Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. You mean muonic hydrogen and yes that does work. For hydrogen made with electrons (lattice or not once again), you can't get lower than the ground state. This is nothing to do with lack of imagination, more wishful thinking on the part of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
If LENR is real, as many experiments indicate... still un-taught in University nuclear physics, where admittedly it does not fit well. Not convinced. But in contrast to the large amount of positive lab results in LENR ??? Sounds pathological. Church of the converted. Experiment rules ! That is our motto. Dispassionate inquiry without conflicts of interests rule! should be the motto. Take care, John.
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 2:08 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. In my own case I'm not thinking of hydrinos. I'm thinking of brief but sharp transients in the electronic structure of the host metal that intervene between two fusion precursors. This is only mentioned as one example; no doubt trained, disciplined imagination and focus can provide some other possibilities for obtaining screening. I doubt screening is the only promising idea. As I said, there seems to be a lack of imagination. Eric
Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:54 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Jed, and all… I recently saw the following job offer in the classifieds: PS: Ask us about our retirement package. Yes! You will be out-standing in the field, and right on target. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9630509/North-Korean-army-minister-executed-with-mortar-round.html - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
From: Eric Walker John Franks wrote: Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. In my own case I'm not thinking of hydrinos. I'm thinking of brief but sharp transients in the electronic structure of the host metal that intervene between two fusion precursors. This is only mentioned as one example; no doubt trained, disciplined imagination and focus can provide some other possibilities for obtaining screening. I doubt screening is the only promising idea. As I said, there seems to be a lack of imagination. Indeed. Speaking of imagination, one of the better proposals – or analogies (with an emphasis on anal) for how this can happen routinely in a condensed metal was suggested by Michel Julian, which he called the “sphincter effect”. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42586.html All joking aside, it is very likely that protons (or deuterons) when passing through a metallic and nanoporous proton conductor (like nickel), will be effectively “shot out” of an electron cloud of the metal - and into a nanocavity, where the bare proton will occasionally interact with another coming from the near opposite vector. The strong force takes over from there. Of course, we could clean up the wording a bit and call it the “slingshot effect” …
[Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking
Poser of the Day: Why is the element mercury a dense liquid? - there have been prior (incomplete) explanations, but it turns out that relativity is the culprit. The inner electrons of Hg become much heavier than normal electrons because they are moving very near lightspeed - thus the higher density of the metal is NOT due to the nucleus but instead is due to electrons. IOW - it is not an issue of atomic weight, per se (mercury is denser than lead which is to the right of it in the periodic table). This could have implications for LENR (to be explained in later post). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201302742/abstract but this video makes it clearer (please ignore the 'bad hair' day) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0 As for one of the possible LENR connections to very heavy electrons - check out Fig 12 and 13 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf Notice that two transmutation elements of remarkable high density turn up. Osmium is the densest of all elements and Rhenium is very close. Both would have an excess of very heavy electrons. However, this begs the question of cause and effect. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking
The clasaic 20+ years old paper about this is in the Journal of Chemical Education, onr of my favprite papers: http://voh.chem.ucla.edu/vohtar/fall02/classes/172/pdf/172rpint.pdf Till now, as far I remember mercury has not played a role in LENR. I have once suggested it could be used to create active sites, by blowing hydrogen charged with mercury vapors over a metal by forming very local amalgam islands and these can be processed further. Just an idea, it was never tested. I have worked with mercury in electrolysis plants and once even as heat transfer agent in a cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone plant. Nasty stuff- to be avoided if possible. The evil stuff kills my pet metal aluminum. Peter On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Poser of the Day: Why is the element mercury a dense liquid? - there have been prior (incomplete) explanations, but it turns out that relativity is the culprit. The inner electrons of Hg become much heavier than normal electrons because they are moving very near lightspeed - thus the higher density of the metal is NOT due to the nucleus but instead is due to electrons. IOW - it is not an issue of atomic weight, per se (mercury is denser than lead which is to the right of it in the periodic table). This could have implications for LENR (to be explained in later post). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201302742/abstract but this video makes it clearer (please ignore the 'bad hair' day) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0 As for one of the possible LENR connections to very heavy electrons - check out Fig 12 and 13 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf Notice that two transmutation elements of remarkable high density turn up. Osmium is the densest of all elements and Rhenium is very close. Both would have an excess of very heavy electrons. However, this begs the question of cause and effect. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:54 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: There just aren't that many institutions that teach these kinds of skills. I suspect certain kinds of family-run businesses may be the only game in town. Perhaps they should start a franchise. A great model might be Papa Songs in Neo Seoul. He had only a couple of bad apples and Somni became a goddess. Great retirement plan. Lots of positive feedback. wink, wink, nudge, nudge
Re: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The inner electrons of Hg become much heavier than normal electrons because they are moving very near lightspeed - thus the higher density of the metal is NOT due to the nucleus but instead is due to electrons. IOW - it is not an issue of atomic weight, per se (mercury is denser than lead which is to the right of it in the periodic table). Hah! Now, this makes me think of what Robert Wood said in that youtube vid and one Egbert Fouche: http://www.rense.com/general30/yrb3.htm (Nevermind the credibility of the web source.)
Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea
at least they did not kill him by bath in molten metal, as it happen in some North Korean camps. the source is a documents (on FR/DE Arte TV) about inheritors of mengele ( http://navetoncinema.canalblog.com/archives/2011/10/15/22346254.html ) which seems serious... 2013/12/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Say what you like about North Korea, you will have to agree they have the world's fastest and most efficient system of justice. If you are North Korean you will have to agree Or Else. The trial of Kim Jung Un's uncle was supposedly secret, but I found a transcript on the Internet. Here it is, in its entirety: -- Court Clerk: Oyes, oyes. This court is now in session, Judge Kanga Ru presiding. Judge Ru: Uncle Jang, you are accused of being a despicable thrice-accursed running dog, a traitor for all ages. How do you plead? Guilty, or *extra* guilty? Jang: Your honor, I . . . Judge: Guilty it is! bangs gavel Take a number and join that line on the right. . . . Next case!
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Vortex, I contacted Remi after tracking down his email and he writes below -- Forwarded message -- From: Remi Cornwall Date: Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM Subject: RE: Thermo-converter and other things To: John Franks Dear John, Thank you for showing interest and contacting me. Yes, we have data but we aren't rushing anything and will very diligently question our data and setup before announcing anything more formally. We can report that the electrodynamic model in chapter 4 of the thesis is a faithful representation of what we see in the lab. We shall engage in calorimetry to prove the link with the thermodynamic cycles in the thesis. The way to do science is just to be patient and keep your powder dry. In all our endeavours, we are in no rush, wishing to submit grant applications and assemble a team of competent co-workers. This takes time and in fact, most of my time seems to be taken up with administrative matters - not least report writing, grants, patents, presentations. In the works, I am conceiving/writing a few papers: one leading on from the QSE (Quantum Signalling and Encryption) project to find a mechanism for Relativity, another in the QSE project to do with a Franson interferometer setup and then hopefully a return to ideas on Electromagnetic Propulsion, where I may have some basis as to dumping momentum in the putative scheme on cornwallresearch.org and the university site but not listed on vixra or arxiv until I am ready. Of course, more results from TEC (Thermo-electromagnetic conversion) will be listed in due course. You are welcome to have a go yourself and I believe all the material, specifically the grade of ferrofluid, can be found in the thesis and is available from Liquids Research, Bangor, UK - contacts Dr Vijay Patel/dept. chemistry, Bangor and Prof Kevin O'Grady/dept. physics York. In the meantime I might be changing department or university. Onwards and upwards! All the best, Remi. From: John Franks Sent: 14 December 2013 17:45 To: Remi Cornwall Subject: Thermo-converter and other things Dear Dr Cornwall, I have come across your work on vixra.org and elsewhere and was intrigued as to the status of it and your other projects. You have a very bold research portfolio! Regards, John Franks, engineer (ret)
RE: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking
Yes this is a classic paper, Peter. Another interesting conjecture wrt LENR - and to the activity in the host metal which could promote a transfer of energy (in some unknown way) when loaded with hydrogen - is to analyze the list of elements by density, but correlated to atomic weight. There are a number of metals that are out of place in this listing - in being much denser than they should be based on AMU - with the implication of having a higher % of anomalously heavy electrons per unit of atomic wt (AMU). The top three are Ruthenium, Rhodium and Palladium (in that order) but they are close to each other and all way out of place -being denser than lead while much lower in AMU. If this parameter (which we can call highest proportion of relativist electrons per AMU) was to be found accurate for LENR gain, especially with deuterium instead of protium, then Ruthenium should be superior than Palladium... unless another physical property figures into the equation - which is probably the case. That parameter would probably be deuteron conductivity, which is superior for Palladium... but could be possibly improved in Ruthenium by alloying... perhaps. From: Peter Gluck The clasaic 20+ years old paper about this is in the Journal of Chemical Education, onr of my favprite papers: http://voh.chem.ucla.edu/vohtar/fall02/classes/172/pdf/172rpint.pdf Till now, as far I remember mercury has not played a role in LENR. I have once suggested it could be used to create active sites, by blowing hydrogen charged with mercury vapors over a metal by forming very local amalgam islands and these can be processed further. Just an idea, it was never tested. I have worked with mercury in electrolysis plants and once even as heat transfer agent in a cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone plant. Nasty stuff- to be avoided if possible. The evil stuff kills my pet metal aluminum. Peter Poser of the Day: Why is the element mercury a dense liquid? - there have been prior (incomplete) explanations, but it turns out that relativity is the culprit. The inner electrons of Hg become much heavier than normal electrons because they are moving very near lightspeed - thus the higher density of the metal is NOT due to the nucleus but instead is due to electrons. IOW - it is not an issue of atomic weight, per se (mercury is denser than lead which is to the right of it in the periodic table). This could have implications for LENR (to be explained in later post). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201302742/abstract but this video makes it clearer (please ignore the 'bad hair' day) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0 As for one of the possible LENR connections to very heavy electrons - check out Fig 12 and 13 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf Notice that two transmutation elements of remarkable high density turn up. Osmium is the densest of all elements and Rhenium is very close. Both would have an excess of very heavy electrons. However, this begs the question of cause and effect. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
I wrote: In my own case I'm not thinking of hydrinos. I'm thinking of brief but sharp transients in the electronic structure of the host metal that intervene between two fusion precursors. Btw, for those who are interested, here is a drawing I put together to give a sense of this particular idea: http://i.imgur.com/LTGzr1L.png The blue is the electron charge density. Presumably such a spike is a transient occurrence, lasting only for a moment. It might be possible to get very high (arbitrarily high?) charge densities in localized regions for brief periods of time under nonequilibrium conditions. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking
Jones, This is parallel to my conjecture regarding Puthoff atomic model of the elements and vacuum pressure being modified by quantum geometry such that the elements exposed to the change Are able to achieve new ground states but which the Naudt's paper interprets as relativistic. I remain convinced that fractional hydrogen from ½ to 1/137 is actually more energetic than ground state and we should be using the anomalous radioactive decay claims as a yard stick to estimate just how energetic these relativistic atoms become. My point is that the decay rate becomes far more pronounced when you consider how down averaged the reading becomes relative to the small fraction of measured gas that actually became fractionalized by the geometry. It is that small fraction of gas atoms that aged perhaps thousands or millions of years from our perspective because their vacuum density relative to ours was equivalent to our density relative to a black hole. So from our perspective these hydrinos look smaller / Lorentz contracted but are actually aging much faster while from their perspective they are existing in normal space and time - without interaction the translation by itself would not result in anomalous heat but any asymmetrical reactions occurring during this accelerated lifetime transitioning between different fractional values becomes compounded. Just the difference in inertia between atomic and molecular forms of hydrogen may be enough to react differently to changes in geometry opposing the translation for one more than the other and taking on the role of a Maxwellian sort inside the tapestry of geometries. The end result could be much older but faster moving hydrogen of different fractional values occurring closer together even the same spatial coordinates from our perspective. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 2:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking Yes this is a classic paper, Peter. Another interesting conjecture wrt LENR - and to the activity in the host metal which could promote a transfer of energy (in some unknown way) when loaded with hydrogen - is to analyze the list of elements by density, but correlated to atomic weight. There are a number of metals that are out of place in this listing - in being much denser than they should be based on AMU - with the implication of having a higher % of anomalously heavy electrons per unit of atomic wt (AMU). The top three are Ruthenium, Rhodium and Palladium (in that order) but they are close to each other and all way out of place -being denser than lead while much lower in AMU. If this parameter (which we can call highest proportion of relativist electrons per AMU) was to be found accurate for LENR gain, especially with deuterium instead of protium, then Ruthenium should be superior than Palladium... unless another physical property figures into the equation - which is probably the case. That parameter would probably be deuteron conductivity, which is superior for Palladium... but could be possibly improved in Ruthenium by alloying... perhaps. From: Peter Gluck The clasaic 20+ years old paper about this is in the Journal of Chemical Education, onr of my favprite papers: http://voh.chem.ucla.edu/vohtar/fall02/classes/172/pdf/172rpint.pdf Till now, as far I remember mercury has not played a role in LENR. I have once suggested it could be used to create active sites, by blowing hydrogen charged with mercury vapors over a metal by forming very local amalgam islands and these can be processed further. Just an idea, it was never tested. I have worked with mercury in electrolysis plants and once even as heat transfer agent in a cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone plant. Nasty stuff- to be avoided if possible. The evil stuff kills my pet metal aluminum. Peter Poser of the Day: Why is the element mercury a dense liquid? - there have been prior (incomplete) explanations, but it turns out that relativity is the culprit. The inner electrons of Hg become much heavier than normal electrons because they are moving very near lightspeed - thus the higher density of the metal is NOT due to the nucleus but instead is due to electrons. IOW - it is not an issue of atomic weight, per se (mercury is denser than lead which is to the right of it in the periodic table). This could have implications for LENR (to be explained in later post).
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. What the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) shows is that charge screening in topologically constrained fermions will occur in the direction of complete charge screening as the strength of a tightly focused magnetic field is increased (the ratio of fermions to magnetic flux quanta). The nucleus is a complex structure of layered fermions. When a magnetic field of sufficiently high strength is applied to the topologically constrained nucleus, charge screening through composite fermion formation will occur on all fermion levels that entail the top level of the nucleus, the layer of the nucleons and the lowest layer of the quarks. This screening will result in both fusion and fission of the nucleus. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:08 AM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. You mean muonic hydrogen and yes that does work. For hydrogen made with electrons (lattice or not once again), you can't get lower than the ground state. This is nothing to do with lack of imagination, more wishful thinking on the part of LENR.
[Vo]:Old Mitteldorf / Opednews article just republished
Vol. 19, No. 4,880 - The American Reporter - December 14, 2013 http://www.american-reporter.com/4,880/106.html Copy of : Sci Tech 7/4/2012 at 22:31:55 Cold Fusion: Tangible Hope in an Age of Despair Josh Mitteldorf http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Cold-Fusion-is-Real-by-Josh-Mitteldorf-120704-254.html Report from the International Symposium on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions, Williamsburg, VA July 1-3, 2012 You read OEN -- you won't be surprised to hear about government censorship. I've learned a great deal about political censorship in the MSM over the last few years, but scientific censorship is newer to me, and perhaps I wouldn't have believed how devastatingly effective it can be, in the face of stunning experimental results and tantalizing technological possibility. I attended a conference this week that opened my eyes.
Re: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking
Fran, I agree with that line of thinking, the closer you are to the surface of a black hole the more ionization, condensing, collapse and decay. The vacuum has to first convert you to entropy before you are added to its surface, which requires a lot of work on you. This is really the firewall paradox physicists are just realizing. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-firewall-paradox We really need to consider throwing time out altogether as decay rate is variable throughout space IMO. Most black holes are so small they suffer indigestion and are also constipated at the same time... Stewart On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Frank roarty fr...@roarty.biz wrote: Jones, This is parallel to my conjecture regarding Puthoff atomic model of the elements and vacuum pressure being modified by quantum geometry such that the elements exposed to the change Are able to achieve new ground states but which the Naudt's paper interprets as relativistic. I remain convinced that fractional hydrogen from ½ to 1/137 is actually more energetic than ground state and we should be using the anomalous radioactive decay claims as a yard stick to estimate just how energetic these relativistic atoms become. My point is that the decay rate becomes far more pronounced when you consider how down averaged the reading becomes relative to the small fraction of measured gas that actually became fractionalized by the geometry. It is that small fraction of gas atoms that aged perhaps thousands or millions of years from our perspective because their vacuum density relative to ours was equivalent to our density relative to a black hole. So from our perspective these hydrinos look smaller / Lorentz contracted but are actually aging much faster while from their perspective they are existing in normal space and time - without interaction the translation by itself would not result in anomalous heat but any asymmetrical reactions occurring during this accelerated lifetime transitioning between different fractional values becomes compounded. Just the difference in inertia between atomic and molecular forms of hydrogen may be enough to react differently to changes in geometry opposing the translation for one more than the other and taking on the role of a Maxwellian sort inside the tapestry of geometries. The end result could be much older but faster moving hydrogen of different fractional values occurring closer together even the same spatial coordinates from our perspective. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 2:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking Yes this is a classic paper, Peter. Another interesting conjecture wrt LENR - and to the activity in the host metal which could promote a transfer of energy (in some unknown way) when loaded with hydrogen - is to analyze the list of elements by density, but correlated to atomic weight. There are a number of metals that are out of place in this listing - in being much denser than they should be based on AMU - with the implication of having a higher % of anomalously heavy electrons per unit of atomic wt (AMU). The top three are Ruthenium, Rhodium and Palladium (in that order) but they are close to each other and all way out of place -being denser than lead while much lower in AMU. If this parameter (which we can call highest proportion of relativist electrons per AMU) was to be found accurate for LENR gain, especially with deuterium instead of protium, then Ruthenium should be superior than Palladium... unless another physical property figures into the equation - which is probably the case. That parameter would probably be deuteron conductivity, which is superior for Palladium... but could be possibly improved in Ruthenium by alloying... perhaps. From: Peter Gluck The clasaic 20+ years old paper about this is in the Journal of Chemical Education, onr of my favprite papers: http://voh.chem.ucla.edu/vohtar/fall02/classes/172/pdf/172rpint.pdf Till now, as far I remember mercury has not played a role in LENR. I have once suggested it could be used to create active sites, by blowing hydrogen charged with mercury vapors over a metal by forming very local amalgam islands and these can be processed further. Just an idea, it was never tested. I have worked with mercury in electrolysis plants and once even as heat transfer agent in a cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone plant. Nasty stuff- to be avoided if possible. The evil stuff kills my pet metal aluminum. Peter Poser of the Day: Why is the element mercury a dense liquid? - there have been prior (incomplete)
Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: at least they did not kill him by bath in molten metal . . . I just realized what this reminds me of: a James Bond movie villain. Killing people who mortar rounds and molten metal. I read that Saddam Hussein loved to watch the Godfather movies. He identified the Godfather. I wonder if Kim Jung Un watches James Bond movies and says oh cool, let's try that! He is big on amusement parks, and people dancing on stage dressed as Walt Disney characters. He missed his calling. If only he could have a career at Disney World, he would be happy in his work, and the rest of us would be better off. Hitler wanted to be an artist. It is a shame he had no talent. He might have had a happy life painting schmaltzy postcards and advertising posters. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What if we live in a simulated reality?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/weird-science-weekly-may-living-holographic-projection-010534111.html Cool video - the idea that reality is just a projected hologram from a 2 dimensional surface at the boundaries of space. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 11:18 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It is also possible the universe is just a dream, or a shared hallucination. Maybe all our memories are manufactured and we have not been on this earth and list for x number of years, we may only have implanted memories and started 'fresh' this morning. Many far out and improbable things can be argued as possible, this sim argument is no different. I am not going to take any of these ideas seriously since none of them agree with the incredible detail and broadness of the world. It only distracts from understanding the world we are in. Now we could ask if consciousness comes from dis dimension, at least we perceive consciousness to exist. As far as existential questions go that one makes sense. John On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Eric Walker Of course, the gamers are risking exposure now that A.I. is becoming closer to reality. A.I. may have developed a life (reality) of its own which clears up everything, and possibly within a few decades. I think whether the universe is a simulation is epistemologically inaccessible, unless things were to start to get really weird. The weirdness could easily be that there is both a “real” universe and many ongoing simulations, and especially simulations within simulations. Even if you find the “tell” at one level, you may only advance to the next Sim ! Whether the individual (us, for instance) can ever figure out multiple layering depends on many factors but could easily be impossible, as you say - since any the Sim can have a automatic mechanism for the untimely “demise” of a player who is digging too deep. Think Philip K. Dick. OTOH a few Sims, and maybe our own, could be structured as some kind of test the aim of which is to see how long it takes the subjects of the experiment (i.e. “the meat”) to figure out that they are locked into a Sim. The “untimely demise” mechanism of a Sim is one reason why a large group effort would be preferable :-) At least the “tell” would then be the improbability of the disaster – such as that most of the Vortex News Group did not survive Thanksgiving due… due to… err… tainted turkey? Remember: the red pill is in the cranberries! Actually the Matrix films are an example of early house-of-mirrors layering since any movie is already a Sim on one level.
[Vo]:Miley: Eight Watts for 100 Seconds, Not 300 Watts Continuous
Whatever happened to this supposedly false claim by Miley? Miley: Eight Watts for 100 Seconds, Not 300 Watts ContinuousMarch 20, 2012 x By Steven B. Krivit -excerpted http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2012/Miley-Eight-Watts-for-100-Seconds.shtml George Miley, a pioneer in the low-energy nuclear reactions field and an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois, made an extraordinary claim of excess heat on Oct. 20, 2011, at the World Green Energy Symposium in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A person who attended the symposium filmed Miley's presentation and uploaded it to YouTube. At 17:57 in this videohttp://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay#p/u/2/N1m2wQevFAY, Miley states, At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts. *New Energy Times * spoke with Miley in December and learned that his data showed a peak of eight Watts of excess heat over a period of 100 seconds. Apparently Miley misspoke. -- *Miley:* We don't have that in there. We’re still working on that. I don't want to discuss that yet. [I asked the question to him a second time to make sure we were not misunderstanding each other. I got the same answer. I told Miley that it seemed inconsistent. In his e-mail, he said he had shown the data in his slides; now I learned that the data was not in the slides.] *Miley: *All we want to disclose at this time is what is in the slides. *Krivit: * But during your video presentation, you said you could run continuously at several hundred watts. *Miley: * That is correct, but I didn't show the data for it. *Krivit: * And you have the data for that which you can show? *Miley: * I don't want to show it, but let me explain this experiment. *Krivit: * Well, you have a major inconsistency here. - *Krivit: * So what power does that come to? *Miley: * That's 8 Watts. But this was not our run that demonstrates the energy. That's why this slide is labeled triggering an excess-heat measurement. [Slide 19 is actually labeled Preliminary Excess-Heat Measurement Using Our Gas-Loading Calorimetry System] *Krivit: * People have asked me about your claims of several hundred watts of excess heat. What am I supposed to tell them? *Miley: * Tell them that I haven't disclosed the data and I won't until I publish it in a reviewed journal and I've finished all the experiments. If I disclose it now, I'm doing it prematurely because we haven't finished all the experiments. *Krivit: * But it sounds like a take-back because you got people all excited with these news stories about you getting hundreds of Watts of excess heat and now you're saying this. It doesn't sound like you're being fair to people.
Re: [Vo]:Will aneutronic fusion preempt LENR?
Axil, Are the officials who recommend increased funding really that naive? Do you have the expertise to make such assertions? - of course, designing any large scale fusion reactor is a challenge. Here is another recent paper on another approach - Fusion reactions initiated by laser-accelerated particle beams in a laser-produced plasma http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3506/full/ncomms3506.html Or, preprint - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2002v1.pdf LPP is asking for two years and a modest budget. Hopefully both LPP and LENR are funded and succeed. Any success will lift the economy. -- LP Axil wrote: Boron fusion is 1000 times more difficult to get to than deuterium fusion. The energy capture device that they want to use assumes boron fusion. The x-ray capture device will not work in my opinion and deuterium fusion will destroy the reactor. A commercial reactor is very difficult to build. On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: An new item - December 13, 2013 Senior Fusion researchers give major endorsement to Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Dense Plasma Focus Fusion Work and say they expect feasibility will be shown within two years with adequate funding. In a major endorsement of the fusion energy research and development program of start-up Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP), a committee of senior fusion researchers, led by a former head of the US fusion program, has concluded that the innovative effort deserves a much higher level of investment based on their considerable progress to date. The report concludes that In the committees view [LPPs] approach to fusion power is worthy of a considerable expansion of effort. Lawrenceville Plasma Physics has been developing an extremely low-cost approach to fusion power based on a device called the dense plasma focus (DPF). In contrast to the giant tokamak machines that have been the recipients of most fusion funding, a DPF can fit in a small room. LPPs final feasibility experiments and planned commercial generators will use hydrogen-boron fuel, which produces no radioactive waste and promises extremely economical clean energy. http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/senior-fusion-researchers-give-major.html Lawrenceville Plasma Physics - Homepage: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/
[Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Dear Vortex, What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken claims of excess heat from LENR? And all this talk of imagination in other threads, relativistic electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to get two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This shielding talk seems is bogus as is talk of other types of nuclear reactions that don't produce neutrons or gamma rays. Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? JF.
Re: [Vo]:WAY OFF TOPIC North Korea
Is the USA building up to another war of resources/currency/strategic placement of military bases? Maybe the next game is to destabilise China.
Re: [Vo]:Will aneutronic fusion preempt LENR?
1p + 11B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron-11 → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV More than 20 of these fusion reactions are required to produce the energy release of one fission reaction. See here for all the downsides of boron fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion LENR+ is more energy productive because it generates mostly fission reactions.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Vortex, What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken claims of excess heat from LENR? And all this talk of imagination in other threads, relativistic electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to get two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This shielding talk seems is bogus as is talk of other types of nuclear reactions that don't produce neutrons or gamma rays. Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? JF.
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) shows is that charge screening in topologically constrained fermions will occur in the direction of complete charge screening as the strength of a tightly focused magnetic field is increased (the ratio of fermions to magnetic flux quanta). How can you have the fractional quantum hall effect at high temperatures? This screening will result in both fusion and fission of the nucleus. I think you should be more explicit in this step [1]. Eric [1] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
*The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support your assertions no matter how well thought out they are. As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a definitive experiment (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met many times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions before coming in here for the most basic of information. Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you honestly think highly trained electrochemists did not understand that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early on? Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the mechanism is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not fit into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is an amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing with a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body nuclear interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, highly non-linear systems, especially in the early stages of development. Scientific history is full of such stubbornly unrepeatable cases that are nonetheless legitimate science (cloning a sheep for example). Significant progress in terms of repeatability has been made however; take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Mr. Franks I suggest you educate yourself more before storming in with nonsense arguments that are outdated by almost 20 years. Regards, John M On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM, John Franks jf27...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Vortex, What is Faraday Efficiency and might it be behind some of the mistaken claims of excess heat from LENR? And all this talk of imagination in other threads, relativistic electrons, the lattice somehow doing something, how is it possible to get two nucleons close enough for the strong force to take over? You can't get lower than the ground state and 0.1nm or so is a lot larger than the 0.1pm and less to get significant fusion. This shielding talk seems is bogus as is talk of other types of nuclear reactions that don't produce neutrons or gamma rays. Why can't you LENR people do one definitive experiment after all these years (going on 25) and 100s of millions of dollars? JF.
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+ reaction with 100% repeatability. These simple, straight forward, and uncomplicated experiments show that the Nanoplasmonic mechanism is unambiguously capable of producing nuclear reactions. I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. An experiment not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf *Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt* It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 m were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support your assertions no matter how well thought out they are. As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a definitive experiment (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met many times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions before coming in here for the most basic of information. Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you honestly think highly trained electrochemists did not understand that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early on? Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the mechanism is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not fit into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is an amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing with a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body nuclear interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, highly non-linear systems, especially in the early stages of development. Scientific history is full of such stubbornly unrepeatable cases that are nonetheless legitimate science (cloning a sheep for example). Significant progress in terms of repeatability has been made however; take Energetics in Israel (now at U of M) for example who had reach ~70-80% repeatability in their cells. Mr. Franks I suggest you educate yourself more before storming in with nonsense
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
How can you have the fractional quantum hall effect at high temperatures? The same way that a Bose Einstein condensate can form at temperatures up to 2300K. It is a matter of the weight of the quasi-particle. a quasi-particle with almost no weight can produce high temperature reactions. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: What the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) shows is that charge screening in topologically constrained fermions will occur in the direction of complete charge screening as the strength of a tightly focused magnetic field is increased (the ratio of fermions to magnetic flux quanta). How can you have the fractional quantum hall effect at high temperatures? This screening will result in both fusion and fission of the nucleus. I think you should be more explicit in this step [1]. Eric [1] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Steve? Steve Jones, is that you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
To be fair Jed, it is my understanding that Steve has now accepted excess heat, but still does not subscribe to a nuclear hypothesis. Obviously your point is that it was asinine for Jones to deny excess heat for so long, just as Mr. Franks is doing here (on top of making other silly proclamations). I agree, but think we need to be mindful of the disclaimer above. Regards, John On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Steve? Steve Jones, is that you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: To be fair Jed, it is my understanding that Steve has now accepted excess heat, but still does not subscribe to a nuclear hypothesis. The last I heard from him he said the heat is real but it is all caused by recombination. That was a long time ago. Maybe he has changed his mind. To add a serious comment: yes of course recombination was ruled out long ago, and no, people have not spent hundreds of millions on this research. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Jed, You might want to review his 2001 patent application: Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium condition - CA 2400084 A1 https://www.google.com/patents/CA2400084A1 - LP Jed Rothwell wrote: Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: To be fair Jed, it is my understanding that Steve has now accepted excess heat, but still does not subscribe to a nuclear hypothesis. The last I heard from him he said the heat is real but it is all caused by recombination. That was a long time ago. Maybe he has changed his mind. To add a serious comment: yes of course recombination was ruled out long ago, and no, people have not spent hundreds of millions on this research. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: What is Faraday Efficiency?
Axil, A good reference. It lead me to a couple other related papers: Nuclear processes initiated by electrons http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0036024413060277 (Click on 'Look Inside icon for first two pages.) Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf -- LP Axil wrote: Experimentation with gold nano-particles show LENR+ reaction with 100% repeatability. These simple, straight forward, and uncomplicated experiments show that the Nanoplasmonic mechanism is unambiguously capable of producing nuclear reactions. I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. An experiment not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf *Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt* It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission. Abstract Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 â 0.355 ïm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 â 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed. Here is another paper: I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic underpinnings of LENR. Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in topology. These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated? On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Foks0904 . foks0...@gmail.com wrote: *The major reaction in the Ni/H reaction is the fission reaction. You are wallowing in a morass of invalid information. Learn about the fractional quantum hall effect to get onto the right track.* Actually Axil, we don't know what it is. You're entitled to your interpretation but that's all it is. Not enough data exists to support your assertions no matter how well thought out they are. As to John Franks' antagonistic demands for a definitive experiment (presumably for evidence of excess heat), those demands had been met many times already by 1994 (McKubre, Storms, Oriani, Huggins, Arata, Bockris, etc.). If he had cared to look back on the history of the field + the archived technical papers he could have answered his own questions before coming in here for the most basic of information. Faraday efficiency has to do with recombination. Recombination has been ruled out many times over in LENR experiments. Mr. Franks, do you honestly think highly trained electrochemists did not understand that rudimentary recombination might be a factor worth ruling out early on? Even though progress has been made, we still don't know what the mechanism is. So what? Experiment is king in science, and it sometimes takes a generation or more to discover what the exact mechanism for a new phenomenon is. Discounting a discovery for the reason that it does not fit into current theory totally flips scientific protocol on its head and is an amateurish understanding of scientific method at best. We are dealing with a messy, complex, chemical system, not highly controllable 2 body nuclear interactions in a vacuum like most physicists are used to. Unreasonable demands for high repeatability make no sense for these types of complex, highly non-linear
