite subjected to electric arcing shows magnetic properties when
>>> exposed to neodymium magnet.
>>>[...]

RE: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[DJ Cravens]

With Pd I can just heat it up.  But you have to have room for convection.
 
The main reason I went with metal into pores is that I had health problems with 
the nano nickel.  (some people-me now- are allergic to nickel and I had lung 
reactions- the really fine stuff, few nm stay suspended in air for some time 
and leak through valves, mess up vacuum pumps,...)
 
In some systems I use electrical stimulation, or RF.
 
I also use Sm Co powders to supply the B fields.  
Empirically, it seems that the XP goes linear with B, mass  and exponentially 
with Energy of vacancy formation and temperature.
 
Pd seems to work at lower temps than Ni work.  (lower Ef).  By dropping the Ef 
by alloying you can overcome some of the high temp requirements.  Perhaps not 
good for commercial use but better for what I have to work with.  

 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:16:56 +0200
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
From: robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Dr. Cravens, what is the trigger mechanism you apply to your reactor(s)? (High) 
voltage, like Defkalion?By applying carbon materials I presume nano/micro 
pieze/thermalelectric materials are out of scope?


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:42 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:




yes, zirc oxide works- I am well aware of that - notice my patent using that:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8303865
with Pd and Ni sub 1 micron in size.

 
However, I like my carbon based material better.  I can throw more current 
through it and it makes the size of metal particles right about where I want 
them (normally 9 nm for mesopore C).
 
D2
 

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:48:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


DJ Cravens  wrote:





yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I try to 
use them.
That is why Arata put them in a structure of non-reacting Zr. To hold the 
particles apart, you might say.


Takahashi says they are not melting. Hydrogen reactions are causing them to 
glom together. I wouldn't know, but that is what he says. He points out that 
the temperature is sometimes lower with an active cold fusion run than with a 
control run. Yes, but I wonder if the local temperature in the nanopowder is 
not higher.


- Jed
  

  

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Jed Rothwell]

DJ Cravens  wrote:


> Pd seems to work at lower temps than Ni work.  (lower Ef).
>

Many people have observed that lately. It is important. It may explain why
most early attempts to replicate Mills failed. It would explain why an
electrochemical Ni experiment will probably not work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Craig]

Mills had a light water - nickel electrochemical cell in 1991.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3620review.shtml

They were reported as:

" (a) they have very short initiation times, i.e., the "excess power,"
if present, appears within the first day of electrolysis and (b) the
success rate of observing "excess power" is high compared to Pd-D20
systems. On the whole, the system appears to be much more robust and
easily amenable to experimental investigation.

Craig

On 07/30/2013 08:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> DJ Cravens mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
>
> Pd seems to work at lower temps than Ni work.  (lower Ef).
>
>
> Many people have observed that lately. It is important. It may explain
> why most early attempts to replicate Mills failed. It would explain
> why an electrochemical Ni experiment will probably not work.
>
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:NiH NAE Synopsis?

[James Bowery]

Nickel nanoparticles heated to Ni's Debay temperature and infused with
hydrogen -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by ionizing the hydrogen.

Areas of clarification needed:


   - Should "Ni's Debay temperature" read instead "at least Ni's Debay
   temperature"?
   - Is there a technical name that can be given to the geometry of the
   "nanoparticles" that would, for example, tell us where in the "nano" range
   the size of these particles should sit?
   - Should "hydrogen" read "protium (ie: Hydrogen-1)"?
   - Should there be some characteristic of the ionizing energy specified
   so that the "infused" "hydrogen" is properly ionized?

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig  wrote:

Mills had a light water - nickel electrochemical cell in 1991.
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3620review.shtml
>
> They were reported as:
>
> " (a) they have very short initiation times, i.e., the "excess power,"
> if present, appears within the first day of electrolysis and (b) the . . .
>

I know.

Many people such as Srinivasan tried to replicate this, but they failed.
That does not mean it did not work, but it was a lot harder than Mills
thought. Or than he described. Heating it up makes it work better, I think.
You can't easily heat an electrochem system.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:NiH NAE Synopsis?

[James Bowery]

Erratum:  Debay -> Debye


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Nickel nanoparticles heated to Ni's Debay temperature and infused with
> hydrogen -- the mixture being triggered to a NAE by ionizing the hydrogen.
>
> Areas of clarification needed:
>
>
>- Should "Ni's Debay temperature" read instead "at least Ni's Debay
>temperature"?
>- Is there a technical name that can be given to the geometry of the
>"nanoparticles" that would, for example, tell us where in the "nano" range
>the size of these particles should sit?
>- Should "hydrogen" read "protium (ie: Hydrogen-1)"?
>- Should there be some characteristic of the ionizing energy specified
>so that the "infused" "hydrogen" is properly ionized?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization

[H Veeder]

maybe the steam was just hot air?

*ducks*

harry


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Craig  wrote:

> On 07/29/2013 05:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> > James Bowery mailto:jabow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > There is no video of the steam output.
> >
> >
> > Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8
> > hours?
> >
>
> I watched it all, and though I may have missed a moment or two, they did
> not show the steam output.
>
> Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the
> hot part of the run.
>
> Craig
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[DJ Cravens]

It (alloying to reduce the E of vac. form.) may be the reason why codep systems 
don't work well plated directly onto Cu but do well on Au. 
 
As you may can tell, I am very much "pushing" the idea of controlled alloying 
to help turn on.
 
D2

 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:01:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

DJ Cravens  wrote: 

Pd seems to work at lower temps than Ni work.  (lower Ef).
Many people have observed that lately. It is important. It may explain why most 
early attempts to replicate Mills failed. It would explain why an 
electrochemical Ni experiment will probably not work.

- Jed
  

RE: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[DJ Cravens]

I have a feeling that Mills got his to work because his Ni had surface 
contamination of something like Cu or Sn which would drop the Debye temp and Ef.
 
D2

 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:38:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Craig  wrote:

Mills had a light water - nickel electrochemical cell in 1991.



http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3620review.shtml



They were reported as:



" (a) they have very short initiation times, i.e., the "excess power,"

if present, appears within the first day of electrolysis and (b) the . . .

I know.
Many people such as Srinivasan tried to replicate this, but they failed. That 
does not mean it did not work, but it was a lot harder than Mills thought. Or 
than he described. Heating it up makes it work better, I think. You can't 
easily heat an electrochem system.

- Jed
  

RE: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

DJ Cravens wrote:
 
Pd seems to work at lower temps than Ni work.  (lower Ef).

Many people have observed that lately. It is important. It
may explain why most early attempts to replicate Mills failed. It would
explain why an electrochemical Ni experiment will probably not work.


Good point. There is probably another factor, in addition to benefiting from
higher temps than necessary (i.e. where one should logically think the extra
heat would be counterproductive) - that has made Mills results elusive to
replicators ... 

...and this same scenario may also hint at why an experimenter (HUD group ?)
using nichrome as the control has had difficulty. Let's say it is for
testing Celani's constantan wire; and showing no apparent gain compared to
the control. In fact the nichrome is active due to nickel content - and
being resistance wire could be rendered even more active with the heat. Both
wires could be gainful.

<>

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Jack Cole]

They (Defkalion) also mentioned using "foam" metal in the most recent demo
(not nano-particles).


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Teslaalset wrote:

> That is probably why Defkalion indicates they have such high percentage of
> 'Light elements' in their reactor content :
> see page: 4, 5 of
> http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:23 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>> yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I
>> try to use them.  That is why I had to move to nano material held in C or
>> silica.  I ended up with just a blob of metal that eventually quite
>> working. at least for me.
>>
>> D2
>>
>>
>> --
>> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:49:17 -0400
>> From: janap...@gmail.com
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
>>
>>
>> Hot nanoparticles stick together.
>> Hot nanoparticles exist in a dark mode electromagnetically. They absorb
>> heat and transform that radiation into dipole oscillations. This charge
>> separation of positive and negative charge in a dipole will attract
>> nanoparticles like lint sticks to your outfit.
>> This buildup in charge separation causes a “stark effect”
>> The underlying basis of the attractive force has actually been known for
>> at least half a century: blackbody radiation shifts the atomic energy
>> levels of nearby atoms, molecules, and nanoparticles. In these "Stark
>> shifts," the ground states of the atom or atomic aggregates are shifted to
>> a lower energy by an amount that is roughly proportional to the fourth
>> power of the blackbody's temperature. That is, the hotter the blackbody,
>> the larger the dipole oscillations become, and the charge separation that
>> is associated with the dipoles.
>>
>> While this much has been theoretically known, however, the potential
>> repercussions on nano-systems of these energy shifts have been overlooked
>> until recently. In a new study, scientists have for the first time shown
>> that the Stark shifts induced by blackbody radiation can combine to
>> generate an attractive optical force that dominates the blackbody's own
>> repulsive radiation pressure. This means that, despite its outgoing
>> radioactive energy flow, a hot nano-sized atomic cluster actually attracts
>> rather than repels neutral atoms and molecules, under most conditions.
>> This cluster attraction occurs because other atoms and clusters whose
>> ground states are shifted to lower energy levels are drawn toward regions
>> of higher radiation intensity—in the case of Ni/H reactors, nano and micro
>> particle blackbodies. The strength of the attractive force decays with the
>> third power of the distance from the blackbody. Second, the force is
>> stronger for smaller objects. Third, the force is stronger for hotter
>> objects, up to a point. At above a few thousand degrees Kelvin, the force
>> changes from attraction to repulsion,
>>
>> What does this say about what goes on inside a Ni/H reactor core?
>>
>> When nanoparticles are produced by spark discharge or heating elements in
>> an Ni/H reactor, these clusters are strongly attracted to each other if the
>> hydrogen is hot enough.
>>
>> The hydrogen and/or potassium nano-clusters produced by plasma
>> condensation will rapidly migrate over to the Ni micro particles. The Ni
>> micro particles are permanent particles that a not created or destroyed
>> during Ni/H reactor operations. Ni particles are specially prepared using a
>> vender specific proprietary process in an offline setting. This process may
>> include isotope enhancement as well as the formation of nano sized
>> nanowires on the surface of each micro dimensioned nickel particle.
>>
>> The nanoparticles in the Ni/H reaction are dynamically produced particles
>> that are generated during every plasma excitation cycle and are gradually
>> destroyed by LENR reaction activity between plasma excitation cycles. After
>> these dynamic nanoparticles are created and made clingy by dipole charge
>> separation, these newly born dust particles rush to join up with the Ni
>> micro-particles. These small clusters will coat these permanent nickel
>> particles and their nanowire surfaces in the same way that snow clings to
>> the branches of an evergreen tree in a snowstorm.
>>
>> As nuclear activity produces energy, the dynamic particles are blown off
>> the surface of nickel particles but these dynamic particles are strongly
>> attracted back to the areas of nuclear activity
>>
>> As the LENR reaction proceeds between plasma excitation cycles, these
>> dynamic nanoparticle gradually melt like snow in a springtime hot spell
>> until they are rebuild by the next plasma excitation activation.
>> Reference:
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-07-blackbody-stronger-gravity.html
>> Blackbody radiation induces attractive force stronger than gravity
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Chuck Sites]

Very interesting discussions.  Thanks Axil for the two links in your
earlier note..  I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper
presentation that described the isotopic shifts.   So far, it looks like a
very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins.   There are
so many interesting points to bring up.  For example the high voltage
pulses from the modified spark plugs.  That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv
pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming
the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being
accelerated into the NI nano powder.   10Kv is enough to circumvent
the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the
metal's valence electrons.

If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.  You can almost thing of the Ni
as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs
pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni.  The fact
that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there
may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p.

Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that?  I would really like to read the Kim
paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept,  but to me, this is an
unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano
structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm
kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by
Defkcalion.   Let me point out what is odd;   The stainless steel container
that has heat transfer coil around it.  If you look at the diagrams, that
should be pumped with hydrogen.  Shouldn't there be an electrically
insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel?
 If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing?

Anyway, more food for thought.
Best Regards folks.





On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:
>
>  As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations
>> put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their
>> speculations.
>>
>
> This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything
> here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics
> conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of
> rigor should be higher for that.
>
>
> 
>>
>> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field that
>> they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are they
>> hiding the proof?
>>
>
> I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't
> enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis
> and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety
> of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the
> isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you
> got them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your
> results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was
> some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire,
> there is no need to list the source.
>
> In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as
> Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big difference.
>
>
>>
>
>> The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the
>> hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra
>> energy.
>>
>
> Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a
> careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up.
>
>
>
>> I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will
>> open our eyes to what’s going on inside.
>>
>
> I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and
> helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.)
>
>
> I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right
>> direction, and given a lot of hints to the public.
>>
>
> I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the
> standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these
> conferences. I think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them
> to the poster sessions.
>
> I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it was supposed to
> be the proof for Defkalion's claims. Perhaps it was. It is over my head. It
> seems mostly theoretical rather than being based on experimental evidence.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.

[Axil Axil]

The encase the particles in a metal foam. This is the same idea that Dr.
Cravens uses with carbon.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> They (Defkalion) also mentioned using "foam" metal in the most recent demo
> (not nano-particles).
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Teslaalset 
> wrote:
>
>> That is probably why Defkalion indicates they have such high percentage
>> of 'Light elements' in their reactor content :
>> see page: 4, 5 of
>> http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0813-iccf17-paperdgtgx
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:23 PM, DJ Cravens wrote:
>>
>>> yes, they not only stick together, but they usually melt together when I
>>> try to use them.  That is why I had to move to nano material held in C or
>>> silica.  I ended up with just a blob of metal that eventually quite
>>> working. at least for me.
>>>
>>> D2
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:49:17 -0400
>>> From: janap...@gmail.com
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: [Vo]:Hot nanoparticles stick together.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hot nanoparticles stick together.
>>> Hot nanoparticles exist in a dark mode electromagnetically. They absorb
>>> heat and transform that radiation into dipole oscillations. This charge
>>> separation of positive and negative charge in a dipole will attract
>>> nanoparticles like lint sticks to your outfit.
>>> This buildup in charge separation causes a “stark effect”
>>> The underlying basis of the attractive force has actually been known for
>>> at least half a century: blackbody radiation shifts the atomic energy
>>> levels of nearby atoms, molecules, and nanoparticles. In these "Stark
>>> shifts," the ground states of the atom or atomic aggregates are shifted to
>>> a lower energy by an amount that is roughly proportional to the fourth
>>> power of the blackbody's temperature. That is, the hotter the blackbody,
>>> the larger the dipole oscillations become, and the charge separation that
>>> is associated with the dipoles.
>>>
>>> While this much has been theoretically known, however, the potential
>>> repercussions on nano-systems of these energy shifts have been overlooked
>>> until recently. In a new study, scientists have for the first time shown
>>> that the Stark shifts induced by blackbody radiation can combine to
>>> generate an attractive optical force that dominates the blackbody's own
>>> repulsive radiation pressure. This means that, despite its outgoing
>>> radioactive energy flow, a hot nano-sized atomic cluster actually attracts
>>> rather than repels neutral atoms and molecules, under most conditions.
>>> This cluster attraction occurs because other atoms and clusters whose
>>> ground states are shifted to lower energy levels are drawn toward regions
>>> of higher radiation intensity—in the case of Ni/H reactors, nano and micro
>>> particle blackbodies. The strength of the attractive force decays with the
>>> third power of the distance from the blackbody. Second, the force is
>>> stronger for smaller objects. Third, the force is stronger for hotter
>>> objects, up to a point. At above a few thousand degrees Kelvin, the force
>>> changes from attraction to repulsion,
>>>
>>> What does this say about what goes on inside a Ni/H reactor core?
>>>
>>> When nanoparticles are produced by spark discharge or heating elements
>>> in an Ni/H reactor, these clusters are strongly attracted to each other if
>>> the hydrogen is hot enough.
>>>
>>> The hydrogen and/or potassium nano-clusters produced by plasma
>>> condensation will rapidly migrate over to the Ni micro particles. The Ni
>>> micro particles are permanent particles that a not created or destroyed
>>> during Ni/H reactor operations. Ni particles are specially prepared using a
>>> vender specific proprietary process in an offline setting. This process may
>>> include isotope enhancement as well as the formation of nano sized
>>> nanowires on the surface of each micro dimensioned nickel particle.
>>>
>>> The nanoparticles in the Ni/H reaction are dynamically produced
>>> particles that are generated during every plasma excitation cycle and are
>>> gradually destroyed by LENR reaction activity between plasma excitation
>>> cycles. After these dynamic nanoparticles are created and made clingy by
>>> dipole charge separation, these newly born dust particles rush to join up
>>> with the Ni micro-particles. These small clusters will coat these permanent
>>> nickel particles and their nanowire surfaces in the same way that snow
>>> clings to the branches of an evergreen tree in a snowstorm.
>>>
>>> As nuclear activity produces energy, the dynamic particles are blown off
>>> the surface of nickel particles but these dynamic particles are strongly
>>> attracted back to the areas of nuclear activity
>>>
>>> As the LENR reaction proceeds between plasma excitation cycles, these
>>> dynamic nanoparticle gradually melt like snow in a springtime hot spell
>>> until they are rebuild by the next plas

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.
>

If it was hot fusion, Mats Lewan would be dead from the neutrons and
gammas.  It must either have been chemical, or it was nuclear and LENR of
some kind.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The reaction
is then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion mechanism.

The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR
for sure.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Very interesting discussions.  Thanks Axil for the two links in your
> earlier note..  I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper
> presentation that described the isotopic shifts.   So far, it looks like a
> very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins.   There are
> so many interesting points to bring up.  For example the high voltage
> pulses from the modified spark plugs.  That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv
> pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming
> the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being
> accelerated into the NI nano powder.   10Kv is enough to circumvent
> the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the
> metal's valence electrons.
>
> If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.  You can almost thing of the Ni
> as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs
> pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni.  The fact
> that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there
> may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p.
>
> Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that?  I would really like to read the Kim
> paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept,  but to me, this is an
> unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano
> structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm
> kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by
> Defkcalion.   Let me point out what is odd;   The stainless steel container
> that has heat transfer coil around it.  If you look at the diagrams, that
> should be pumped with hydrogen.  Shouldn't there be an electrically
> insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel?
>  If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing?
>
> Anyway, more food for thought.
> Best Regards folks.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:
>>
>>  As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations
>>> put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their
>>> speculations.
>>>
>>
>> This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything
>> here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics
>> conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of
>> rigor should be higher for that.
>>
>>
>> 
>>>
>>> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field that
>>> they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are they
>>> hiding the proof?
>>>
>>
>> I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't
>> enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis
>> and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety
>> of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the
>> isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you
>> got them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your
>> results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was
>> some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire,
>> there is no need to list the source.
>>
>> In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as
>> Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big difference.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the
>>> hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra
>>> energy.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a
>> careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will
>>> open our eyes to what’s going on inside.
>>>
>>
>> I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and
>> helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.)
>>
>>
>> I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right
>>> direction, and given a lot of hints to the public.
>>>
>>
>> I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the
>> standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these
>> conferences. I think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them
>> to the poster sessions.
>>
>> I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it was supposed to
>> be the proof for Defkalion's claims. Perhaps it was. It is over my head. It
>> seems mostly theoretical rather than being based on experimental

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Chuck Sites]

If I heard right during the demonstration, the spark was 11 pulses per
minute, but I didn't hear a duty cycle mentioned.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The reaction
> is then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion mechanism.
>
> The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR
> for sure.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>
>> Very interesting discussions.  Thanks Axil for the two links in your
>> earlier note..  I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper
>> presentation that described the isotopic shifts.   So far, it looks like a
>> very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins.   There are
>> so many interesting points to bring up.  For example the high voltage
>> pulses from the modified spark plugs.  That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv
>> pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming
>> the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being
>> accelerated into the NI nano powder.   10Kv is enough to circumvent
>> the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the
>> metal's valence electrons.
>>
>> If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
>> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.  You can almost thing of the Ni
>> as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs
>> pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni.  The fact
>> that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there
>> may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p.
>>
>> Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that?  I would really like to read the
>> Kim paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept,  but to me, this is an
>> unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano
>> structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm
>> kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by
>> Defkcalion.   Let me point out what is odd;   The stainless steel container
>> that has heat transfer coil around it.  If you look at the diagrams, that
>> should be pumped with hydrogen.  Shouldn't there be an electrically
>> insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel?
>>  If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing?
>>
>> Anyway, more food for thought.
>> Best Regards folks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:
>>>
>>>  As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical speculations
 put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm their
 speculations.

>>>
>>> This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything
>>> here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics
>>> conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of
>>> rigor should be higher for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> 

 Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field
 that they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are
 they hiding the proof?

>>>
>>> I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't
>>> enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis
>>> and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety
>>> of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the
>>> isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you
>>> got them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your
>>> results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was
>>> some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire,
>>> there is no need to list the source.
>>>
>>> In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as
>>> Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big difference.
>>>
>>>

>>>
 The Defkalion theory might be right to explain the excess heat of the
 hyperion. But it might be as well something else that produces the extra
 energy.

>>>
>>> Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a
>>> careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I hope the realtime spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will
 open our eyes to what’s going on inside.

>>>
>>> I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and
>>> helium? I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.)
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t blame Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right
 direction, and given a lot of hints to the public.

>>>
>>> I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the
>>> standards of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these
>>> conferences. I think we should cut bac

RE: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[DJ Cravens]

20%
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:34:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)
From: cbsit...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

If I heard right during the demonstration, the spark was 11 pulses per minute, 
but I didn't hear a duty cycle mentioned.  

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The reaction is 
then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion mechanism.
 The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR for 
sure.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:


Very interesting discussions.  Thanks Axil for the two links in your earlier 
note..  I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper presentation that 
described the isotopic shifts.   So far, it looks like a very convincing 
experiment that looks to have nuclear origins.   There are so many interesting 
points to bring up.  For example the high voltage pulses from the modified 
spark plugs.  That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv pulsed, that has to be 
creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming the Ni is the ground, it 
shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being accelerated into the NI nano 
powder.   10Kv is enough to circumvent the Coulomb barrier when you consider 
the screening potential of the metal's valence electrons.  



If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a controlled 
bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.  You can almost thing of the Ni as forming a 
scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs pulse, wave after 
wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni.  The fact that the cross section 
for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there may be more Ni + p 
reactions than p + p.  



Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that?  I would really like to read the Kim 
paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept,  but to me, this is an 
unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano 
structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm kind of 
with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by Defkcalion. 
  Let me point out what is odd;   The stainless steel container that has heat 
transfer coil around it.  If you look at the diagrams, that should be pumped 
with hydrogen.  Shouldn't there be an electrically insulating barrier between 
the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel?  If not then why isn't the H 
plasma interacting with the casing?  



Anyway, more food for thought.Best Regards folks. 





On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:


















As said before by Jed,
this is a full list of theoretical speculations put one after another one. There
no experiments that confirm their speculations.
This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying anything here. 
I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a physics conference 
proceedings. That is a very different thing. The standards of rigor should be 
higher for that.



 






Did they make any measurements
about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field that they are claiming should have been
measured with precision. Or are they hiding the proof?
I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it isn't enough 
to just measure things. You have to list the sources in parenthesis and 
footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they used a variety of 
nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the source of the 
isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should list where you got 
them and how pure they are, so that other people can judge your results. This 
rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If it was some material that 
you can get from any supply house, such as nickel wire, there is no need to 
list the source.




In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as Johnson 
Matthey. The source makes a big difference. 





 



The Defkalion theory might
be right to explain the excess heat of the hyperion. But it might be as well
something else that produces the extra energy.
Perhaps. They claim they know the source of the heat. They should make a 
careful, rigorous case in a paper to back this up.






 



I hope the realtime
spectrometer they are building with R6 reactor will open our eyes to what’s
going on inside.
I hope so. (Question: Will it work for elements other than hydrogen and helium? 
I have seen some light-element-only on-line spectrometers.)







I don’t blame
Defkalion. They have made tremendous steps in the right direction, and given a
lot of hints to the public.
I think the presentation at ICCF17 and 18 were a little slack by the standards 
of academic physics. There are many slack presentations at these conferences. I 
think we should cut back on them, and relegate more of them to the poster 
sessions.




I cannot judge Kim's presentation. I gather (now) that it

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Chuck Sites]

Well you have a good point Eric,  Why there wasn't a simple Geiger counter
available considering what is being investigated is a possible nuclear
effect?

To me, it looks like the device ionizes H gas and accelerates it into the
(special) Ni lattice.  If the Ni is ground.
If it's hot fusion then the Ni and trapped protons would be targets.  Until
an equivalent system is built in a lab, will anyone really know what the
by-products of a low energy hydrogen bombardment would be.  So it may be
naturally very low in emission particles.  Rose, did a paper proposing an
Ni(sub x) + p reaction chain leading to Cu that had very low emissions.

Correction to my previous comment,  I meant 11 pulse's per second.  But
Axil that was the only system they had to control the reaction was the
modulated spark plug pulse.




On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> If I heard right during the demonstration, the spark was 11 pulses per
> minute, but I didn't hear a duty cycle mentioned.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The
>> reaction is then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion
>> mechanism.
>>
>> The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR
>> for sure.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>>
>>> Very interesting discussions.  Thanks Axil for the two links in your
>>> earlier note..  I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper
>>> presentation that described the isotopic shifts.   So far, it looks like a
>>> very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins.   There are
>>> so many interesting points to bring up.  For example the high voltage
>>> pulses from the modified spark plugs.  That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv
>>> pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming
>>> the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being
>>> accelerated into the NI nano powder.   10Kv is enough to circumvent
>>> the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the
>>> metal's valence electrons.
>>>
>>> If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
>>> controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.  You can almost thing of the Ni
>>> as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs
>>> pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni.  The fact
>>> that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there
>>> may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p.
>>>
>>> Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that?  I would really like to read the
>>> Kim paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept,  but to me, this is an
>>> unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano
>>> structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm
>>> kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by
>>> Defkcalion.   Let me point out what is odd;   The stainless steel container
>>> that has heat transfer coil around it.  If you look at the diagrams, that
>>> should be pumped with hydrogen.  Shouldn't there be an electrically
>>> insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel?
>>>  If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing?
>>>
>>> Anyway, more food for thought.
>>> Best Regards folks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:

  As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical
> speculations put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm
> their speculations.
>

 This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying
 anything here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a
 physics conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The
 standards of rigor should be higher for that.


 
>
> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field
> that they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are
> they hiding the proof?
>

 I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it
 isn't enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in
 parenthesis and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they
 used a variety of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and the
 source of the isotopes. Isotopically pure samples are rare so you should
 list where you got them and how pure they are, so that other people can
 judge your results. This rule of thumb only applies to exotic materials. If
 it was some material that you can get from any supply house, such as nickel
 wire, there is no need to list the source.

 In the case of palladium you should always list the source, such as
 Johnson Matthey. The source makes a big diffe

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

To me, it looks like the device ionizes H gas and accelerates it into the
> (special) Ni lattice.  If the Ni is ground.
>

Yes -- it does look like that.  Note that for acceleration, you need
electrostatic charge -- ionized hydrogen or, if you go along with the
Defkalion paper, Rydberg hydrogen.  But I assume that any acceleration will
be very weak at the scale of the device, so the protons will not acquire
all that much energy when they encounter the nickel.  Assuming there is
something going on, this suggests that the environment provided by the
nickel has been changed by the spark discharges as well in order to make
the reaction possible.

Just to recap the possible reactions as I understand them (assuming we're
not just dealing with Joule heating or hydrogen recombination):

   1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's hypothesis.
   2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis.
   3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite)
   4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no one
   really likes).

I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface.  The mechanism would
yield fast 3He particles.  It would be due to an enhanced tunneling cross
section made possible by screening provided by the excited nickel electrons
(also perhaps from the spark plugs).  The fast particles would give rise to
Bremsstrahlung, and you would need thick shielding to contain the ionizing
radiation.  Note that there was thick shielding in the video.  I am highly
doubtful that the shielding was there to contain magnetism in order to
protect the electronics, although there may have been induced magnetism as
well.

Why are there always so many details with these demos that one must
scrutinize closely and second-guess?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

>
>1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's
>hypothesis.
>2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis.
>3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite)
>4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no one
>really likes).
>
> I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface.
>

Typo -- I'm betting on (3).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

Note that for acceleration, you need electrostatic charge -- ionized
> hydrogen or, if you go along with the Defkalion paper, Rydberg hydrogen.
>

I take that back; there may be no need for acceleration. It might be
sufficient for the hydrogen either to be absorbed into the nickel at the
time of heating, or perhaps just to be exposed to the surface.  The role of
the spark plugs would be something else in that case -- perhaps to
stimulate the nickel above the baseline of heat provided by the Joule
heaters (along the lines of Dave's speculation) and perhaps to create a
bias that will draw the hydrogen in, if the nickel is ground (Chuck's idea).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

We have more information about the heat pulse(plasma activation mechanism)
from the Rossi reactor because we have a picture of the temperature pulse
profile. The spark and the primary heater do the same function, they both
build nanoparticles.

Has anybody profiled Rossi heat pulse in terms of duration and duty cycle?


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> Well you have a good point Eric,  Why there wasn't a simple Geiger counter
> available considering what is being investigated is a possible nuclear
> effect?
>
> To me, it looks like the device ionizes H gas and accelerates it into the
> (special) Ni lattice.  If the Ni is ground.
> If it's hot fusion then the Ni and trapped protons would be targets.
>  Until an equivalent system is built in a lab, will anyone really know what
> the by-products of a low energy hydrogen bombardment would be.  So it may
> be naturally very low in emission particles.  Rose, did a paper proposing
> an Ni(sub x) + p reaction chain leading to Cu that had very low emissions.
>
> Correction to my previous comment,  I meant 11 pulse's per second.  But
> Axil that was the only system they had to control the reaction was the
> modulated spark plug pulse.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>
>> If I heard right during the demonstration, the spark was 11 pulses per
>> minute, but I didn't hear a duty cycle mentioned.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The spark (plasma activation mechanism) lasts for 12 seconds. The
>>> reaction is then active for about 6 minutes. This cannot be a hot fusion
>>> mechanism.
>>>
>>> The spark produces nanoparticles that are gradually consumed, It is LENR
>>> for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Chuck Sites wrote:
>>>
 Very interesting discussions.  Thanks Axil for the two links in your
 earlier note..  I saw the video, but I wasn't aware of the paper
 presentation that described the isotopic shifts.   So far, it looks like a
 very convincing experiment that looks to have nuclear origins.   There are
 so many interesting points to bring up.  For example the high voltage
 pulses from the modified spark plugs.  That''s all secret IP, but at 10Kv
 pulsed, that has to be creating a plasma of hot H ions, and then assuming
 the Ni is the ground, it shouldn't surprise anyone that H ions are being
 accelerated into the NI nano powder.   10Kv is enough to circumvent
 the Coulomb barrier when you consider the screening potential of the
 metal's valence electrons.

 If that is the case, then this is more of a hot fusion processes, a
 controlled bombardment of the Ni/H lattice.  You can almost thing of the Ni
 as forming a scaffolding to hold in place the H ions, and as spark plugs
 pulse, wave after wave of hot H ions would be bombarding the Ni.  The fact
 that the cross section for a fusion event seems broad is unusual, but there
 may be more Ni + p reactions than p + p.

 Do you need Rydberg atoms to do that?  I would really like to read the
 Kim paper before dumping on the Rydberg concept,  but to me, this is an
 unnecessarily complex physics state to achieve in a solid state (or nano
 structure), when a simple hot fusion explanation might work. So I'm
 kind of with Jed in my hesitation about accepting the whole presentation by
 Defkcalion.   Let me point out what is odd;   The stainless steel container
 that has heat transfer coil around it.  If you look at the diagrams, that
 should be pumped with hydrogen.  Shouldn't there be an electrically
 insulating barrier between the hydrogen (plasma) and the stainless steel?
  If not then why isn't the H plasma interacting with the casing?

 Anyway, more food for thought.
 Best Regards folks.





 On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:
>
>  As said before by Jed, this is a full list of theoretical
>> speculations put one after another one. There no experiments that confirm
>> their speculations.
>>
>
> This list is an informal discussion. There is no harm in saying
> anything here. I am referring to a paper published by Defkalion in a
> physics conference proceedings. That is a very different thing. The
> standards of rigor should be higher for that.
>
>
> 
>>
>> Did they make any measurements about Rydberg hydrogen? The EM field
>> that they are claiming should have been measured with precision. Or are
>> they hiding the proof?
>>
>
> I sure hope they did. Otherwise they should not mention it. But it
> isn't enough to just measure things. You have to list the sources in
> parenthesis and footnotes. For example, when Defkalion claimed that they
> used a variety of nickel isotopes, they should have listed the mass and 
> 

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

What creates the huge magnetic and electric fields? You are way. way off
the mark. Something is happening that you don't yet know about. I suggest
you study nanoplasmonics.


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> Note that for acceleration, you need electrostatic charge -- ionized
>> hydrogen or, if you go along with the Defkalion paper, Rydberg hydrogen.
>>
>
> I take that back; there may be no need for acceleration. It might be
> sufficient for the hydrogen either to be absorbed into the nickel at the
> time of heating, or perhaps just to be exposed to the surface.  The role of
> the spark plugs would be something else in that case -- perhaps to
> stimulate the nickel above the baseline of heat provided by the Joule
> heaters (along the lines of Dave's speculation) and perhaps to create a
> bias that will draw the hydrogen in, if the nickel is ground (Chuck's idea).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

What creates the huge magnetic and electric fields? You are way. way off
> the mark. Something is happening that you don't yet know about. I suggest
> you study nanoplasmonics.
>

Perhaps I will, once I'm looking for something to do that is unrelated to
LENR and Defkalion's device has been reverse engineered sufficiently for
third-party replication.  :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Franco Talari]

Eric,
You might be interested to know that your suggestion (p + d -> 3He + Q)
is the same as that proposed - based on the fact that p + Ni would form
"hard gammas" which are not observed - by Prof. Kim in his ICCF18 talk.
Based on this he has suggested that Defkalion try varying the heavy
hydrogen content in their cells. He also proposed  that the reaction is
promoted by the formation of Rydberg atoms  which pair due to their
electric moments to form bosons and are then trapped by short-lifetime
local magnetic wells due to the magnetic alignment of Ni atoms on the
surface of the Ni powders.

Franco Talari


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>>
>>1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's
>>hypothesis.
>>2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis.
>>3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite)
>>4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no
>>one really likes).
>>
>> I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface.
>>
>
> Typo -- I'm betting on (3).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics is at
the bottom  of their reaction.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ManningIE110.pdf

I quote:


*However, readers who are aware of nanoplasmonics—a*
* *

*new area of science dealing with the interaction of photons*
* *

*with matter including nuclei or sub-nuclear particles—will*
* *

*be interested to read how scientists at the Defkalion Green*
* *

*Technologies (DGT) lab now describe phenomena that they*
* *

*see happening in DGT’s excess-heat-producing Hyperion*
* *

*product. Instead of using the term low-energy nuclear reactions*
* *

*(LENR), DGT has been calling the process HENI—heat*
* *

*energy from nuclear interactions. A recent breakthrough*
* *

*resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear,*
* *

*it now stands for nanoplasmonics. I expect that this simpler*
* *

*interpretation of the phenomena could help with the public*
* *

*image of this field and its products. Could it also build*
* *

*alliances with other academic fields?*

**

**

*The longer that you stubbornly resist the truth, the longer that you will
be denied the truth.*


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> What creates the huge magnetic and electric fields? You are way. way off
>> the mark. Something is happening that you don't yet know about. I suggest
>> you study nanoplasmonics.
>>
>
> Perhaps I will, once I'm looking for something to do that is unrelated to
> LENR and Defkalion's device has been reverse engineered sufficiently for
> third-party replication.  :)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Chuck Sites]

I guess one of the reasons I just don't get the Rydberg atom hypothesis, is
that mainly has to do with the electron orbitals and not the nuclear state.
  That's my understanding at least.  Perhaps Kim's paper will enlighten how
the nuclei interact to show a strong interaction;  one that follows E=mc^2.
 I have a lot of respect for Kim and he always is enlightening   I suppose
that I need to understand the Rydberg stuff a little more before jumping to
conclusions; (for example the inverse-Rydberg atoms sound very much like
hydrinos or pseudo-neutrons ).

But all  that is hypothetical.   The evidence so far, based on the design,
is it hot and appears to be a plasma in metal.  This is where a full
accounting of all possible interactions would be enlightening.

Then there are the reports of the 1.5 Tesla magnetic fields.  I wish there
was a magnetometer in the public demonstration that showed that.  1 Tesla
is HUGE!   Most superconducting MRI magnets only reach 1T.
(5T is pretty extreme).  I walked past a 1.5T MRI machine accidentally with
an inkpen in my pocket.  From 10ft away, the magnet was lifting the pin out
of my pocket (upon which I realized I could quench the magnet, and so I
left the room clutching onto my pen).  If the Defkcalion reactor produces
that kind of field in the small space, it might be possible, but it's
another question mark.

Eric, I would say you have a very good superfecta there (in horse racing
thats picking 1 2 3 & 4).  Primarily I think
2 and 4.  2 from low energy reactions and 4 from recoil atoms caused by 3,
2 and 1.  But that is pure hot fusion. With the intervening metal lattice,
that may not be the case precisely.

Best Regards..









On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>>
>>1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's
>>hypothesis.
>>2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis.
>>3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite)
>>4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no
>>one really likes).
>>
>> I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface.
>>
>
> Typo -- I'm betting on (3).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

I have some posts on the deeper layers of my theory as follows:

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=6030#p102654

this post links to some others

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3200&start=6000#p102568



On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> I guess one of the reasons I just don't get the Rydberg atom hypothesis,
> is that mainly has to do with the electron orbitals and not the nuclear
> state.   That's my understanding at least.  Perhaps Kim's paper will
> enlighten how the nuclei interact to show a strong interaction;  one that
> follows E=mc^2.  I have a lot of respect for Kim and he always
> is enlightening   I suppose that I need to understand the Rydberg stuff a
> little more before jumping to conclusions; (for example the inverse-Rydberg
> atoms sound very much like hydrinos or pseudo-neutrons ).
>
> But all  that is hypothetical.   The evidence so far, based on the design,
> is it hot and appears to be a plasma in metal.  This is where a full
> accounting of all possible interactions would be enlightening.
>
> Then there are the reports of the 1.5 Tesla magnetic fields.  I wish there
> was a magnetometer in the public demonstration that showed that.  1 Tesla
> is HUGE!   Most superconducting MRI magnets only reach 1T.
> (5T is pretty extreme).  I walked past a 1.5T MRI machine accidentally
> with an inkpen in my pocket.  From 10ft away, the magnet was lifting the
> pin out of my pocket (upon which I realized I could quench the magnet, and
> so I left the room clutching onto my pen).  If the Defkcalion reactor
> produces that kind of field in the small space, it might be possible, but
> it's another question mark.
>
> Eric, I would say you have a very good superfecta there (in horse racing
> thats picking 1 2 3 & 4).  Primarily I think
> 2 and 4.  2 from low energy reactions and 4 from recoil atoms caused by 3,
> 2 and 1.  But that is pure hot fusion. With the intervening metal lattice,
> that may not be the case precisely.
>
> Best Regards..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's
>>>hypothesis.
>>>2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis.
>>>3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite)
>>>4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no
>>>one really likes).
>>>
>>> I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface.
>>>
>>
>> Typo -- I'm betting on (3).
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics is at
> the bottom  of their reaction.
>

Yes, I see that this is what Defkalion claim.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

So does NASA


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics is
>> at the bottom  of their reaction.
>>
>
> Yes, I see that this is what Defkalion claim.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

See the NASA patent for LENR. It claims that polaritons are the active
agent in their reaction.


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> So does NASA
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics is
>>> at the bottom  of their reaction.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I see that this is what Defkalion claim.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

I can see you a paper if you are interested. But it is very large and very
hard to understand. Are you up for that?

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

See the NASA patent for LENR. It claims that polaritons are the active
> agent in their reaction.
>

Yes, it would seem that Zawodny and Bushnell have a certain idea about what
is going on.  (Note that they're not the same as NASA.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

If you keep up on how the W&L theory is changing, they are also referencing
nanoplasmonics.


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> See the NASA patent for LENR. It claims that polaritons are the active
> agent in their reaction.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> So does NASA
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
>>> You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics is
 at the bottom  of their reaction.

>>>
>>> Yes, I see that this is what Defkalion claim.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Axil Axil]

The patent is a NASA patent.


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If you keep up on how the W&L theory is changing, they are also
> referencing nanoplasmonics.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> See the NASA patent for LENR. It claims that polaritons are the active
>> agent in their reaction.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> So does NASA
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

 You are not doing your homework. Defkelion is claiming nanoplasmonics
> is at the bottom  of their reaction.
>

 Yes, I see that this is what Defkalion claim.

 Eric


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The recent ICCF18 (Defkcalion Demo)

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

I can see you a paper if you are interested. But it is very large and very
> hard to understand. Are you up for that?
>

Not if it is hard to understand.  But no doubt you understand it and can
help us along.

Eric