date:20140302

Rossi has always  had burn up issues with all the versions of his cats from
the very beginning. It looks to me, when the hydrogen envelope explodes due
to structural failure and melting, that is when the reaction stops.

During burnup. the reaction passes from nickel to other elements that form
nanoparticles. My guess is that it is probably the aluminum oxide that
takes over. I remember seeing somewhere that the high end of polariton
activity tops out at 12,000C. So even is the reactor was made out of
tungsten, there will always be a burnup issue if a failsafe design was not
effective.

The entire point of DGT design was to avoid wild conditions from occurring.
I fervently hope they have been successful in avoiding any chance of burnup
in their reactor.


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Dave--
>
> I had the same concerns you voice when I read Rossi's statements some time
> ago.
>
> Regarding your comment about breathing hydrogen,  I think it safe to
> assume that in the Rossi system the hydrogen is diffused through the
> material whatever it is at 12 atmos. and 300-400 degrees.  Assuming the Ni
> nano particles he refers to are the active locations for the reaction,  and
> only a small fraction react in any given time interval, being controlled by
> his cat, destruction of the whole system at once may not be likely.
> However with enough time the reactor uses up the intact  nano particles and
> the process shuts down.
>
>  I believe in his E-Cat low-temperature device too high a temperature
> shuts the reaction off, maybe by shifting phonon resonances.  Not so in the
> Hot Cat.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* David Roberson 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 3:32 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> I recall reading Rossi's blog around the time of the points you have
> captured.  That must have been an impressive display to actually see such
> an enormous amount of power being generated.  My first thought would have
> been to run like mad!
>
> If what he said is factual then I agree that some special factor must have
> come to play that does not normally exist in nickel systems.  Actually, I
> find it difficult to understand how the material would be able to breathe
> well enough to allow entry of the fresh hydrogen and exit of the ash needed
> to supply the intense power.  With that thought in mind, does this suggest
> that the run away process mainly results from the burning of the fuel that
> is already in place within the matrix?
>
> How would we calculate the amount of extractable energy that resides
> within the nickel NAE prior to what we consider normal ignition?  It scares
> me to consider that they might be attempting to accomplish a task that
> resembles firing a tiny amount of dynamite from a large pile while being
> careful not to ignite the whole works.  In earlier descriptions from Rossi
> he made it clear that meltdown of the nickel is all that is required to
> extinguish the process and render the material inert.  Is it possible that
> he has so enhanced the process that a dangerous level of activity can now
> occur?  If so, I prefer the safer version for my house.
>
> Axil, do you think that DGT and Rossi have somehow advanced a notch above
> where Rossi once operated his ECAT?  If so, perhaps they have advanced
> above what we called LENR+ to SUPER-LENR.  I would rather hope that there
> is a well defined natural limit to the amount of power that can be
> extracted from one of these devices and that the limit is only a couple of
> times higher than the desired operating level.   Anyone developing a
> product of this nature should realize that more is not always better when
> you are concerned about safety.
>
> The enhanced magnetic field positive feedback mechanism might be the
> ticket to reaching extreme activity under the right conditions.  Earlier
> versions of the ECAT may have been unable to tap this extra high octane
> pathway due to the design and materials used within the structures.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:28 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>  I
> I have compassion for classical science guys like Ed and Mills. What is
> going on in the NiH reactor is truly abundant of quantum mechanical effects
> all interwoven into a near miracle. This must be expected if such a small
> nano-sized system that far surpass the designs, capabilities and power of
> the ITER and the laser based ICF
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInertial_confinement_fusion&ei=P6kTU-GhIonf0gH5-oGYCA&usg=AFQjCNH7TGlWKHqd7ee-kmSc6gW-nwsSpA&sig2=jlLsLwnQWX_xHLc5rA4iRw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.dmQ
>
> Another thing that is happening is that all the magnetic NAEs are
> connected together into a BEC through photon transfer coupling. There is an
> indi

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread Terry Blanton

> To have the reactor increase in
> temperature 1000 C in just 10 seconds seems quite extraordinary, and
> obviously potentially dangerous if sufficient safety precautions are not
> taken.

It sounds a bit like Red Mercury to me.

RE: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

From: Axil Axil 

 

I think that the direction of the current rings alternate down the length of
the nanotube which would negate the axial magnetic field. Check if this is
true.

 

I did not word the description very well. Yes, the current rings would
probably alternate down the length and around the circumference, so they
would not provide an axial field themselves. They would however provide a
very intense focusing field, just as do quadrupole and hexapole magnets on
any large beam line. 

 

That need for an axial field is why an external field becomes important.

 

A weak magnetic field must be provided from outside the system which will be
the axial field in which weak field lines which are being focused by CNT
would be highly compressed so that any charged particle seeing those lines
would tend to take the opposite alignment, be attracted and thereafter be
subject to acceleration forces when inside the tube. 

 

For Fran Roarty's amusement, this is where the Casimir force could enter the
picture since the interior dimension of CNT is precisely the Casimir prime
exclusion zone for virtual photons. 

 

There is no proof of any of this for now - but in the event that anyone
should see photons in the keV range as a characteristic of any CNT device,
then this provides a plausible explanation of how that finding is related
back to the basic hexagonal bond-length of CNT, about 0.142 nm and how
bremsstrahlung at low energy (around 1 keV) provides the feedback mechanism
for the SPP. It all fits, proof or no.

 

I am using the wording: field "lines" as an abstraction for simplicity and
do not espouse the existence of physical lines.

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Dave--

I had the same concerns you voice when I read Rossi's statements some time ago.

Regarding your comment about breathing hydrogen, I think it safe to assume
that in the Rossi system the hydrogen is diffused through the material whatever
it is at 12 atmos. and 300-400 degrees. Assuming the Ni nano particles he
refers to are the active locations for the reaction, and only a small fraction
react in any given time interval, being controlled by his cat, destruction of
the whole system at once may not be likely. However with enough time the
reactor uses up the intact nano particles and the process shuts down.

I believe in his E-Cat low-temperature device too high a temperature shuts the
reaction off, maybe by shifting phonon resonances. Not so in the Hot Cat.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I recall reading Rossi's blog around the time of the points you have
captured. That must have been an impressive display to actually see such an
enormous amount of power being generated. My first thought would have been to
run like mad!

If what he said is factual then I agree that some special factor must have
come to play that does not normally exist in nickel systems. Actually, I find
it difficult to understand how the material would be able to breathe well
enough to allow entry of the fresh hydrogen and exit of the ash needed to
supply the intense power. With that thought in mind, does this suggest that
the run away process mainly results from the burning of the fuel that is
already in place within the matrix?

How would we calculate the amount of extractable energy that resides within
the nickel NAE prior to what we consider normal ignition? It scares me to
consider that they might be attempting to accomplish a task that resembles
firing a tiny amount of dynamite from a large pile while being careful not to
ignite the whole works. In earlier descriptions from Rossi he made it clear
that meltdown of the nickel is all that is required to extinguish the process
and render the material inert. Is it possible that he has so enhanced the
process that a dangerous level of activity can now occur? If so, I prefer the
safer version for my house.

Axil, do you think that DGT and Rossi have somehow advanced a notch above
where Rossi once operated his ECAT? If so, perhaps they have advanced above
what we called LENR+ to SUPER-LENR. I would rather hope that there is a well
defined natural limit to the amount of power that can be extracted from one of
these devices and that the limit is only a couple of times higher than the
desired operating level. Anyone developing a product of this nature should
realize that more is not always better when you are concerned about safety.

The enhanced magnetic field positive feedback mechanism might be the ticket
to reaching extreme activity under the right conditions. Earlier versions of
the ECAT may have been unable to tap this extra high octane pathway due to the
design and materials used within the structures.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I
I have compassion for classical science guys like Ed and Mills. What is going
on in the NiH reactor is truly abundant of quantum mechanical effects all
interwoven into a near miracle. This must be expected if such a small
nano-sized system that far surpass the designs, capabilities and power of the
ITER and the laser based ICF

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInertial_confinement_fusion&ei=P6kTU-GhIonf0gH5-oGYCA&usg=AFQjCNH7TGlWKHqd7ee-kmSc6gW-nwsSpA&sig2=jlLsLwnQWX_xHLc5rA4iRw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.dmQ

Another thing that is happening is that all the magnetic NAEs are connected
together into a BEC through photon transfer coupling. There is an indication
that this is so because of the superfuidic transfer of energy around the entire
reactor stucture.
Indicative of this comes from the overpower tests that distroy Rossi’s
reactors. If the energy was centralize near the nickel powder, there would be
an intense hotspot and a rapid burn through at that hotspot. But the reactor
heats evenly to the piont that even the high temperature material cinters
evenly.
Rossi spoke to this matter as follows:
Here are some of the key points that Andrea Rossi has made on the topic over
just a couple of days.
• “If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the
controllability limits and the reactor explodes . . . Now we have a mouse with
a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse
excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk
reachin

Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

I think that the direction of the current rings alternate down the length
of the nanotube which would negate the axial magnetic  field. Check if this
is true.


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Here are some marginally connected observations which could be relevant to
> CNT (carbon nano tubes) as the active matrix in LENR, when irradiated by
> SPP. A prediction also can be derived as to what spectrum to look for as a
> signature of CNT anomalous gain.
>
> The carbon-carbon bond length in graphene is about 0.142 nanometers.
>
> Since there are 6 of these bonds in one complete circuit around the ring
> but
> the electron path is not uniform ... the effective length of the electrical
> circuit for ring current could be near one nm in graphene. We can use that
> value as a convenient starter.
>
> There are no losses in ring current ... so can it not be considered
> superconductive at a local level?
>
> In normal graphene, antiferromagnetic tendencies wash out the possibility
> of
> a net effect in developing a strong magnetic field, since an systemic
> alignment mechanism is absent. With CNT this would be different.
>
> BTW - a photon of 3 x 10^17 Hz, or 300 PHz  (PetaHertz) which is on the
> borderline of EUV and X-ray corresponds to this wavelength (1 nm). This is
> about 1240 eV as we know from hc. This level of mass-energy as a photon,
> 1240 eV would be undetectable by most radiation monitors, and is thus
> consistent with a resonant LENR emission. This value for a photon, or a
> value closer to 1 keV, could turn up as a signature for CNT LENR.
>
> Ring currents could create a large axial effective magnetic field in CNT
> when first aligned by even a weak PM. However think about the polarities.
> There are many ring current sites around the circumference of the CNT, and
> these would be alternating in polarity. The net effect of this geometry is
> that field lines down the center of the CNT would be focused and compressed
> by ring currents as if they were typical focusing magnets in a beam line.
>
> These resultant axial magnetic fields of CNT could be immense, so as to
> accelerate free electrons which ventured into the tubes to very high
> velocity, especially with help from Casimir exclusion.  Now the stage is
> set
> for feedback leading to coherency.
>
> Using the definition of ~6×10^18 electrons per second constituting one amp
> and one mole being of ~6 X10^23 elementary entities, and the frequency
> being
> PHz due to SPP, then it is possible that each gram of carbon could supply
> Peta-Amps-turns to internal magnetic uses. Even if one carbon ring per
> million is operational, very large net energy effects are possible via
> accelerated electrons. Photons are created from Bremsstrahlung at the
> resonance level around a keV and coherency develops.
>
> For any photon to be converted into DC in such a way as to amplify ring
> current, it is fair to assume that it must be resonant within a narrow
> limit
> of the circuit length. It could then be possible for some kind of mutual
> coherency to develop in a feedback loop between the CNT, acting as
> nano-accelerators of electrons, and photons created from Bremsstrahlung at
> the resonance level around 1240 eV or less. Knowing this exact value would
> be highly advantageous in the design of a proper resonant device.
>
> More details to follow ...
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I recall reading Rossi's blog around the time of the points you have captured.  
That must have been an impressive display to actually see such an enormous 
amount of power being generated.  My first thought would have been to run like 
mad!

If what he said is factual then I agree that some special factor must have come 
to play that does not normally exist in nickel systems.  Actually, I find it 
difficult to understand how the material would be able to breathe well enough 
to allow entry of the fresh hydrogen and exit of the ash needed to supply the 
intense power.  With that thought in mind, does this suggest that the run away 
process mainly results from the burning of the fuel that is already in place 
within the matrix?

How would we calculate the amount of extractable energy that resides within the 
nickel NAE prior to what we consider normal ignition?  It scares me to consider 
that they might be attempting to accomplish a task that resembles firing a tiny 
amount of dynamite from a large pile while being careful not to ignite the 
whole works.  In earlier descriptions from Rossi he made it clear that meltdown 
of the nickel is all that is required to extinguish the process and render the 
material inert.  Is it possible that he has so enhanced the process that a 
dangerous level of activity can now occur?  If so, I prefer the safer version 
for my house.

Axil, do you think that DGT and Rossi have somehow advanced a notch above where 
Rossi once operated his ECAT?  If so, perhaps they have advanced above what we 
called LENR+ to SUPER-LENR.  I would rather hope that there is a well defined 
natural limit to the amount of power that can be extracted from one of these 
devices and that the limit is only a couple of times higher than the desired 
operating level.   Anyone developing a product of this nature should realize 
that more is not always better when you are concerned about safety.

The enhanced magnetic field positive feedback mechanism might be the ticket to 
reaching extreme activity under the right conditions.  Earlier versions of the 
ECAT may have been unable to tap this extra high octane pathway due to the 
design and materials used within the structures.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



I
I have compassion for classical science guys like Ed and Mills. What is going 
on in the NiH reactor is truly abundant of quantum mechanical effects all 
interwoven into a near miracle. This must be expected if such a small 
nano-sized system that far surpass the designs, capabilities and power of the 
ITER and the laser based ICF
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInertial_confinement_fusion&ei=P6kTU-GhIonf0gH5-oGYCA&usg=AFQjCNH7TGlWKHqd7ee-kmSc6gW-nwsSpA&sig2=jlLsLwnQWX_xHLc5rA4iRw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.dmQ

Another thing that is happening is that all the magnetic NAEs are connected 
together into a BEC through photon transfer coupling. There is an indication 
that this is so because of the superfuidic transfer of energy around the entire 
reactor stucture.
Indicative of this comes from the overpower tests that distroy Rossi’s 
reactors. If the energy was centralize near the nickel powder, there would be 
an intense hotspot and a rapid burn through at that hotspot. But the reactor 
heats evenly to the piont that even the high temperature material cinters 
evenly.
Rossi spoke to this matter as follows:
Here are some of the key points that Andrea Rossi has made on the topic over 
just a couple of days.
• “If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the 
controllability limits and the reactor explodes . . . Now we have a mouse with 
a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse 
excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk 
reaching this level. We have seen explode hundreds of reactors now, this way.”
• “The explosions, or destructive tests, are made in controlled modes, in 
proper lab, with due control of the radiations made by proper instrumentation . 
. . obviously, no ionizing radiations are released outside the safety box in 
which the reactor is destructed.”
• “Anyway: now we will estabilish the limits of the allowable excitation with 
series of destructive tests, then the control engineers will design the final 
version of the control system for the new limits of the temperature of the high 
temperature E-Cats ( Hot Cats).”
• “Presently our E-Cat is working ( also right now, while I am writing this 
comment) at a temp of 1,100 Celsius, very stable.”
• “A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated 
that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 
10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, 
has implied a power

[Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

Here are some marginally connected observations which could be relevant to
CNT (carbon nano tubes) as the active matrix in LENR, when irradiated by
SPP. A prediction also can be derived as to what spectrum to look for as a
signature of CNT anomalous gain.

The carbon-carbon bond length in graphene is about 0.142 nanometers. 

Since there are 6 of these bonds in one complete circuit around the ring but
the electron path is not uniform ... the effective length of the electrical
circuit for ring current could be near one nm in graphene. We can use that
value as a convenient starter.

There are no losses in ring current ... so can it not be considered
superconductive at a local level? 

In normal graphene, antiferromagnetic tendencies wash out the possibility of
a net effect in developing a strong magnetic field, since an systemic
alignment mechanism is absent. With CNT this would be different.

BTW - a photon of 3 x 10^17 Hz, or 300 PHz  (PetaHertz) which is on the
borderline of EUV and X-ray corresponds to this wavelength (1 nm). This is
about 1240 eV as we know from hc. This level of mass-energy as a photon,
1240 eV would be undetectable by most radiation monitors, and is thus
consistent with a resonant LENR emission. This value for a photon, or a
value closer to 1 keV, could turn up as a signature for CNT LENR.

Ring currents could create a large axial effective magnetic field in CNT
when first aligned by even a weak PM. However think about the polarities.
There are many ring current sites around the circumference of the CNT, and
these would be alternating in polarity. The net effect of this geometry is
that field lines down the center of the CNT would be focused and compressed
by ring currents as if they were typical focusing magnets in a beam line. 

These resultant axial magnetic fields of CNT could be immense, so as to
accelerate free electrons which ventured into the tubes to very high
velocity, especially with help from Casimir exclusion.  Now the stage is set
for feedback leading to coherency.

Using the definition of ~6×10^18 electrons per second constituting one amp
and one mole being of ~6 X10^23 elementary entities, and the frequency being
PHz due to SPP, then it is possible that each gram of carbon could supply
Peta-Amps-turns to internal magnetic uses. Even if one carbon ring per
million is operational, very large net energy effects are possible via
accelerated electrons. Photons are created from Bremsstrahlung at the
resonance level around a keV and coherency develops.

For any photon to be converted into DC in such a way as to amplify ring
current, it is fair to assume that it must be resonant within a narrow limit
of the circuit length. It could then be possible for some kind of mutual
coherency to develop in a feedback loop between the CNT, acting as
nano-accelerators of electrons, and photons created from Bremsstrahlung at
the resonance level around 1240 eV or less. Knowing this exact value would
be highly advantageous in the design of a proper resonant device.

More details to follow ... 


<>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Axil Dave and Jones--

More on spin coupling recently off the press:

Odd-parity superconductivity from phonon-mediated pairing
P. M. R. Brydon, S. Das Sarma, Hoi-Yin Hui, Jay D. Sau

Motivated by the proposed topological state in CuxBi2Se3, we study the
possibility of phonon-mediated odd-parity superconductivity in spin-orbit
coupled systems with time-reversal and inversion symmetry. For such systems, we
show that, in general, pure electron-phonon coupling can never lead to a
triplet state with a higher critical temperature than the leading singlet
state. The Coulomb pseudopotential, which is the repulsive part of the
electron-electron interaction and is typically small in weakly correlated
systems, is therefore critical to stabilizing the triplet state. We introduce a
chirality quantum number, which identifies the electron-phonon vertex
interactions that are most favorable to the triplet channel as those that
conserve chirality. Applying these results to CuxBi2Se3, we find that a
phonon-mediated odd-parity state may be realized in the presence of weak
electronic correlations if the chirality-preserving electron-phonon vertices
are much stronger than the chirality-flipping vertices.
arXiv.org > cond-mat > arXiv:1402.7061

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Another thing that is happening is that all the magnetic NAEs are connected
together into a BEC through photon transfer coupling. There is an indication
that this is so because of the superfuidic transfer of energy around the entire
reactor stucture.
Indicative of this comes from the overpower tests that distroy Rossi's
reactors. If the energy was centralize near the nickel powder, there would be
an intense hotspot and a rapid burn through at that hotspot. But the reactor
heats evenly to the piont that even the high temperature material cinters
evenly.
Rossi spoke to this matter as follows:
Here are some of the key points that Andrea Rossi has made on the topic over
just a couple of days.
. "If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the
controllability limits and the reactor explodes . . . Now we have a mouse with
a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse
excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk
reaching this level. We have seen explode hundreds of reactors now, this way."

. "The explosions, or destructive tests, are made in controlled modes, in
proper lab, with due control of the radiations made by proper instrumentation .
. . obviously, no ionizing radiations are released outside the safety box in
which the reactor is destructed."

. "Anyway: now we will estabilish the limits of the allowable excitation with
series of destructive tests, then the control engineers will design the final
version of the control system for the new limits of the temperature of the high
temperature E-Cats ( Hot Cats)."

. "Presently our E-Cat is working ( also right now, while I am writing this
comment) at a temp of 1,100 Celsius, very stable."

. "A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has
calculated that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000
Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of
such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power
of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of

[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/JYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG],

and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the
cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot, where is placed the
charge, you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in
the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which
is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant powder
made of small stones, like rubys. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI
310 SS steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of
microscopic drops of steel."

This last comment provides fascinating illustration of the tremendous power
involved in this mysterious E-Cat reaction. To have the reactor increas

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I
I have compassion for classical science guys like Ed and Mills. What is
going on in the NiH reactor is truly abundant of quantum mechanical effects
all interwoven into a near miracle. This must be expected if such a small
nano-sized system that far surpass the designs, capabilities and power of
the ITER and the laser based ICF
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInertial_confinement_fusion&ei=P6kTU-GhIonf0gH5-oGYCA&usg=AFQjCNH7TGlWKHqd7ee-kmSc6gW-nwsSpA&sig2=jlLsLwnQWX_xHLc5rA4iRw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.dmQ

Another thing that is happening is that all the magnetic NAEs are connected
together into a BEC through photon transfer coupling. There is an
indication that this is so because of the superfuidic transfer of energy
around the entire reactor stucture.
Indicative of this comes from the overpower tests that distroy Rossi's
reactors. If the energy was centralize near the nickel powder, there would
be an intense hotspot and a rapid burn through at that hotspot. But the
reactor heats evenly to the piont that even the high temperature material
cinters evenly.
Rossi spoke to this matter as follows:
Here are some of the key points that Andrea Rossi has made on the topic
over just a couple of days.

* "If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above
the controllability limits and the reactor explodes . . . Now we have a
mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP with zero energy consumption.
If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We
must not risk reaching this level. We have seen explode hundreds of
reactors now, this way."

* "The explosions, or destructive tests, are made in controlled modes, in
proper lab, with due control of the radiations made by proper
instrumentation . . . obviously, no ionizing radiations are released
outside the safety box in which the reactor is destructed."

* "Anyway: now we will estabilish the limits of the allowable excitation
with series of destructive tests, then the control engineers will design
the final version of the control system for the new limits of the
temperature of the high temperature E-Cats ( Hot Cats)."

* "Presently our E-Cat is working ( also right now, while I am writing this
comment) at a temp of 1,100 Celsius, very stable."

* "A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has
calculated that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000
Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of
such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean
power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of

[
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/JYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG
],

 and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the
cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot, where is placed
the charge, you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally
white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the
ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned
into a red, brilliant powder made of small stones, like rubys. When we
opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 SS steel was not molten, but
sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel."

This last comment provides fascinating illustration of the tremendous power
involved in this mysterious E-Cat reaction. To have the reactor increase in
temperature 1000 C in just 10 seconds seems quite extraordinary, and
obviously potentially dangerous if sufficient safety precautions are not
taken. If the reaction was centered on only the nickel powder, an even
meltdown would not occur.

It takes a lot of power (3000C) to vaporize high temperature aluminum oxide
based ceramic material are reform it into rubies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_fusion

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> It is difficult to imagine how each of the individual components add
> together to yield a total picture.  And, magnetic coupling seems to be one
> of the worst types of systems to follow.
>
> I understand the concept that many electrons are moving together along one
> direction to form the large field in this idea.   But, the total field
> consists of a sum of that due to the electrons motions working against the
> drive field.   Lenz's law usually suggests that the electrons attempt to
> lower the initial field which also tends to reduce the magnetic field
> energy.  If this holds, then the total field would be less than the
> incident field without the electrons.  This is the issue that keeps
> diverting my thoughts.
>
> So far I fail to understand how the energy is released in such a manner as
> to increase the driving field.  It must be some force of nature that causes
> this to occur and I suspect that the process will become clearer with more
> supporting measurements.
>
> From earl

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

It is difficult to imagine how each of the individual components add together 
to yield a total picture.  And, magnetic coupling seems to be one of the worst 
types of systems to follow.

I understand the concept that many electrons are moving together along one 
direction to form the large field in this idea.   But, the total field consists 
of a sum of that due to the electrons motions working against the drive field.  
 Lenz's law usually suggests that the electrons attempt to lower the initial 
field which also tends to reduce the magnetic field energy.  If this holds, 
then the total field would be less than the incident field without the 
electrons.  This is the issue that keeps diverting my thoughts.

So far I fail to understand how the energy is released in such a manner as to 
increase the driving field.  It must be some force of nature that causes this 
to occur and I suspect that the process will become clearer with more 
supporting measurements.

>From earlier discussions with Axil, he states IIRC that once a photon and an 
>electron join that the total acts like a DC magnetic field.  That is quite 
>impressive for an AC system to become a DC one.  Of course if this is true, 
>then many of these acting together might generate the large overall field that 
>we seek.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Dave--

I may be that the electrons are moving in a group (a solariton) in the local 
magnetic field and the group magnetic moment is in fact lined up properly so 
that only one direction is possible.

In addition the solariton having considerable angular momentum for a single 
entity, some of the energy may be distributed to the spin of other particles in 
the  QM system.  As noted yesterday,  Dr. JS Brown's paper is pertinent.  

arXiv.org > cond-mat > arXiv:0711.1878

Bob Cook

- Original Message - 

From:   David   Roberson 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:29   AM

Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H.   Cooper"

The source of the magnetic   field is the big question.  No doubt that 
electrons in   motion throughout the active material could generate the field, 
but I ask   myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the 
same direction   since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their 
effect would   balance out on the large scale.

We now suspect that a positive feedback   mechanism is able to direct the LENR 
such that new fusions reinforce the   original magnetic field.  If an electron 
is released within a strong   magnetic field, it can freely follow the lines of 
flux.  But that motion   would generate a tiny field at right angles to the 
large guiding one.This behavior just does not appear to result in positive 
feedback.

Like   you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in the 
form   of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is released into 
  a collective system of charged particles in the nearby lattice.  And, if   
the guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism between the nearby   
electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps a large retarding   
force can be presented to the active site allowing energy to couple   away.
The instantaneous magnetic field that a newly   accelerated charged particle 
encounters is actually determined by the history   of the nearby moving charges 
and not their motion at the present   time.

Dave  

-Original   Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l   
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
Subject: Re:   [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I believe   that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the   most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that 
electron   production is a major magnification of over unity power   generation.

Rossi   indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his 
  reactor and he was looking into how this could   happen.

I know   that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design 
of the   engine depended on it.  

Here is   my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field   strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. 
The final   decay products of mesons are electrons.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate 
electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized 
the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So 
far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the 
news of som

Fw: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

- Original Message - 
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Dave--

It may be that the electrons are moving in a group (a solariton) in the local 
magnetic field and the solariton magnetic moment is in fact lined up properly 
so that only one direction is possible.  Apparently they are relatively stable 
given the proplems they have in getting rid of their energy and angular 
momentum once formed.  

As suggested,  the solariton having considerable angular momentum for a single 
entity, some of the energy may be distributed to the spin of other particles in 
the  QM system.

As I noted yesterday, stemming from Jones' good literature search regarding 
SPP,  Dr. JS Brown's paper (noted below) is pertinent.   Also Axil must be 
properly recognized for his SPP knowledge and reviews.

arXiv.org > cond-mat > arXiv:0711.1878
Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that 
electrons in motion throughout the active material could generate the field, 
but I ask myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the same 
direction since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their effect 
would balance out on the large scale.

  We now suspect that a positive feedback mechanism is able to direct the LENR 
such that new fusions reinforce the original magnetic field.  If an electron is 
released within a strong magnetic field, it can freely follow the lines of 
flux.  But that motion would generate a tiny field at right angles to the large 
guiding one.  This behavior just does not appear to result in positive feedback.

  Like you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in the 
form of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is released into a 
collective system of charged particles in the nearby lattice.  And, if the 
guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism between the nearby 
electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps a large retarding force 
can be presented to the active site allowing energy to couple away.The 
instantaneous magnetic field that a newly accelerated charged particle 
encounters is actually determined by the history of the nearby moving charges 
and not their motion at the present time.

  Dave  

  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnification of over unity power generation.
  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design 
of the engine depended on it.  
  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons are electrons.

  On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate 
electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the 
importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he 
has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of 
some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might 
assist competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come 
up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental 
find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost 
unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a 
major rethink of

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

2014-03-02 Thread John Berry

>From a discussion in another group, I can say that the view of SR would be
that what is simultaneous in the train frame would not be viewed as
simultaneous in the track frame.

But the rotary argument is hard to fault.  If a disk has a circumference of
100 units of length, and with length contraction is now 99 units of length
to the rotating frame, but it now sees a 100 unit measure in the stationary
frame to be only 99.

So something that should fit around it in the stationary frame can't fit
around it in the disk frame.

No issues with simultaneity, and if you look at the disk from an on-top
view you can simultaneously see every length unit marked must be contracted
at once.  Actually there is an issue as now the radius is not contracted so
this view should not even be possible.

It is entirely contradictory to rotate something under SR, SR must insist
on time dilation and length contraction to be seen from both frames for
light to be seen as C, except if it happens then a non-solvable paradox
occurs with both time dilation and length contraction that would not occur
with linear models where distance causes issues of communication delay,
growing communication delay (Doppler) and as the paradoxical time
accumulates in the twin paradox so does the degree to which
non-simultaneity can account for it.

But once all of those issues are removed with rotation or possibly
vibration, none of those issues can account for he paradox, it is like
handing the twins a set of instantaneous walkie talkies in the classic twin
paradox.

John

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM, H Veeder  wrote:

> That would be true if the problem of simultaneity across frames reference
> were present, but the thought experiment is crafted to avoid that
> possibility.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Hello Harry,
>>
>> The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks.
>> He would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would
>> find the short version only.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm
>> Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>>
>>  A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>  harry
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

2014-03-02 Thread H Veeder

My understanding of SR is limited so I prefer to keep it simple and confine
myself to thought experiments involving inertial frames of reference.
I don't know if length contraction can happen in rotating (non-inertial)
frame.
Harry


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:42 PM, John Berry  wrote:

> I think the better argument is the length contraction of the circumference
> of a quickly rotating circular disk, if you put a measuring tape around it,
> you will get a result that the disk insists can't be as it sees the
> measuring tape as connected.
>
> John
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:23 AM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Hello Harry,
>>
>> The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks.
>> He would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would
>> find the short version only.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: H Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm
>> Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>>
>>  A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>  harry
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

I guess I do not understand what you are referring to Harry.  Each observer has 
his own special view that is different from everyone else.   Anyone that 
resides at rest relative to the tracks would see the short train as it passes.  
Why would you expect them to make two separate observations?  There is only one 
train moving past.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox



That would be true if the problem of simultaneity across frames reference were 
present, but the thought experiment is crafted to avoid that possibility.




Harry


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Hello Harry,

The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks.  He 
would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would find 
the short version only.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm
Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox



A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing



harry

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

2014-03-02 Thread Terry Blanton

This video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4

provides observed effects of travel at light speed.   It does so by
having a constant velocity and changes the speed of light instead of
the speed of the observer.

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Of course there is a limit.  The magnitude of the field as it reaches the limit 
must be the level that we are expecting to observe.  I assumed that the field 
you were describing was far lower unless many worked in conjunction.  Perhaps 
your balls of magnetism are larger than I interpreted.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. An 
eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. There is 
always a limit to everything.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Interesting.  But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism 
coordinates the destruction of the balls?  Many random direction vectors yields 
near zero sums.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is 
that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow 
to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that 
would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. 

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That brings back fond memories.  He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how 
he performed that measurement.  I would anticipate that he must use at least 
two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does 
not short out the voltage.

Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes 
must be as a result of DC current flowing.  Since DC current or AC for that 
matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that 
an e.m.f. is present.  Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and 
what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line.

I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high 
strength magnetic fields without currents flowing.  Permanent magnets offer a 
clue.

I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time.  That 
has its hazards! :-)

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Andrea Rossi
> December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345

  Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
  You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also
  during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will
  be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
  Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
  temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
  instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready
  for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
  industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of
  high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you
  for your good comment.
  Warm Regards,
  A.R.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

I believe that heat is not theonly product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink forLENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnificationof over unity power generation.
Rossi indicated that there was anunknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into howthis could happen.
I know that the PAPP engineproduced current out of whole cloth. The design of 
the engine depended on it.  
Here is my take on where theseelectrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough,mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons areelectrons.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity 
directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance 
of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he has kept 
this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non 
specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist 
competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come up 
with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

Jones Beene  wrote:

> > Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence?
>
> Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent tens
> of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D ending
> with
> an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. That would mean
> little if he had not already patented an advanced water filtration device
> and brought it to market. His prior success speaks volumes.
>

This is a valid way to evaluate a claim. It is not as good as judging by
experimental evidence, but it is better than nothing. The most reliable
method is replication, but you cannot try replicating every claim that
emerges in this field. You would have to have a staff of a hundred
experimentalists and tons of money. As it happens we have no
experimentalists and no money.

There are two, opposite dangers here. One is that you will spend time
chasing after rabbits. The other is that you will ignore an important
breakthrough. On the whole, I would say this field has suffered more delays
and more reversals from the second problem. People may not have given as
much attention to Ni-H results as they should have. (People, including me.)
On the other hand, Srinivasan paid a lot of attention to Mills, and made a
good faith effort to replicate. The results were unclear.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Dave--

I may be that the electrons are moving in a group (a solariton) in the local 
magnetic field and the group magnetic moment is in fact lined up properly so 
that only one direction is possible.

In addition the solariton having considerable angular momentum for a single 
entity, some of the energy may be distributed to the spin of other particles in 
the  QM system.  As noted yesterday,  Dr. JS Brown's paper is pertinent.  

arXiv.org > cond-mat > arXiv:0711.1878

Bob Cook
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


  The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that 
electrons in motion throughout the active material could generate the field, 
but I ask myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the same 
direction since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their effect 
would balance out on the large scale.

  We now suspect that a positive feedback mechanism is able to direct the LENR 
such that new fusions reinforce the original magnetic field.  If an electron is 
released within a strong magnetic field, it can freely follow the lines of 
flux.  But that motion would generate a tiny field at right angles to the large 
guiding one.  This behavior just does not appear to result in positive feedback.

  Like you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in the 
form of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is released into a 
collective system of charged particles in the nearby lattice.  And, if the 
guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism between the nearby 
electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps a large retarding force 
can be presented to the active site allowing energy to couple away.The 
instantaneous magnetic field that a newly accelerated charged particle 
encounters is actually determined by the history of the nearby moving charges 
and not their motion at the present time.

  Dave  







  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


  I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnification of over unity power generation.
  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design 
of the engine depended on it.  
  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons are electrons.




  On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate 
electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the 
importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he 
has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of 
some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might 
assist competitors.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come 
up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 


I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 


They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.


Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental 
find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.


On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost 
unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.


In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a 
major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.



On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:


  On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, 
why can’t Ed replicate these experiments?


  Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this 
replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.

  Ed Storm

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

2014-03-02 Thread H Veeder

That would be true if the problem of simultaneity across frames reference
were present, but the thought experiment is crafted to avoid that
possibility.


Harry

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Hello Harry,
>
> The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks.
> He would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would
> find the short version only.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>
>  A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing
>
>  harry
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that 
electrons in motion throughout the active material could generate the field, 
but I ask myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the same 
direction since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their effect 
would balance out on the large scale.

  We now suspect that a positive feedback mechanism is able to direct the LENR 
such that new fusions reinforce the original magnetic field.  If an electron is 
released within a strong magnetic field, it can freely follow the lines of 
flux.  But that motion would generate a tiny field at right angles to the large 
guiding one.  This behavior just does not appear to result in positive feedback.

  Like you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in the 
form of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is released into a 
collective system of charged particles in the nearby lattice.  And, if the 
guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism between the nearby 
electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps a large retarding force 
can be presented to the active site allowing energy to couple away.The 
instantaneous magnetic field that a newly accelerated charged particle 
encounters is actually determined by the history of the nearby moving charges 
and not their motion at the present time.

  Dave  

  -Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnification of over unity power generation.
  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design 
of the engine depended on it.  
  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons are electrons.

  On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate 
electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the 
importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he 
has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of 
some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might 
assist competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come 
up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental 
find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost 
unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a 
major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

  On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

  > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, 
why can’t Ed replicate these experiments?

  Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this 
replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.

  Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread ChemE Stewart

Yuo made me think of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

It is thought that it may not be possible to convert a wormhole into a time
machine in this manner; the predictions are made in the context of general
relativity, but general relativity does not include quantum effects.
Analyses using 
thesemiclassical
approach
to incorporating quantum effects into general relativity have sometimes
indicated that a feedback loop of virtual
particles would
circulate through the wormhole and pile up on themselves, driving the
energy density in the region very high and possibly destroying it before
any information could be passed through it, in keeping with the chronology
protection 
conjecture
.


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit.
> An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop.
> There is always a limit to everything.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Interesting.  But how does the net field become large unless some
>> mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls?  Many random direction
>> vectors yields near zero sums.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>
>>  Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One
>> possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that
>> start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a
>> varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing
>> magnetic flux..
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> That brings back fond memories.  He does say e.m.f. which makes me
>>> wonder how he performed that measurement.  I would anticipate that he must
>>> use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material
>>> hopefully does not short out the voltage.
>>>
>>> Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he
>>> assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing.  Since DC current or AC
>>> for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to
>>> believe that an e.m.f. is present.  Actually, an e.m.f. should be present
>>> in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls
>>> into line.
>>>
>>> I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very
>>> high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing.  Permanent magnets
>>> offer a clue.
>>>
>>> I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same
>>> time.  That has its hazards! :-)
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>>   Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>>
>>>  Andrea Rossi
>>> > December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
>>> >
>>> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345
>>>
>>>   Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
>>>   You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and
>>> also
>>>   during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we
>>> will
>>>   be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
>>>   Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
>>>   temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
>>>   instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not
>>> ready
>>>   for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
>>>   industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also
>>> of
>>>   high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank
>>> you
>>>   for your good comment.
>>>   Warm Regards,
>>>   A.R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
  I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It
 may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe
 that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power
 generation.
  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current
 production in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The
 design of the engine depended on it.
  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the
 magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the
 vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons.



 On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson wrote:

> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
> their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the fo

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit.
An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop.
There is always a limit to everything.


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Interesting.  But how does the net field become large unless some
> mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls?  Many random direction
> vectors yields near zero sums.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>  Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility
> is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and
> grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic
> field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux..
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> That brings back fond memories.  He does say e.m.f. which makes me
>> wonder how he performed that measurement.  I would anticipate that he must
>> use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material
>> hopefully does not short out the voltage.
>>
>> Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he
>> assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing.  Since DC current or AC
>> for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to
>> believe that an e.m.f. is present.  Actually, an e.m.f. should be present
>> in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls
>> into line.
>>
>> I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high
>> strength magnetic fields without currents flowing.  Permanent magnets offer
>> a clue.
>>
>> I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same
>> time.  That has its hazards! :-)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>>   Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>
>>  Andrea Rossi
>> > December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
>> > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345
>>
>>   Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
>>   You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and
>> also
>>   during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we
>> will
>>   be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
>>   Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
>>   temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
>>   instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not
>> ready
>>   for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
>>   industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also
>> of
>>   high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you
>>   for your good comment.
>>   Warm Regards,
>>   A.R.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>  I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It
>>> may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe
>>> that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power
>>> generation.
>>>  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production
>>> in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
>>>  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The
>>> design of the engine depended on it.
>>>  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the
>>> magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the
>>> vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>>
 I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
 their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

 Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
 electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized
 the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So
 far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the
 news of some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings
 that might assist competitors.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required.
 To come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the
 work done by others.

  I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation
 about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they
 put forward.

  They have no

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Interesting.  But how does the net field become large unless some mechanism 
coordinates the destruction of the balls?  Many random direction vectors yields 
near zero sums.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is 
that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and grow 
to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic field that 
would induce a current through changing magnetic flux.. 

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

That brings back fond memories.  He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how 
he performed that measurement.  I would anticipate that he must use at least 
two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does 
not short out the voltage.

Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes 
must be as a result of DC current flowing.  Since DC current or AC for that 
matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that 
an e.m.f. is present.  Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and 
what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line.

I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high 
strength magnetic fields without currents flowing.  Permanent magnets offer a 
clue.

I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time.  That 
has its hazards! :-)

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Andrea Rossi
> December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345

  Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
  You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also
  during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will
  be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
  Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
  temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
  instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready
  for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
  industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of
  high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you
  for your good comment.
  Warm Regards,
  A.R.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

I believe that heat is not theonly product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink forLENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnificationof over unity power generation.
Rossi indicated that there was anunknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into howthis could happen.
I know that the PAPP engineproduced current out of whole cloth. The design of 
the engine depended on it.  
Here is my take on where theseelectrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough,mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons areelectrons.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity 
directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance 
of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he has kept 
this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non 
specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist 
competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come up 
with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental find 
but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost unbelievable 
finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a major 
rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

The long term storage of charge within the envelope seems difficult to 
understand.  I wonder why an equal charge does not develop in the metallic 
surface of the enclosure that rapidly attracts the free electrons towards it.

On the other hand, if both protons and electrons were available in equal 
numbers within the cloud, then they would attempt to form neutral atoms.  
Photons would be released as they proceeded toward their lowest energy states.  
That might explain the long term glow although I don't know how long this 
process would take.

Dave  

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



An electrostatic charge of excess electrons could build up in the hydrogen 
envelope like a capacitor.


Papp extracted this electrostatic charge by using a lightning type of 
electrodes spiked with a alpha emitter. Papp used this charge to power the 
opposing cylinder. This alpha spiking was done in the 1930s in the design of 
lightning rods.


In the experiments that Russ Gries ran on the popper, the hydrogen envelope 
glowed green for seconds until the charge gradually dissipated.




On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that electrons 
in motion throughout the active material could generate the field, but I ask 
myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the same direction 
since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their effect would balance 
out on the large scale.

We now suspect that a positive feedback mechanism is able to direct the LENR 
such that new fusions reinforce the original magnetic field.  If an electron is 
released within a strong magnetic field, it can freely follow the lines of 
flux.  But that motion would generate a tiny field at right angles to the large 
guiding one.  This behavior just does not appear to result in positive feedback.

Like you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in the 
form of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is released into a 
collective system of charged particles in the nearby lattice.  And, if the 
guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism between the nearby 
electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps a large retarding force 
can be presented to the active site allowing energy to couple away.The 
instantaneous magnetic field that a newly accelerated charged particle 
encounters is actually determined by the history of the nearby moving charges 
and not their motion at the present time.

Dave  


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



I believe that heat is not theonly product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink forLENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnificationof over unity power generation.
Rossi indicated that there was anunknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into howthis could happen.
I know that the PAPP engineproduced current out of whole cloth. The design of 
the engine depended on it.  
Here is my take on where theseelectrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough,mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons areelectrons.
 




On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity 
directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance 
of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he has kept 
this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non 
specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist 
competitors.

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"




Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come up 
with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 


I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 


They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.


Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental find 
but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.


On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost unbelievable 
finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.


In fact such a find

RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

From: David Roberson 

 

The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that electrons 
in motion throughout the active material could generate the field, but I ask 
myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the same direction 
since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their effect would balance 
out on the large scale.

 

OK, here is a stab at this conundrum. Imagine the “local” or nano conductivity 
of delocalized electrons, such as happens in graphene. You have heard of “ring 
current” right?

 

Delocalized electrons, like valence electrons, are not associated with a single 
atom but are contained within an molecular orbital that extends over several 
adjacent atoms. “Aromatic ring current” is observed in molecules such as 
benzene when a magnetic field is directed perpendicular to the plane of the 6 
atoms, and a ring current is induced in the delocalized electrons. 

 

Same with graphene and even soot. Thus sometimes carbon seems to be magnetic, 
causing many unsophisticated observers to suggest that carbon has transmuted 
into iron. LOL,

 

This is a local consequence of Ampere dynamics since the electrons are free to 
circulate but only in a ring, and they respond much more strongly to the 
magnetic field then there are rings which are relatively mobile. Ring current 
is seen with graphene, and of course, CNT can be modeled as a 2D sheet of 
graphene, wrapped around a hollow mandrel.

 

Now, multiply this effect by S^S - where S is Sagan’s number, and we have the 
functional equivalent of ferromagnetism in a CNT which is irradiated with SPP.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One possibility is
that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that start small and
grow to huge power until they explode could produce a varying magnetic
field that would induce a current through changing magnetic flux..


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> That brings back fond memories.  He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder
> how he performed that measurement.  I would anticipate that he must use at
> least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material
> hopefully does not short out the voltage.
>
> Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he
> assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing.  Since DC current or AC
> for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to
> believe that an e.m.f. is present.  Actually, an e.m.f. should be present
> in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls
> into line.
>
> I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high
> strength magnetic fields without currents flowing.  Permanent magnets offer
> a clue.
>
> I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time.
> That has its hazards! :-)
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>  Andrea Rossi
> > December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
> > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345
>
>   Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
>   You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also
>   during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we
> will
>   be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
>   Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
>   temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
>   instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not
> ready
>   for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
>   industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of
>   high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you
>   for your good comment.
>   Warm Regards,
>   A.R.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>  I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It
>> may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe
>> that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power
>> generation.
>>  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production
>> in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
>>  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The
>> design of the engine depended on it.
>>  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the
>> magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the
>> vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
>>> their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.
>>>
>>> Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
>>> electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized
>>> the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So
>>> far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the
>>> news of some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings
>>> that might assist competitors.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>>
>>>Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To
>>> come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work
>>> done by others.
>>>
>>>  I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation
>>> about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they
>>> put forward.
>>>
>>>  They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance
>>> their theory base on Dr. Kims work.
>>>
>>>  Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their
>>> experimental find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is
>>> hard to understand.
>>>
>>>  On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost
>>> unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts
>>> HEMI.
>>>
>>>  In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do
>>> a major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr.
>>> Kim.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>

 On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 A

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

That brings back fond memories.  He does say e.m.f. which makes me wonder how 
he performed that measurement.  I would anticipate that he must use at least 
two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material hopefully does 
not short out the voltage.

Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he assumes 
must be as a result of DC current flowing.  Since DC current or AC for that 
matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to believe that 
an e.m.f. is present.  Actually, an e.m.f. should be present in that case and 
what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls into line.

I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very high 
strength magnetic fields without currents flowing.  Permanent magnets offer a 
clue.

I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same time.  That 
has its hazards! :-)

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Andrea Rossi
> December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345

  Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
  You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also
  during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we will
  be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
  Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
  temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
  instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready
  for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
  industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of
  high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you
  for your good comment.
  Warm Regards,
  A.R.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

I believe that heat is not theonly product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink forLENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnificationof over unity power generation.
Rossi indicated that there was anunknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into howthis could happen.
I know that the PAPP engineproduced current out of whole cloth. The design of 
the engine depended on it.  
Here is my take on where theseelectrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough,mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons areelectrons.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity 
directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance 
of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he has kept 
this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non 
specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist 
competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come up 
with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental find 
but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost unbelievable 
finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a major 
rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

> These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why 
> can’t Ed replicate these experiments?

Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this 
replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.

Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

An electrostatic charge of excess electrons could build up in the hydrogen
envelope like a capacitor.

Papp extracted this electrostatic charge by using a lightning type of
electrodes spiked with a alpha emitter. Papp used this charge to power the
opposing cylinder. This alpha spiking was done in the 1930s in the design
of lightning rods.

In the experiments that Russ Gries ran on the popper, the hydrogen envelope
glowed green for seconds until the charge gradually dissipated.


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that
> electrons in motion throughout the active material could generate the
> field, but I ask myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving
> in the same direction since if they are randomly released by the reaction,
> their effect would balance out on the large scale.
>
> We now suspect that a positive feedback mechanism is able to direct the
> LENR such that new fusions reinforce the original magnetic field.  If an
> electron is released within a strong magnetic field, it can freely follow
> the lines of flux.  But that motion would generate a tiny field at right
> angles to the large guiding one.  This behavior just does not appear to
> result in positive feedback.
>
> Like you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in
> the form of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is
> released into a collective system of charged particles in the nearby
> lattice.  And, if the guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism
> between the nearby electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps
> a large retarding force can be presented to the active site allowing energy
> to couple away.The instantaneous magnetic field that a newly
> accelerated charged particle encounters is actually determined by the
> history of the nearby moving charges and not their motion at the present
> time.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>   I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It
> may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe
> that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power
> generation.
>  Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production
> in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
>  I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The
> design of the engine depended on it.
>  Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the
> magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the
> vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
>> their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.
>>
>> Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
>> electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized
>> the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So
>> far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the
>> news of some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings
>> that might assist competitors.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>
>>Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To
>> come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work
>> done by others.
>>
>>  I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation
>> about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they
>> put forward.
>>
>>  They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance
>> their theory base on Dr. Kims work.
>>
>>  Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their
>> experimental find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is
>> hard to understand.
>>
>>  On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost
>> unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts
>> HEMI.
>>
>>  In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a
>> major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done
>>> inexpensively, why can't Ed replicate these experiments?
>>>
>>>  Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want
>>> this replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

2014-03-02 Thread John Berry

I think the better argument is the length contraction of the circumference
of a quickly rotating circular disk, if you put a measuring tape around it,
you will get a result that the disk insists can't be as it sees the
measuring tape as connected.

John

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:23 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Hello Harry,
>
> The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks.
> He would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would
> find the short version only.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: H Veeder 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox
>
>  A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing
>
>  harry
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

The source of the magnetic field is the big question.  No doubt that electrons 
in motion throughout the active material could generate the field, but I ask 
myself why these electrons happen to be typically moving in the same direction 
since if they are randomly released by the reaction, their effect would balance 
out on the large scale.

We now suspect that a positive feedback mechanism is able to direct the LENR 
such that new fusions reinforce the original magnetic field.  If an electron is 
released within a strong magnetic field, it can freely follow the lines of 
flux.  But that motion would generate a tiny field at right angles to the large 
guiding one.  This behavior just does not appear to result in positive feedback.

Like you, I have difficulty believing that all the energy is released in the 
form of heat.  There is an out to this problem if the energy is released into a 
collective system of charged particles in the nearby lattice.  And, if the 
guiding magnetic field acts as a coupling mechanism between the nearby 
electrons for example and the fusion site, then perhaps a large retarding force 
can be presented to the active site allowing energy to couple away.The 
instantaneous magnetic field that a newly accelerated charged particle 
encounters is actually determined by the history of the nearby moving charges 
and not their motion at the present time.

Dave  

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I believe that heat is not theonly product of the LENR reaction. It may not 
even the most important sink forLENR power generation. I believe that electron 
production is a major magnificationof over unity power generation.
Rossi indicated that there was anunknown source of current production in his 
reactor and he was looking into howthis could happen.
I know that the PAPP engineproduced current out of whole cloth. The design of 
the engine depended on it.  
Here is my take on where theseelectrons are coming from. When the magnetic 
field strength gets strong enough,mesons are condensed out of the vacuum. The 
final decay products of mesons areelectrons.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity 
directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance 
of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he has kept 
this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non 
specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist 
competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come up 
with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental find 
but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost unbelievable 
finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a major 
rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

> These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why 
> can’t Ed replicate these experiments?

Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this 
replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.

Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Andrea Rossi
> December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345

  Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
  You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and also
  during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think we
will
  be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done.
  Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high
  temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement
  instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not ready
  for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of
  industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , also of
  high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank you
  for your good comment.
  Warm Regards,
  A.R.



On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may
> not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that
> electron production is a major magnification of over unity power generation.
>
> Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in
> his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
>
> I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The
> design of the engine depended on it.
>
> Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the
> magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the
> vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
>> their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.
>>
>> Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
>> electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized
>> the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So
>> far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the
>> news of some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings
>> that might assist competitors.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>
>>  Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To
>> come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work
>> done by others.
>>
>>  I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation
>> about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they
>> put forward.
>>
>>  They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance
>> their theory base on Dr. Kims work.
>>
>>  Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their
>> experimental find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is
>> hard to understand.
>>
>>  On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost
>> unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts
>> HEMI.
>>
>>  In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a
>> major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done
>>> inexpensively, why can't Ed replicate these experiments?
>>>
>>>  Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want
>>> this replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

magnification should read manifestation.


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may
> not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that
> electron production is a major magnification of over unity power generation.
>
> Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in
> his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.
>
> I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The
> design of the engine depended on it.
>
> Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the
> magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the
> vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
>> their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.
>>
>> Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
>> electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized
>> the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So
>> far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the
>> news of some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings
>> that might assist competitors.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>>
>>  Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To
>> come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work
>> done by others.
>>
>>  I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation
>> about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they
>> put forward.
>>
>>  They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance
>> their theory base on Dr. Kims work.
>>
>>  Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their
>> experimental find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is
>> hard to understand.
>>
>>  On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost
>> unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts
>> HEMI.
>>
>>  In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a
>> major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done
>>> inexpensively, why can't Ed replicate these experiments?
>>>
>>>  Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want
>>> this replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It may
not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe that
electron production is a major magnification of over unity power generation.

Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production in
his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen.

I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The design
of the engine depended on it.

Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the magnetic
field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of the vacuum.
The final decay products of mesons are electrons.




On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of
> their discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.
>
> Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate
> electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized
> the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So
> far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out the
> news of some non specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings
> that might assist competitors.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>  Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To
> come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work
> done by others.
>
>  I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation
> about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they
> put forward.
>
>  They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance
> their theory base on Dr. Kims work.
>
>  Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their
> experimental find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is
> hard to understand.
>
>  On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost
> unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts
> HEMI.
>
>  In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a
> major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively,
>> why can't Ed replicate these experiments?
>>
>>  Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want
>> this replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications of their 
discovery.  It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate electricity 
directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he realized the importance 
of the large magnetic fields residing within his device.  So far he has kept 
this type of information private, carefully leaking out the news of some non 
specific discovery.  Rossi knows when to release findings that might assist 
competitors.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come up 
with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done by 
others. 

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about 
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put 
forward. 

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their 
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental find 
but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost unbelievable 
finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a major 
rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

> These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why 
> can’t Ed replicate these experiments?

Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this 
replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.

Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox

Hello Harry,

The surveyor resides in a frame that is at rest relative to the tracks.  He 
would not see two separate spray events so I would suspect that he would find 
the short version only.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: H Veeder 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:10 pm
Subject: [Vo]:a length contraction paradox



A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing



harry

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Like you, any one of us can only  do so much of what is required. To come
up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the work done
by others.

I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation about
magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that they put
forward.

They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance their
theory base on Dr. Kims work.

Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their experimental
find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is hard to
understand.

On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost
unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding undercuts
HEMI.

In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do a
major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. Kim.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively,
> why can't Ed replicate these experiments?
>
> Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this
> replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:a length contraction paradox

2014-03-02 Thread H Veeder

A length contraction paradox which doesn't vanish with further analysis.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing

harry

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

> These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why 
> can’t Ed replicate these experiments?

Because I have only two hands and no financial support.  If you want this 
replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this.

Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:Sterile Neutrinos

These x-rays might be the result of LENR reactions occurring in cold
plasmas in interstellar dust clouds.

For these high energy particle guys, when you only know how to use a
hammer, everything looks like  nail.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> "X-rays of a specific wavelength emanating from the hearts of nearby
> galaxies and galaxy clusters could be signs of particles of dark matter
> decaying in space, two independent teams of astronomers report (first
> study, second study). If that interpretation is correct, then dark matter
> could consist of strange particles called sterile neutrinos that weigh
> about 1/100 as much as an electron."
>
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/03/01/2032216/x-rays-from-other-galaxies-could-emanate-from-particles-of-dark-matter
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

A series of experiments that I am particularly fond of by  A.V. Simakin
light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order
equivalent to cracks) 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 and
the transmutation that fission can produce.

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=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done inexpensively, why
can’t Ed replicate these experiments?

Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why
and why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them.

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:11 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Ed, I have a question.  You stated that,
> "I only know that we tested the CNT and the test failed."
>
> Did you use a coherent light source, which I believe was specified in
> Chris's patents?
>
> -Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:16 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Edmund Storms
> >
> >> Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence?
> >
> > Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent
> > tens of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D
> > ending with an effort to patent the CNT device which is described.
> > That would mean little if he had not already patented an advanced
> > water filtration device and brought it to market. His prior success
> speaks
> volumes.
> >
> > IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear
> > physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear
> > reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting
> > tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many
> > reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted.
> >
> > However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in
> > nuclear science and that should be taken into account... yet even
> > without one, he should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track
> > record with CNT and business acumen.
>
> Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any
> attention to Chris in the first place. In addition,  that CNT were a
> plausible location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I
> had been trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them
> available, which accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by
> someone as famous as Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a
> patent, especially a parent than has not been reduced to practice.
> >
> >> The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how
> >> well
> > the measurements were made.
> >
> > That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses
> > incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be.
> > The specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient
> > information for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it
> > was done (the helium
> > measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done
> > correctly?
>
> I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrec

RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

From: Frank roarty 

Again..the nanotube is only going to be "active" at the
openings and defects.. It is a macro example of the difference between
Casimir and dynamic Casimir effect and we clearly need a robust dynamic
effect along with robust thermal linkage to prevent it from self
destructing.
Fran,

This may be partly true (that there is a Casimir connection, and anytime
there is a Casimir geometry this is likely), nevertheless, at least in
Cooper's patent/experiment CNT alone is not enough - with or without a
Casimir contribution. 

Not even close. CNT and electrical current will NOT come close to a nuclear
effect either. Thus, CNT is not a substitute for a palladium lattice in any
way shape or form. We are dealing with a completely different form of LENR
with plasmons, and not the same type which is found in Pd-D.

The must be an significant power input to trigger the LENR reaction - and if
the only apparent input is low power, such as visible light photons - then
clearly there must be an amplification mechanism for that input. The
amplification must be in the range of 100,000:1 or more. SPP can do that and
perhaps the Casimir force is contributory - since the geometry is in the
correct range.

This is why the patent application is appealing even if Cooper himself did
not realize what he had stumbled upon with SPP. 

Which is to say that even the inventor may have missed the key point of the
light source, and thus the experiment begs to be replicated with a focus on
SPP and a coherent light source. Note that I am not saying that the Casimir
force cannot be contributory, but only that CNT and Casimir alone are not
enough, even if you add electrical input (there will be no LERN). 

BTW - CNT were added to an electrolysis cell 5 years ago in an experiment
with light water - and there was no gain whatsoever. There was a video of
that failed effort on YouTube and this was known for many years - so the
bottom line is: what we must have to achieve LENR is an extreme
amplification mechanism for the power input.

Unfortunately, it appears that Ed may have attempted to replicate only part
of the experiment, the CNT part only - and that is because the inventor did
not recognize SPP, not did Ed - since he is convinced, despite NASA's
support - that SPP do not represent an effective amplification mechanism. 

If I had to guess, since Ed cannot talk about his attempt, my conjecture is
that he tried to use CNT in heavy water with electrical current and an
electrolyte, but with no coherent light source. That approach is almost
guaranteed to fail, and it was shown to have failed as far back as 2008.

All the R&D out there seems to support the idea that surface plasmons do
indeed constitute an extraordinary amplification mechanism - so why not take
advantage of the expertise of the scientific literature on this particular
point, including the support of NASA and others (W-L jumped on the SPP
band-wagon).

In the end, I think the issue of failure to replicate Cooper's patent
application may be one of intransigence, based on an incorrect mindset from
the start- one that failed to understand the advantages of SPP. That is
forgivable since the inventor himself did not recognize it either - but what
is not forgivable is continuing intransigence now that this issue has been
highlighted.

From: Edmund Storms 

Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated
to see if CNT were nuclear active. They were not, at least when using our
methods. I suspect the conditions in the tube are not correct to form the
Hydroton. 

Well, it is good to know that you and Chris collaborated,
but not so good to learn that his technique may not work, as claimed.

Can you describe what methods were used?

Did you use a coherent or nearly coherent light source?
Without a source of coherent light, SPP are unlikely to form.

Jones

<>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

http://www.egely.hu/letoltes/Fusion-by-Pseudo-Particles-Part1.pdf

There is a rich tradition of LENR caused by carbon dust that goes as far
back as Tesla.

The Carbon nanotubes configuration is not a requirement for the formation
of nano-carbon dust.

For example, the arcing of pure carbon electrodes in pure water will
produce many transmuted elements. This indicates that cluster fusion is
going on.

Elely himself has concentrated on nanodust based LENR.

www.egely.hu/letoltes/Nano-dust-Fusion.pdf

*Nanodust Fusion.*

Before Ed did his nanotube experiments, he should have researched what had
been done by others before in respects to carbon nano-particles. He would
have gained insights to what works and what doesn't. That research should
have included replication of the many carbon dust experiments that had gone
before with emphasis on what Egely had done.

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Mark, I'm not free to tell you what we did. In addition, the study was not 
documented because no indication of success was found. Someday, when money is 
available, this and many other possible conditions can be explored. Perhaps by 
then a useful explanation will be available to guide the work and eliminate 
many false leads. Right now, we can use information that has good support to 
show a path to this explanation. Running off in any direction that might seem 
interesting is not helpful. We now know enough about the phenomenon to outline 
the basic requirements of a theory and to show where to look for more detail. 
The claim made by Chris does not help this search.

Ed Storms
On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:11 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Ed, I have a question.  You stated that,
> "I only know that we tested the CNT and the test failed."
> 
> Did you use a coherent light source, which I believe was specified in
> Chris's patents?
> 
> -Mark 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:16 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
> 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Edmund Storms
>> 
>>> Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence? 
>> 
>> Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent 
>> tens of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D 
>> ending with an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. 
>> That would mean little if he had not already patented an advanced 
>> water filtration device and brought it to market. His prior success speaks
> volumes.
>> 
>> IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear 
>> physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear 
>> reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting 
>> tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many 
>> reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted.
>> 
>> However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in 
>> nuclear science and that should be taken into account... yet even 
>> without one, he should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track 
>> record with CNT and business acumen.
> 
> Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any
> attention to Chris in the first place. In addition,  that CNT were a
> plausible location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I
> had been trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them
> available, which accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by
> someone as famous as Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a
> patent, especially a parent than has not been reduced to practice. 
>> 
>>> The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how 
>>> well
>> the measurements were made. 
>> 
>> That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses 
>> incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. 
>> The specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient 
>> information for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it 
>> was done (the helium
>> measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done 
>> correctly?
> 
> I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrectly. I'm saying we have no
> way of knowing whether it was done incorrectly or not. Therefore, the
> evidence is not worth considering. Why spend time discussing something that
> might not be true, especially when we have many very interesting
> observations that have been proven true. 
>> 
>>> The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until 
>>> they
>> are proven. This is not a proven claim. 
>> 
>> Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of 
>> the skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize 
>> that you are credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be 
>> incapable of doing a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it.
> 
> Jones, you do not believe everything you are told. How do you decide which
> part to believe and which part to ignore? Is only a PhD in physics and a
> successful business enough for you to believe anything a person tells you?
>> 
>> Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide 
>> effort to replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate 
>> this work, you completely failed to use a coherent light source - so 
>> that effort was deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth 
>> mentioning - as creating a doubt.
>> 
>>> In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce 
>>> LENR,
>> this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. 
>> 
>> Ed, this comment: "on a material" is disingenuous. 
> 
> OK, let me be clear, if shining a light, such as Chris used, o

[Vo]:Sterile Neutrinos

2014-03-02 Thread James Bowery

"X-rays of a specific wavelength emanating from the hearts of nearby
galaxies and galaxy clusters could be signs of particles of dark matter
decaying in space, two independent teams of astronomers report (first
study, second study). If that interpretation is correct, then dark matter
could consist of strange particles called sterile neutrinos that weigh
about 1/100 as much as an electron."

http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/03/01/2032216/x-rays-from-other-galaxies-could-emanate-from-particles-of-dark-matter

RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Ed, I have a question.  You stated that,
"I only know that we tested the CNT and the test failed."

Did you use a coherent light source, which I believe was specified in
Chris's patents?

-Mark 

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms
> 
>> Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence? 
> 
> Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent 
> tens of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D 
> ending with an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. 
> That would mean little if he had not already patented an advanced 
> water filtration device and brought it to market. His prior success speaks
volumes.
> 
> IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear 
> physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear 
> reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting 
> tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many 
> reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted.
> 
> However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in 
> nuclear science and that should be taken into account... yet even 
> without one, he should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track 
> record with CNT and business acumen.

Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any
attention to Chris in the first place. In addition,  that CNT were a
plausible location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I
had been trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them
available, which accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by
someone as famous as Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a
patent, especially a parent than has not been reduced to practice. 
> 
>> The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how 
>> well
> the measurements were made. 
> 
> That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses 
> incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. 
> The specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient 
> information for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it 
> was done (the helium
> measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done 
> correctly?

I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrectly. I'm saying we have no
way of knowing whether it was done incorrectly or not. Therefore, the
evidence is not worth considering. Why spend time discussing something that
might not be true, especially when we have many very interesting
observations that have been proven true. 
> 
>> The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until 
>> they
> are proven. This is not a proven claim. 
> 
> Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of 
> the skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize 
> that you are credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be 
> incapable of doing a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it.

Jones, you do not believe everything you are told. How do you decide which
part to believe and which part to ignore? Is only a PhD in physics and a
successful business enough for you to believe anything a person tells you?
> 
> Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide 
> effort to replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate 
> this work, you completely failed to use a coherent light source - so 
> that effort was deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth 
> mentioning - as creating a doubt.
> 
>> In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce 
>> LENR,
> this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. 
> 
> Ed, this comment: "on a material" is disingenuous. 

OK, let me be clear, if shining a light, such as Chris used, on a CNT could
produce LENR, the phenomenon would have been seen long ago.  I can not tell
you exactly what Chris did for legal reasons and he does not tell enough in
the patent for you or anyone to know what he actually did.  You seem to want
to defend his claim for some reason. I, on the other hand choose to ignore
his claim for the reasons I give. What are your reasons for accepting his
claim? 
> 
> The material in question was CNT for goodness sakes ! one of the most 
> advanced materials ever produced by science - and as a colloid in 
> heavy water, and the phenomenon was probably subwatt.
> 
> This "material" cost many hundreds per gram and represent millions of 
> man-hour in advanced research both in the CNT and in the heavy water. 
> This comment calls into question your motivation.

WHAT??  What does this information have  to do with our discussion? You

RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread Frank roarty

Again..the nanotube is only going to be "active" at the openings and
defects.. It is a macro example of the difference between casimir and
dynamic casimir effect and we clearly need a robust dynamic effect along
with robust thermal linkage to prevent it from self destructing.

Frank

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

 

 

From: Edmund Storms 

 

Nice thought Kevin. Chris and I collaborated to see if CNT were nuclear
active. They were not, at least when using our methods. I suspect the
conditions in the tube are not correct to form the Hydroton. 

 

Well, it is good to know that you and Chris collaborated, but not so good to
learn that his technique may not work, as claimed.

 

Can you describe what methods were used?

 

Did you use a coherent or nearly coherent light source? Without a source of
coherent light, SPP are unlikely to form.

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread Frank roarty

Good points all..and I submit the strength and thermal characteristics of
nanotubes are desirable to prevent meltdown but something equivalent to
Jones idea of backfilling metal foams with smaller particles to both provide
finer geometries and support structures is needed with nanotubes because the
normal feature of a nanotube lacks CHANGE in geometry ..and change in
geometry is required to produce catalytic force..even multiwalled nanotubes
are relatively weak catalysts due to this consistent geometry.. I think
there has been a form of anomalous action demonstrated by nanotube filters
in the way water molecules bond inside a nanotube which far exceeds the
transport rate of normal filters. Even the tendency for a single layer of
grapheme to spontaneously form a swt speaks to quantum effect.

Fran

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

 

It's unlikely that many observers have doubted the basic hypothesis of
geometrically active zones. There is much agreement on that.

 

The practical problem is that without nanotubes, optimum geometry is very
hard to engineer in a stable and consistent form over time. Metals are
ductile and nano features are easily lost - whereas carbon nanotubes are
incredibly strong. Huge advantage is found in CNT over cracks in a metal
lattice.

 

From: Kevin O'Malley 

 

Wouldn't that lend itself to corroborating Ed Storms's theories about cracks
& the NAE?  

 

Frank roarty wrote:

 

Jones, Yes, I agree.. the paper from Cornell re catalytic action only
occurring at openings and defects in nano tubes

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms 
> 
>> Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence? 
> 
> Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent tens
> of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D ending with
> an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. That would mean
> little if he had not already patented an advanced water filtration device
> and brought it to market. His prior success speaks volumes.
> 
> IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear
> physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear
> reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting
> tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many
> reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted. 
> 
> However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in nuclear
> science and that should be taken into account... yet even without one, he
> should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track record with CNT and
> business acumen.

Jones, I agree with your comments and these are the reasons I paid any 
attention to Chris in the first place. In addition,  that CNT were a plausible 
location for LENR was obvious before Chris entered the picture. I had been 
trying to make them for study, but Chris already had them available, which 
accelerated the effort. Nevertheless, no claim, even by someone as famous as 
Einstein, should be accepted without more proof than a patent, especially a 
parent than has not been reduced to practice. 
> 
>> The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well
> the measurements were made. 
> 
> That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses
> incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. The
> specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient information
> for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it was done (the helium
> measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done
> correctly?

I'm not saying the measurement was done incorrectly. I'm saying we have no way 
of knowing whether it was done incorrectly or not. Therefore, the evidence is 
not worth considering. Why spend time discussing something that might not be 
true, especially when we have many very interesting observations that have been 
proven true. 
> 
>> The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they
> are proven. This is not a proven claim. 
> 
> Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of the
> skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize that you are
> credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be incapable of doing
> a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it. 

Jones, you do not believe everything you are told. How do you decide which part 
to believe and which part to ignore? Is only a PhD in physics and a successful 
business enough for you to believe anything a person tells you?
> 
> Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide effort to
> replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate this work, you
> completely failed to use a coherent light source - so that effort was
> deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth mentioning - as
> creating a doubt.
> 
>> In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR,
> this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. 
> 
> Ed, this comment: "on a material" is disingenuous. 

OK, let me be clear, if shining a light, such as Chris used, on a CNT could 
produce LENR, the phenomenon would have been seen long ago.  I can not tell you 
exactly what Chris did for legal reasons and he does not tell enough in the 
patent for you or anyone to know what he actually did.  You seem to want to 
defend his claim for some reason. I, on the other hand choose to ignore his 
claim for the reasons I give. What are your reasons for accepting his claim? 
> 
> The material in question was CNT for goodness sakes ! one of the most
> advanced materials ever produced by science - and as a colloid in heavy
> water, and the phenomenon was probably subwatt. 
> 
> This "material" cost many hundreds per gram and represent millions of
> man-hour in advanced research both in the CNT and in the heavy water. This
> comment calls into question your motivation.

WHAT??  What does this information have  to do with our discussion? You seem to 
be drifting off into an entirely different subject.
> 
> Moreover, if helium was detected, as Cooper asserts - and this can be
> replicated - then this is one of the most important experiments since P&F. 

If and If. Yes, if the if is true, this is important. Meanwhile we have a huge 
amount of information that is not based on if. Why not give it your attention?
> 
> If helium cannot be detected in a bona

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

 Ed is "The pot calling the kettle black"


Ed Storms is suffering from the Superman dilution than he advises others to
avoid.

In his paper: "An Approach to Explaining Cold Fusion"Ed states as follows:


"Many explanations have been proposed that are based on imagined ways
energy could accumulate in sufficient amount in the chemical lattice to
overcome the Coulomb barrier, either directly or as result of neutron
formation. These processes also occasionally involve accumulation of extra
electrons between the hydrogen nuclei as another way to hide the barrier.
These suggestions ignore the severe limitations a chemical lattice imposes
on energy accumulation and electron structure. Some proposed processes even
ignore obvious conflicts with what has been observed. Consequently, none
have been useful in directing future research or have achieved universal
acceptance."

Then Ed claims charge screening as a key causation in his theory as follows:

 "The high concentration of negative charge in the crack allows the nuclei
to get closer than would be normally possible".

Ed does not offer observational data that quantifies this key reaction
process in his theory, or explains how a crack can amplify charge
accumulation to a sufficient level to drive his reaction mechanism as a key
causative factor.

Furthermore, Ed does not explain how charge accumulation happens in a crack
or why it is amplified or why this mechanism produces the effect that Ed
claims it has.






On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy
> cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for
> energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost
> elsewhere and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random
> processes at a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is
> much too small to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique
> conditions) much less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry
> supports this statement. This fact can be easily applied.  The other laws
> can be applied in a similar way, but I will leave that exercize for the
> book.
>
>  For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an
> electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without
> violating the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually
> happen in nature.  Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any
> additional argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM
> arguments are going to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement
> would be like accepting my claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms.
> Of course, if you were intent on believing Superman is real, you might
> consider the idea. :-)
>
> Ed
>
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
> Ed--
>
> I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met.  It is not
> easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases.  It would appear that
> the microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a
> lower energy,  However the rest of the system may have gained microstates
> associated with the calculation on entropy, S.   I suspect this calculation
> will be hard in any LENR reaction.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Bob Cook 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> Ed--
>
> I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier
> you refer to:
>
> See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its
> instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.
>
> arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006
>
>
> >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the
> order of
>
> 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms
> van-
>
> ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The
> probability
>
> that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically
> for-
>
> bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied
> by
>
> the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is
> proportional to
>
> the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar
> contributions,
>
> multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising
>
> many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude
>
> and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an
> exper-
>
> imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<
>
> He goes on to say:
>
> >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites,
> the state of N
>
> coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.
>
> Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


Ed--

With the following statement you left yourself some wiggle room:

Of course, if the field can be made intense enough, a nuclear reaction 
might be initiated under very special conditions.<<


The Brown experiments and SPP theory that Axil has tried to explain for over 
a year provide those intense magnetic fields, particularly at defects, 
surfaces and other topological features in a metal lattice.


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Edmund Storms" 

To: 
Cc: "Edmund Storms" 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Bob Cook wrote:


Ed--

Your issue seems to be that various players in the LENR R&D field are not 
reliable with respect to the data they advertise, particularly with 
respect to magnetic fields.  You may be right.  However if you are, there 
are a lot of fakers regarding this one basic parameter.


Bob, no claim should be accepted unless it can be studied and evaluated. No 
assumption should be made just because it fits with a favorite explanation. 
This has nothing to do with reliability or being a faker, although some 
people publish better data than others. People are easily fooled by what 
they see and frequently publish what they truly believe, but the 
observations are sometimes wrong. That is why peer review is valuable.


P&F did not discuss magnetic fields, however, anyone with basic knowledge 
of how an electric coil (obvious in the P&F experimental set up) creates a 
magnetic field with the passage of current, can accurately deduce the 
resulting magnetic field, including the field within the Pd electrode, 
given the magnetic properties of Pd.


Small magnetic fields are easy to create and are everywhere these days. They 
obviously do not initiate nuclear reactions. Of course, if the field can be 
made intense enough, a nuclear reaction might be initiated under very 
special conditions.  However, so far no evidence shows that LENR requires a 
magnetic field or creates one when it is working.


A question begs an answer.  With you long-term, extensive exposure to the 
field who do you consider are the experimental truth tellers who do NOT 
avoid revealing measured parameters in their experiments so as to 
highlight mechanisms that are key to understanding LENR.


The only thing that can be trusted are a series of observations by different 
people that show the same behavior or patterns. In other words, the 
observations must be replicated.


In other words, who are the reliable scientists and technologists.


I could give a list, but this would be useless because everyone has reported 
incorrect data on occasion.  The only solution is to compare what is 
reported. I did this in my first book and will continue the approach in the 
second one.  This is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Only certain 
pieces fit together and when enough pieces are assembled, the picture can be 
identified. No single piece gives this information.


Ed Storms


Bob


- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" 
To: 
Cc: "Edmund Storms" 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


From: Edmund Storms

SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but
they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction.
Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb 
barrier

and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do
this.

Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent
application.

Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the
entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input
and helium is seen as evidence of LENR.


Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough 
detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The 
skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are 
proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light 
on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been 
discovered long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based 
on what is required.


If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator 
of
the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude 
too

weak.

As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be
rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is
actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA.

Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd 
fusion

as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his
"reputation" promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be
siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as 
it

would apply to Cooper's claim.


Helium has been

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

NO, THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.The issue is how QM applies to LENR. That is the only 
issue. It is a very simple concept. QM is a big subject having a huge range of 
applications. It works well under some conditions and it totally fails in 
others. Unless it is applied correctly, it would fail when it is used to 
explain LENR. 

Ed Storms
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

> Ed--
>  
> If you were light enough with feathers you probably could.
>  
> It seems like the issue comes down to the question of whether QM theories 
> reflect reality? 
>  
> Bob
> - Original Message -
> From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
> 
> Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy 
> cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for 
> energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost 
> elsewhere and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random 
> processes at a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is 
> much too small to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique 
> conditions) much less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry 
> supports this statement. This fact can be easily applied.  The other laws can 
> be applied in a similar way, but I will leave that exercize for the book. 
> 
>  For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an 
> electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without 
> violating the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually 
> happen in nature.  Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any 
> additional argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM 
> arguments are going to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement 
> would be like accepting my claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of 
> course, if you were intent on believing Superman is real, you might consider 
> the idea. :-) 
> 
> Ed
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
> 
>> Ed--
>>  
>> I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met.  It is not 
>> easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases.  It would appear that 
>> the microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower 
>> energy,  However the rest of the system may have gained microstates 
>> associated with the calculation on entropy, S.   I suspect this calculation 
>> will be hard in any LENR reaction.
>>  
>> Bob Cook
>>  
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Bob Cook
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>> 
>> Ed--
>>  
>> I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier 
>> you refer to:
>>  
>> See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its 
>> instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.  
>> arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006
>> 
>>  
>> >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order 
>> >>>of
>> 
>> 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van-
>> 
>> ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The 
>> probability
>> 
>> that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically 
>> for-
>> 
>> bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by
>> 
>> the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional 
>> to
>> 
>> the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions,
>> 
>> multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising
>> 
>> many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude
>> 
>> and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper-
>> 
>> imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<
>> 
>> He goes on to say:
>> 
>> >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the 
>> >>state of N
>> 
>> coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.
>> 
>> Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared
>> 
>> equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid 
>> the
>> 
>> emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain
>> 
>> and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons 
>> to
>> 
>> helium-4.
>> 
>> References
>> 
>> [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens.
>> 
>> Matt.).
>> 
>> [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996).
>> 
>> [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. 
>> Matt. 5
>> 
>> 7761–7770 (1993).<<
>> 
>> Bob Cook
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Edmund Storms
>> To: vortex-

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

2014-03-02 Thread ChemE Stewart

I believe QM theories do reflect reality.  Our weather phenomena are
quantum.  I have designed thermodynamic heat exchangers, vacuum condensers
and vacuum evaporators and you cannot get air and water vapor to do what
our atmosphere does, without adding or removing a tremendous amount of
energy in very short time.  Our atmosphere discharges at millions of volts
and releases megawatts of power during storms and contains massive amounts
of condensing power, which is vacuum energy.

Since "Hydrino" and "Hydroton" are already reserved, I am going to call my
curled up black hole strings of vacuum energy in our jet streams the
"Hydropotamus"


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Ed--
>
> If you were light enough with feathers you probably could.
>
> It seems like the issue comes down to the question of whether QM theories
> reflect reality?
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Edmund Storms 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms 
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy
> cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for
> energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost
> elsewhere and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random
> processes at a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is
> much too small to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique
> conditions) much less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry
> supports this statement. This fact can be easily applied.  The other laws
> can be applied in a similar way, but I will leave that exercize for the
> book.
>
>  For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an
> electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without
> violating the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually
> happen in nature.  Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any
> additional argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM
> arguments are going to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement
> would be like accepting my claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms.
> Of course, if you were intent on believing Superman is real, you might
> consider the idea. :-)
>
> Ed
>  On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>  Ed--
>
> I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met.  It is not
> easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases.  It would appear that
> the microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a
> lower energy,  However the rest of the system may have gained microstates
> associated with the calculation on entropy, S.   I suspect this calculation
> will be hard in any LENR reaction.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Bob Cook 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
>
> Ed--
>
> I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier
> you refer to:
>
> See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its
> instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.
>
> arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006
>
>
> >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the
> order of
>
> 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms
> van-
>
> ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The
> probability
>
> that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically
> for-
>
> bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied
> by
>
> the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is
> proportional to
>
> the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar
> contributions,
>
> multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising
>
> many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude
>
> and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an
> exper-
>
> imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<
>
> He goes on to say:
>
> >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites,
> the state of N
>
> coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.
>
> Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared
>
> equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid
> the
>
> emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain
>
> and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused
> deuterons to
>
> helium-4.
>
> References
>
> [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens.
>
> Matt.).
>
> [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996).
>
> [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:07 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

> Ed--
> 
> Your issue seems to be that various players in the LENR R&D field are not 
> reliable with respect to the data they advertise, particularly with respect 
> to magnetic fields.  You may be right.  However if you are, there are a lot 
> of fakers regarding this one basic parameter.

Bob, no claim should be accepted unless it can be studied and evaluated. No 
assumption should be made just because it fits with a favorite explanation. 
This has nothing to do with reliability or being a faker, although some people 
publish better data than others. People are easily fooled by what they see and 
frequently publish what they truly believe, but the observations are sometimes 
wrong. That is why peer review is valuable.  
> 
> P&F did not discuss magnetic fields, however, anyone with basic knowledge of 
> how an electric coil (obvious in the P&F experimental set up) creates a 
> magnetic field with the passage of current, can accurately deduce the 
> resulting magnetic field, including the field within the Pd electrode, given 
> the magnetic properties of Pd.

Small magnetic fields are easy to create and are everywhere these days. They 
obviously do not initiate nuclear reactions. Of course, if the field can be 
made intense enough, a nuclear reaction might be initiated under very special 
conditions.  However, so far no evidence shows that LENR requires a magnetic 
field or creates one when it is working. 
> 
> A question begs an answer.  With you long-term, extensive exposure to the 
> field who do you consider are the experimental truth tellers who do NOT avoid 
> revealing measured parameters in their experiments so as to highlight 
> mechanisms that are key to understanding LENR.

The only thing that can be trusted are a series of observations by different 
people that show the same behavior or patterns. In other words, the 
observations must be replicated. 
> 
> In other words, who are the reliable scientists and technologists.

I could give a list, but this would be useless because everyone has reported 
incorrect data on occasion.  The only solution is to compare what is reported. 
I did this in my first book and will continue the approach in the second one.  
This is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Only certain pieces fit together 
and when enough pieces are assembled, the picture can be identified. No single 
piece gives this information. 

Ed Storms
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" 
> To: 
> Cc: "Edmund Storms" 
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> 
>> From: Edmund Storms
>> 
>> SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but
>> they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction.
>> Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier
>> and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do
>> this.
>> 
>> Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent
>> application.
>> 
>> Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the
>> entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input
>> and helium is seen as evidence of LENR.
> 
> Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough 
> detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The 
> skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are 
> proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light on 
> a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered 
> long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is 
> required.
>> 
>> If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator of
>> the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude too
>> weak.
>> 
>> As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be
>> rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is
>> actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA.
>> 
>> Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion
>> as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his
>> "reputation" promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be
>> siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as it
>> would apply to Cooper's claim.
> 
> Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after 
> careful measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made 
> such measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea 
> what he is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of 
> LENR and of even basic science?
>> 
>> 
>> If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the
>> same lev

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Ed--

If you were light enough with feathers you probably could.

It seems like the issue comes down to the question of whether QM theories 
reflect reality?  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy 
cannot spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for 
energy to be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost elsewhere 
and moved to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random processes at 
a low level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is much too small 
to cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique conditions) much 
less a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry supports this statement. 
This fact can be easily applied.  The other laws can be applied in a similar 
way, but I will leave that exercize for the book. 

   For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an 
electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without violating 
the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually happen in 
nature.  Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any additional 
argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM arguments are going 
to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement would be like accepting my 
claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of course, if you were intent on 
believing Superman is real, you might consider the idea. :-) 

  Ed

  On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote:

Ed--

I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met.  It is not 
easy to calculate entropy and show how it increases.  It would appear that the 
microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower 
energy,  However the rest of the system may have gained microstates associated 
with the calculation on entropy, S.   I suspect this calculation will be hard 
in any LENR reaction.

Bob Cook

  - Original Message -
  From: Bob Cook
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

  Ed--

  I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier 
you refer to:

  See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its 
instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.  
  arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006

  >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the 
order of

  2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms 
van-

  ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The 
probability

  that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically 
for-

  bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly 
multiplied by

  the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is 
proportional to

  the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar 
contributions,

  multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region 
comprising

  many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude

  and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an 
exper-

  imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<

  He goes on to say:

  >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, 
the state of N

  coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.

  Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared

  equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably 
forbid the

  emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain

  and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused 
deuterons to

  helium-4.

  References

  [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens.

  Matt.).

  [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996).

  [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. 
Matt. 5

  7761–7770 (1993).<<

  Bob Cook

- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by 
a real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion 
in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not 
like what physics has accepted.  Rather than suggesting any idea that comes to 
mind, the effort

RE: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

> Jones, why do you accept this [Cooper patent application] as evidence? 

Ed - First off this is Vortex, not a peer review session. Cooper spent tens
of thousands of dollars (possibly much more) over 8 years of R&D ending with
an effort to patent the CNT device which is described. That would mean
little if he had not already patented an advanced water filtration device
and brought it to market. His prior success speaks volumes.

IOW he is a successful inventor and apparently has training in nuclear
physics, and is one who believes that he has seen indicia of nuclear
reactions. It is true that detecting helium is harder than detecting
tritium, which we all wish he had done - and it is also true that many
reports of helium commensurate with heat should be doubted. 

However, Ken has reported that Cooper has an advanced degree in nuclear
science and that should be taken into account... yet even without one, he
should be given benefit of the doubt, due to his track record with CNT and
business acumen.

> The patent does not give enough detail to know what was done or how well
the measurements were made. 

That is almost silly, given Cooper's business record and the expenses
incurred in this work and his ability to hire an expert if need be. The
specifications in the patent are adequate. There is sufficient information
for a replication. Why did you not inquire as to how it was done (the helium
measurement) instead of making vague innuendos that it was not done
correctly?

> The skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they
are proven. This is not a proven claim. 

Bizarre comment. Neither are your claims proved, Ed ... and most of the
skeptics put you in the same boat as CC. But all of us realize that you are
credible, and AFAIK Chris Cooper has not been shown to be incapable of doing
a simple measurement, or paying an expert to do it. 

Why should his experiment and claim be doubted without a bona fide effort to
replicate? Apparently... in whatever you did to validate this work, you
completely failed to use a coherent light source - so that effort was
deficient from the git-go and probably not even worth mentioning - as
creating a doubt.

> In addition, if simply shining a light on a material would produce LENR,
this phenomenon would have been discovered long ago. 

Ed, this comment: "on a material" is disingenuous. 

The material in question was CNT for goodness sakes ! one of the most
advanced materials ever produced by science - and as a colloid in heavy
water, and the phenomenon was probably subwatt. 

This "material" cost many hundreds per gram and represent millions of
man-hour in advanced research both in the CNT and in the heavy water. This
comment calls into question your motivation.

Moreover, if helium was detected, as Cooper asserts - and this can be
replicated - then this is one of the most important experiments since P&F. 

If helium cannot be detected in a bona fide effort, then it would be nice to
know actually that - but failing to provide a light source is NOT a bona
fide effort.

> This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is required.


Well, that is not a fair judgment, and you have not come close to making a
case for that proposition - to the extent helium was actually detected. 

You many indeed know something which I do not know, but all appearances are
that there could be another motivation on your part, and that you do not
want to acknowledge that there could be several - in fact - many ways to
accomplish LENR besides the one which you favor. 

And let's face it, if Cooper is correct, your own theory is severely
damaged. This does not mean that you did not make an honest effort to
replicate, but if you did not recognize the SPP route to gain - and then
failed to use a light source to accomplish this route, then ... sadly ...
you mind was made up from the start and of course your effort was not
successful.

I hope that you will at least inform Chris that you failed to consider SPP
and that the experts at NASA think that SPP could be relevant to LENR, even
if you do not share that view.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


Ed--

Your issue seems to be that various players in the LENR R&D field are not 
reliable with respect to the data they advertise, particularly with respect 
to magnetic fields.  You may be right.  However if you are, there are a lot 
of fakers regarding this one basic parameter.


P&F did not discuss magnetic fields, however, anyone with basic knowledge of 
how an electric coil (obvious in the P&F experimental set up) creates a 
magnetic field with the passage of current, can accurately deduce the 
resulting magnetic field, including the field within the Pd electrode, given 
the magnetic properties of Pd.


A question begs an answer.  With you long-term, extensive exposure to the 
field who do you consider are the experimental truth tellers who do NOT 
avoid revealing measured parameters in their experiments so as to highlight 
mechanisms that are key to understanding LENR.


In other words, who are the reliable scientists and technologists.

Bob


- Original Message - 
From: "Edmund Storms" 

To: 
Cc: "Edmund Storms" 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"



On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


From: Edmund Storms

SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but
they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction.
Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb 
barrier

and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do
this.

Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent
application.

Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the
entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input
and helium is seen as evidence of LENR.


Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough 
detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The 
skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are 
proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light 
on a material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered 
long ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is 
required.


If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator 
of
the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude 
too

weak.

As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be
rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is
actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA.

Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion
as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his
"reputation" promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be
siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as 
it

would apply to Cooper's claim.


Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after 
careful measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made 
such measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea 
what he is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of 
LENR and of even basic science?



If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the
same level of credibility as anyone else's - and possibly more, since the
experiment is so simple and straightforward.


Yes, if the measurements were valid, what you say is true. However, no 
evidence shows they are valid. Anyone can make claims. The only reason a 
claim should be accepted is if it can be proven. Otherwise, this is a waste 
of time and a distraction.


Ed Storms


Jones

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"

Bob, you make this much too complicated. The second law says that energy cannot 
spontaneously concentrate. Yes, local energy can fluctuate, but for energy to 
be concentrated in one spot, an equal amount has to be lost elsewhere and moved 
to where energy is accumulating. This happens by random processes at a low 
level with a limit that can be identified. This limit is much too small to 
cause even a chemical reaction, (except under very unique conditions) much less 
a nuclear reaction. The entire field of chemistry supports this statement. This 
fact can be easily applied.  The other laws can be applied in a similar way, 
but I will leave that exercize for the book. 

 For example, the W-L theory requires 0.78 MeV to be concentrated in an 
electron to form the initiating neutron. This is not possible without violating 
the second law and what many scientists have observed to actually happen in 
nature.  Therefore, the W-L theory can be rejected without any additional 
argument being made. No calculations are required and no QM arguments are going 
to change the conclusion. Accepting this requirement would be like accepting my 
claim that I can fly simply by waving my arms. Of course, if you were intent on 
believing Superman is real, you might consider the idea. :-) 

Ed
On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Bob Cook wrote:

> Ed--
>  
> I am not sure how you show that the 2nd and 3rd laws are met.  It is not easy 
> to calculate entropy and show how it increases.  It would appear that the 
> microstates possible decrease with the reaction since the He has a lower 
> energy,  However the rest of the system may have gained microstates 
> associated with the calculation on entropy, S.   I suspect this calculation 
> will be hard in any LENR reaction.
>  
> Bob Cook
>  
>  
> - Original Message -
> From: Bob Cook
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
> 
> Ed--
>  
> I would identify a mechanism for overcoming the classical Coulomb barrier you 
> refer to:
>  
> See JS Browns idea as copied from his paper written in October 2006--its 
> instructive as to possible cause of LENR in the Pd-D system.  
> arXiv:cond-mat/0610403v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 15 Oct 2006
> 
>  
> >>>The normalized amplitude of these dominant configurations is on the order 
> >>>of
> 
> 2N times greater than in the normal incoherent regime, all cross-terms van-
> 
> ishing by virtue of the orthogonality of the component states. The probability
> 
> that any one adjacent pair at 01:10 have tunneled through the classically for-
> 
> bidden region under their mutual Coulomb barrier is accordingly multiplied by
> 
> the same exponential factor (N.B. the tunnelling probability is proportional 
> to
> 
> the square of the sum of very many, extremely small, unipolar contributions,
> 
> multiplied by the oscillation frequency). In a mesoscopic region comprising
> 
> many hundreds of adatoms, this factor amounts to many orders of magnitude
> 
> and may transform the otherwise vanishingly small fusion rate into an exper-
> 
> imentally observable phenomenon with technological potential.<<
> 
> He goes on to say:
> 
> >>In view of the finite rate of particle exchange in the bridging sites, the 
> >>state of N
> 
> coherent bosonic deuteron adatoms will quickly become exchange-symmetric.
> 
> Because of this, the amplitude of any one D-D fusion event will be shared
> 
> equally over all sites. This translational symmetry will presumably forbid the
> 
> emission of quanta of wavelength small compared to the coherence domain
> 
> and force a relatively slow radiationless relaxation of the fused deuterons to
> 
> helium-4.
> 
> References
> 
> [1] J.Brown, arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608292 (submitted to J.Phys Condens.
> 
> Matt.).
> 
> [2] G. Kurizki, A. Kofman, V.Yudson, Phys. Rev. A 53 R35-R38 (1996).
> 
> [3] Y. Todate, S.Ikeda, Y.Nakai, A. Agui, Y.Tominaga, J. Phys. Condens. Matt. 
> 5
> 
> 7761–7770 (1993).<<
> 
> Bob Cook
> 
>  
> - Original Message -
> From: Edmund Storms
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"
> 
> Yes Bob, LENR is real, it occurs in real materials, and it is caused by a 
> real mechanism controlled by real parameters. It is exactly like hot fusion 
> in this regard. Unlike hot fusion, a new mechanism is operating that is not 
> like what physics has accepted.  Rather than suggesting any idea that comes 
> to mind, the effort to identify this mechanism must focus on what is actually 
> observed.  What is observed creates limits and boundaries on what mechanisms 
> are possible. Eventually, all mechanisms but one will be eliminated and at 
> that point LENR will be understood.  The process of finding this single 
> mechanism can be speeded up by eliminating a lot of proposed mechanisms right 
> from the start. For example, any proposed mechanism that conflicts with

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"


On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

>   From: Edmund Storms 
> 
>   SPP may be present and important to some phenomenon, but
> they are very unlikely to have a role in initiating a nuclear reaction.
> Whatever causes LENR must be able to overcome a significant Coulomb barrier
> and at the same time dissipate MeV of energy. I see no way the SPP can do
> this.
>   
> Well, Ed this thread started with consideration of the Cooper patent
> application. 
> 
> Fig 1 of that patent describes an experiment, which is the essence of the
> entire disclosure really, in which a light source is the only power input
> and helium is seen as evidence of LENR.

Jones, why do you accept this as evidence? The patent does not give enough 
detail to know what was done or how well the measurements were made. The 
skeptics have the right approach. They do not accept claims until they are 
proven. This is not a proven claim. In addition, if simply shining a light on a 
material would produce LENR, this phenomenon would have been discovered long 
ago. This method is not sufficient or even plausible based on what is required. 
> 
> If the patent is accurate, SPP is the prime candidate to be the initiator of
> the reaction since obviously light photons alone are orders of magnitude too
> weak. 
> 
> As for the way this can happen, the electric fields of SPP are said to be
> rather massive. Possibly this relates to local superconductivity. This is
> actually a rather elegant hypothesis which is being championed by NASA.
> 
> Helium has been criticized by some outspoken observers of D+D in Pd fusion
> as being too ubiquitous to be good evidence of LENR. Krivit has made his
> "reputation" promoting this POV. It is curious that you now seem to be
> siding with Krivit on the validity of this kind of evidence, at least as it
> would apply to Cooper's claim.

Helium has been made by at least 18 studies without ambiguity and after careful 
measurements that can be studied and evaluated. Chris has not made such 
measurements. The issue has nothing to do with Krivit who has no idea what he 
is talking about. Why use the analysis of someone who is ignorant of LENR and 
of even basic science?
> 
> 
> If Cooper's helium detection was valid, then it would seem to warrant the
> same level of credibility as anyone else's - and possibly more, since the
> experiment is so simple and straightforward. 

Yes, if the measurements were valid, what you say is true. However, no evidence 
shows they are valid. Anyone can make claims. The only reason a claim should be 
accepted is if it can be proven. Otherwise, this is a waste of time and a 
distraction. 

Ed Storms
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper"