RE:[Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
On Thursday March 20 Jones said [snip] Would moving cavities be able to couple ZPE more effectively than stationary? [/snip] This is why I posited that small mobile LENR reactors when discovered will lead quickly to inertialess drive..there should be a linkage between motion and the cavities ..or at least if there are any hydrogen or ambient gases in those regions to act as fractional state linkage where the orbitals remain connected to the nucleus but stretch [Lorentzian contracted] on the temporal axis to exist in a different frame than their associated nucleus - obeying all the normal laws of inertia but time dilated and spatially shifted appropriate to their frame / fractional/inverted Rydberg state. My hypothesis is that the first time a compact LENR system is placed on a balance scale they will discover that the system balances out much quicker when turned off as opposed to when it is on...hints to the old legend of pyramid blocks being able to be scooted 2 bowshots after being struck by a special device and having the blocks it was elevated on yanked out... could they have been agitating the ambient gases in the calcium based stone into a tortured fractional state where the orbitals and nucleus were pinned to different rates of inertia? Holding the blocks in space between 2 different space time coordinates of the ambient fractional gas? Likewise I have tried to imagine similar material embodiments of casimir geometry and ambient gases that might explain different perpetual machines like circulating metal balls and magnets or coils and magnetic material to form armatures. How about silicon and hydrocarbons bubbling up through the sea floor of the Bermuda triangle :_) Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor The continuing reports (on various alternative energy sites) about RAR having recently demonstrated overunity in Brazil, are provocative... but nothing more than rumor. Should we wait to explore the ramifications of perpmo - until it is fact? Nah. Why wait? It was always obvious to the contrarian that everything at the atomic and molecular level is in perpetual motion, as is everything at the cosmological level, so why the hell should a well-constructed machine be forbidden, other than the fact that none have made the grade thus far? Never mind a theory - let's stick to lack of results. It will not be obvious at first why paired-pelotas in the video below, consisting of two steel ball bearings welded together is also provocative. The two are a metaphorical cooper-pair, so to speak... raising another weird question: is there something about spherical-pairing alone, which is special - at any level? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvq8laPb498 In alternative energy - we are always looking out for carrier processes which are so efficient that they can be bootstrapped with something else which is very slightly gainful in a hidden way- so as to present an arguable case for overunity and/or perpetual motion in a more visible way. Impossible? Perhaps, but that will not stop tinkers from trying. And the recent reports of success in Brazil gives hope that this feat has already been achieved on a grand scale, with or without Harry Tuttle. That machine supposedly harnesses gravity - but another option for perpmo is ZPE. The welded spheres are probably amenable to ZPE coupling (to be explained) even if there is nothing special in the cooper pair geometry itself. A pendulum is the classic case of high-Q oscillation using gravity. Tuning forks are another high-Q oscillator using mechanical tension - and they can have quality factors around 1000 but the mass-in-motion is not high. The RAR machine would have a low-Q but high momentum, so we may be talking about the importance of a cross product. Moreover - the 'noise' of a tuning fork is 'work' of a sort and a Q of 1000 when partial damping is present can lead to perpetual motion, to the extent that the radiated damping energy can reflected efficiently back to the oscillator. Thus a room of tuning forks can have a Q which is much higher than the sum of units - despite the lack of efficient coupling. This comes up periodically here. Since the frequency of tuning forks is high compared to a pendulum, and since coupling of energy is often better accomplished at high frequency (especially ZPE) higher is preferable. And a pendulum can have high momentum and high Q but only low frequency. In one case, a pendulum in a vacuum was shown to have a Q of 10,000,000 but the frequency was only around one Hertz. The Q of perpetual motion is infinite of course, and even giga-Q falls short. Anyway, the point is that there are three important parameters which together can point to perpetual motion on the macroscale. Q, Mo, and L
RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
From: H Veeder .two steel ball bearings welded together . are a metaphorical cooper-pair, so to speak... raising another weird question: is there something about spherical-pairing alone, which is special - at any level? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvq8laPb498 Nice.. two magnetic balls roll together and their linear motion is converted into rotational motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIfTKBVI6ZQ Thank, Harry - this video is another good visual example of a larger phenomenon involving pairing - since we can better visualize how linear motion is converted to rotational naturally. This is somewhat along the lines of how Bob Cook wants to fashion the LENR reaction, with the conversion of kinetic energy of reactants being spin-coupled, in the end. However, IMO - this process does not require actual fusion to be anomalously energetic. And coupling would never hide gamma rays, if there was a nuclear reaction, so essentially coupling cannot be related to permanent fusion, since the energies are too high. However, moderate excess energy - well above chemical but less than nuclear, requires only the same basic force which keeps electrons from interacting with protons to begin with. That force is the zero point field. Puthoff and associates have elegantly framed the details of this kind of energy transfer, but until recently, there was doubt that ZPE could be easily converted to energy at a macro scale. The armchair theorist can imagine that the two balls are protons at a distance, and when they are accelerated together, say during the collapse of molecule of H2 due to electron degeneracy, Pauli exclusion keeps the two from fusing, and yet their linear motion is converted to spin. Extraordinary spin such as is the visual effect of the videos. In fact, just prior to this happening with protons, the two electrons of H2 could have joined into a temporary cooper pair of electrons, which function to accelerate the electrons towards each other. Thus one cooper-pair starts the LENR reaction and another finishes it, but no permanent fusion takes place. The transient electron pairing only needs to happen for a femtosecond to set the stage for this form of LENR). This model serves to explain, to an large extent, why Ni-H LENR can be so robust with no permanent nuclear reaction at all - since all of the resultant high spin is coupled back to magnons - which are easier to couple within a ferromagnetic lattice than within an exciton. When the exciton is ferromagnetic itself, the reaction is boosted and ZPE is converted to thermal energy. Jones One further point about pairing of spheres being special or natural or favored at many levels of geometry. This goes beyond cooper pairs - to cosmology. In our solar system, out sun is a single star, and consequently humans are misled into thinking that most stars are singlets. In fact that is not true - and only about 15% of stars in our galaxy are singlets. 85% of stars are found as binary or multiple arrangements. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec10.html
[Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
Starting now. == *2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT * FRIDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 34-401 Mitchell Swartz Our Emergent Need for a Clean, Efficient Energy Production Source Arik El-Boher Progress Toward Understanding Anomalous Heat. Frank Gordon Observations of a variety of Codeposition protocols used to prepare Cold Fusion Cathodes Larry Forsley Neutron and Charged Particle Spectroscopy Tom Claytor Recent tritium production from electrically pulsed wires and foils Group Photo Lunch Yasuhiro Iwamura Deuterium Permeation Induced Transmutation Experiments using Nano-Structured Pd/CaO/Pd Multilayer Thin Film. Mitchell Swartz Excess Power Gain on both sides of an Avalanche Through a PdNi Nanostructured Cold Fusion Component Peter Hagelstein Controlled Karabut experiment at SRI Vladimir Vysotskii Review of cavitation X-ray emission experiments Olga Dmitriyeva Using numerical simulations to better understand the Cold Fusion Environment David Nagel Scientific and Practical Questions about Cold Fusion SATURDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Brian Ahern Nanomagnetism for Energy Production *Francesco Celani* Glass surface co-factors in the generation of anomalous effects under H2 gas at high temperatures Pamela Mosier-Boss CR-39 Detecting Emission during Pd/D Codeposition Cold Fusion John Dash SEM and Energy Dispersive Spectrometer Studies of Metal Surfaces Interacting with Hydrogen Isotopes Peter Hagelstein Model for Fractionation and Inverse Fractionation Group Photo Lunch Tadahiko Mizuno Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles. John Wallace Relativistic quantum mechanics and Cold Fusion George Miley Ultra-dense clusters in nanoparticles and thin films for both hot and cold fusion Nikita Alexandrov Advanced analytic and highly parallel Cold Fusion Experimentation Vladimir Vysotskii Observations of Biophysical Effects from Cold Fusion Charles Beaudette Post Missouri Priorities for Cold Fusion Nathan Cohen The Tortuous Path of Innovation and Implications for Cold Fusion in the next Decade SATURDAY EVENING - Business Panel @ Hyatt for Registrants SUNDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Peter Hagelstein Anomalies associated with Fracture Experiments Larry Forsley Enhanced Tc Superconductivity and Anomalous Nuclear Emissions in YBCO and Palladium Vladimir Vysotskii Application of coherent correlated states of interacting particle for Cold Fusion Optimization John Fisher Polyneutron theory and its application to Excess Power Generation in three types of Devices Mitchell Swartz Successful Applications of the Deuteron Flux Equation in Cold Fusion Lunch Robert Smith Assuring Sufficient Number Of Deuterons Reside in the Excited Band State For Successful Cold Fusion Reactor Design Curt Brown Measurement of Anomalous Heat at High Ambient Temperatures Clint Seward Ball Lightning and Tokamak Carl Dietrich Flying Cars and Cold Fusion Steve Katinsky Industry Association for Cold Fusion Advocacy Peter Hagelstein Landscapes in cold fusion research Thomas Grimshaw Cold Fusion Public Policy: Rational - and Urgent- Need for Change Policy Panel (Hagelstein, Grimshaw, Karat, Katinsky, Nagel, Miley) David French The role of the Patent Attorney in patenting Cold Fusion inventions. IP and USPTO Panel (Swartz,Dash,French,Ahern, Miley)
Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
you are there, or you can see what happens there ? peter On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Starting now. == *2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT * FRIDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 34-401 Mitchell Swartz Our Emergent Need for a Clean, Efficient Energy Production Source Arik El-Boher Progress Toward Understanding Anomalous Heat. Frank Gordon Observations of a variety of Codeposition protocols used to prepare Cold Fusion Cathodes Larry Forsley Neutron and Charged Particle Spectroscopy Tom Claytor Recent tritium production from electrically pulsed wires and foils Group Photo Lunch Yasuhiro Iwamura Deuterium Permeation Induced Transmutation Experiments using Nano-Structured Pd/CaO/Pd Multilayer Thin Film. Mitchell Swartz Excess Power Gain on both sides of an Avalanche Through a PdNi Nanostructured Cold Fusion Component Peter Hagelstein Controlled Karabut experiment at SRI Vladimir Vysotskii Review of cavitation X-ray emission experiments Olga Dmitriyeva Using numerical simulations to better understand the Cold Fusion Environment David Nagel Scientific and Practical Questions about Cold Fusion SATURDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Brian Ahern Nanomagnetism for Energy Production *Francesco Celani* Glass surface co-factors in the generation of anomalous effects under H2 gas at high temperatures Pamela Mosier-Boss CR-39 Detecting Emission during Pd/D Codeposition Cold Fusion John Dash SEM and Energy Dispersive Spectrometer Studies of Metal Surfaces Interacting with Hydrogen Isotopes Peter Hagelstein Model for Fractionation and Inverse Fractionation Group Photo Lunch Tadahiko Mizuno Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles. John Wallace Relativistic quantum mechanics and Cold Fusion George Miley Ultra-dense clusters in nanoparticles and thin films for both hot and cold fusion Nikita Alexandrov Advanced analytic and highly parallel Cold Fusion Experimentation Vladimir Vysotskii Observations of Biophysical Effects from Cold Fusion Charles Beaudette Post Missouri Priorities for Cold Fusion Nathan Cohen The Tortuous Path of Innovation and Implications for Cold Fusion in the next Decade SATURDAY EVENING - Business Panel @ Hyatt for Registrants SUNDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Peter Hagelstein Anomalies associated with Fracture Experiments Larry Forsley Enhanced Tc Superconductivity and Anomalous Nuclear Emissions in YBCO and Palladium Vladimir Vysotskii Application of coherent correlated states of interacting particle for Cold Fusion Optimization John Fisher Polyneutron theory and its application to Excess Power Generation in three types of Devices Mitchell Swartz Successful Applications of the Deuteron Flux Equation in Cold Fusion Lunch Robert Smith Assuring Sufficient Number Of Deuterons Reside in the Excited Band State For Successful Cold Fusion Reactor Design Curt Brown Measurement of Anomalous Heat at High Ambient Temperatures Clint Seward Ball Lightning and Tokamak Carl Dietrich Flying Cars and Cold Fusion Steve Katinsky Industry Association for Cold Fusion Advocacy Peter Hagelstein Landscapes in cold fusion research Thomas Grimshaw Cold Fusion Public Policy: Rational - and Urgent- Need for Change Policy Panel (Hagelstein, Grimshaw, Karat, Katinsky, Nagel, Miley) David French The role of the Patent Attorney in patenting Cold Fusion inventions. IP and USPTO Panel (Swartz,Dash,French,Ahern, Miley) -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
Harry and Jones-- I have not said anything about these balls--Jones has said it all. They demonstrate the instantaneous change of kinetic energy, angular momentum and linear momentum into spin--rotational energy alone. However, if the potential energy of the welded bond or the magnetic field goes away, the spin energy would transform back into kinetic energy of the two balls. They would fly apart with the same kinetic energy (or nearly as much less friction loss) that they had when they first met. (Kind of like getting married and then divorced.) LENR is nice since the system starts out with high spin energy and only increases its potential energy (remaining married) with no destructive kinetic energy to speak of--only well managed heat. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:47 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor From: H Veeder .two steel ball bearings welded together . are a metaphorical cooper-pair, so to speak... raising another weird question: is there something about spherical-pairing alone, which is special - at any level? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvq8laPb498 Nice.. two magnetic balls roll together and their linear motion is converted into rotational motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIfTKBVI6ZQ Thank, Harry - this video is another good visual example of a larger phenomenon involving pairing - since we can better visualize how linear motion is converted to rotational naturally. This is somewhat along the lines of how Bob Cook wants to fashion the LENR reaction, with the conversion of kinetic energy of reactants being spin-coupled, in the end. However, IMO - this process does not require actual fusion to be anomalously energetic. And coupling would never hide gamma rays, if there was a nuclear reaction, so essentially coupling cannot be related to permanent fusion, since the energies are too high. However, moderate excess energy - well above chemical but less than nuclear, requires only the same basic force which keeps electrons from interacting with protons to begin with. That force is the zero point field. Puthoff and associates have elegantly framed the details of this kind of energy transfer, but until recently, there was doubt that ZPE could be easily converted to energy at a macro scale. The armchair theorist can imagine that the two balls are protons at a distance, and when they are accelerated together, say during the collapse of molecule of H2 due to electron degeneracy, Pauli exclusion keeps the two from fusing, and yet their linear motion is converted to spin. Extraordinary spin such as is the visual effect of the videos. In fact, just prior to this happening with protons, the two electrons of H2 could have joined into a temporary cooper pair of electrons, which function to accelerate the electrons towards each other. Thus one cooper-pair starts the LENR reaction and another finishes it, but no permanent fusion takes place. The transient electron pairing only needs to happen for a femtosecond to set the stage for this form of LENR). This model serves to explain, to an large extent, why Ni-H LENR can be so robust with no permanent nuclear reaction at all - since all of the resultant high spin is coupled back to magnons - which are easier to couple within a ferromagnetic lattice than within an exciton. When the exciton is ferromagnetic itself, the reaction is boosted and ZPE is converted to thermal energy. Jones One further point about pairing of spheres being special or natural or favored at many levels of geometry. This goes beyond cooper pairs - to cosmology. In our solar system, out sun is a single star, and consequently humans are misled into thinking that most stars are singlets. In fact that is not true - and only about 15% of stars in our galaxy are singlets. 85% of stars are found as binary or multiple arrangements. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec10.html
Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
What's with all this activity at MIT lately? Why isn't the provost sending in the inquisitors? This can't really be under the auspices of MIT, can it? On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Starting now. == *2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT * FRIDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 34-401 Mitchell Swartz Our Emergent Need for a Clean, Efficient Energy Production Source Arik El-Boher Progress Toward Understanding Anomalous Heat. Frank Gordon Observations of a variety of Codeposition protocols used to prepare Cold Fusion Cathodes Larry Forsley Neutron and Charged Particle Spectroscopy Tom Claytor Recent tritium production from electrically pulsed wires and foils Group Photo Lunch Yasuhiro Iwamura Deuterium Permeation Induced Transmutation Experiments using Nano-Structured Pd/CaO/Pd Multilayer Thin Film. Mitchell Swartz Excess Power Gain on both sides of an Avalanche Through a PdNi Nanostructured Cold Fusion Component Peter Hagelstein Controlled Karabut experiment at SRI Vladimir Vysotskii Review of cavitation X-ray emission experiments Olga Dmitriyeva Using numerical simulations to better understand the Cold Fusion Environment David Nagel Scientific and Practical Questions about Cold Fusion SATURDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Brian Ahern Nanomagnetism for Energy Production *Francesco Celani* Glass surface co-factors in the generation of anomalous effects under H2 gas at high temperatures Pamela Mosier-Boss CR-39 Detecting Emission during Pd/D Codeposition Cold Fusion John Dash SEM and Energy Dispersive Spectrometer Studies of Metal Surfaces Interacting with Hydrogen Isotopes Peter Hagelstein Model for Fractionation and Inverse Fractionation Group Photo Lunch Tadahiko Mizuno Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles. John Wallace Relativistic quantum mechanics and Cold Fusion George Miley Ultra-dense clusters in nanoparticles and thin films for both hot and cold fusion Nikita Alexandrov Advanced analytic and highly parallel Cold Fusion Experimentation Vladimir Vysotskii Observations of Biophysical Effects from Cold Fusion Charles Beaudette Post Missouri Priorities for Cold Fusion Nathan Cohen The Tortuous Path of Innovation and Implications for Cold Fusion in the next Decade SATURDAY EVENING - Business Panel @ Hyatt for Registrants SUNDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Peter Hagelstein Anomalies associated with Fracture Experiments Larry Forsley Enhanced Tc Superconductivity and Anomalous Nuclear Emissions in YBCO and Palladium Vladimir Vysotskii Application of coherent correlated states of interacting particle for Cold Fusion Optimization John Fisher Polyneutron theory and its application to Excess Power Generation in three types of Devices Mitchell Swartz Successful Applications of the Deuteron Flux Equation in Cold Fusion Lunch Robert Smith Assuring Sufficient Number Of Deuterons Reside in the Excited Band State For Successful Cold Fusion Reactor Design Curt Brown Measurement of Anomalous Heat at High Ambient Temperatures Clint Seward Ball Lightning and Tokamak Carl Dietrich Flying Cars and Cold Fusion Steve Katinsky Industry Association for Cold Fusion Advocacy Peter Hagelstein Landscapes in cold fusion research Thomas Grimshaw Cold Fusion Public Policy: Rational - and Urgent- Need for Change Policy Panel (Hagelstein, Grimshaw, Karat, Katinsky, Nagel, Miley) David French The role of the Patent Attorney in patenting Cold Fusion inventions. IP and USPTO Panel (Swartz,Dash,French,Ahern, Miley)
Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
Jed-- Is it being taped? Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:53 AM Subject: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT Starting now. == 2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT FRIDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 34-401 Mitchell Swartz Our Emergent Need for a Clean, Efficient Energy Production Source Arik El-Boher Progress Toward Understanding Anomalous Heat. Frank Gordon Observations of a variety of Codeposition protocols used to prepare Cold Fusion Cathodes Larry Forsley Neutron and Charged Particle Spectroscopy Tom Claytor Recent tritium production from electrically pulsed wires and foils Group Photo Lunch Yasuhiro Iwamura Deuterium Permeation Induced Transmutation Experiments using Nano-Structured Pd/CaO/Pd Multilayer Thin Film. Mitchell Swartz Excess Power Gain on both sides of an Avalanche Through a PdNi Nanostructured Cold Fusion Component Peter Hagelstein Controlled Karabut experiment at SRI Vladimir Vysotskii Review of cavitation X-ray emission experiments Olga Dmitriyeva Using numerical simulations to better understand the Cold Fusion Environment David Nagel Scientific and Practical Questions about Cold Fusion SATURDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Brian Ahern Nanomagnetism for Energy Production Francesco Celani Glass surface co-factors in the generation of anomalous effects under H2 gas at high temperatures Pamela Mosier-Boss CR-39 Detecting Emission during Pd/D Codeposition Cold Fusion John Dash SEM and Energy Dispersive Spectrometer Studies of Metal Surfaces Interacting with Hydrogen Isotopes Peter Hagelstein Model for Fractionation and Inverse Fractionation Group Photo Lunch Tadahiko Mizuno Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles. John Wallace Relativistic quantum mechanics and Cold Fusion George Miley Ultra-dense clusters in nanoparticles and thin films for both hot and cold fusion Nikita Alexandrov Advanced analytic and highly parallel Cold Fusion Experimentation Vladimir Vysotskii Observations of Biophysical Effects from Cold Fusion Charles Beaudette Post Missouri Priorities for Cold Fusion Nathan Cohen The Tortuous Path of Innovation and Implications for Cold Fusion in the next Decade SATURDAY EVENING - Business Panel @ Hyatt for Registrants SUNDAY Starts at 9 AM promptly in Room 4-270 Peter Hagelstein Anomalies associated with Fracture Experiments Larry Forsley Enhanced Tc Superconductivity and Anomalous Nuclear Emissions in YBCO and Palladium Vladimir Vysotskii Application of coherent correlated states of interacting particle for Cold Fusion Optimization John Fisher Polyneutron theory and its application to Excess Power Generation in three types of Devices Mitchell Swartz Successful Applications of the Deuteron Flux Equation in Cold Fusion Lunch Robert Smith Assuring Sufficient Number Of Deuterons Reside in the Excited Band State For Successful Cold Fusion Reactor Design Curt Brown Measurement of Anomalous Heat at High Ambient Temperatures Clint Seward Ball Lightning and Tokamak Carl Dietrich Flying Cars and Cold Fusion Steve Katinsky Industry Association for Cold Fusion Advocacy Peter Hagelstein Landscapes in cold fusion research Thomas Grimshaw Cold Fusion Public Policy: Rational - and Urgent- Need for Change Policy Panel (Hagelstein, Grimshaw, Karat, Katinsky, Nagel, Miley) David French The role of the Patent Attorney in patenting Cold Fusion inventions. IP and USPTO Panel (Swartz,Dash,French,Ahern, Miley)
Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
I am not there. I have no idea whether it is being taped or not. - Jed
[Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
I've been reading quite some theories and views on what exactly Rossi's / Defkalion's processes might be. Here's my current view focussing on the main effects only. Comments and (dis)agreements are welcome: The main chain of fusions/transmutations is in my view: Ni58+p Cu59 + e- Ni59 +p Cu60 + e- Ni59 + p Cu60 + e- - - - - - Cu63 + e-. All Cu isotopes in the range of Cu59 - Cu62 have relative short half-life. The longest half-life is that of Cu61 (3.3 hours). This is why Rossi's process needs quite some time to shut down. The fusion/transmutation chain stops at Cu63 because Cu63 is stable with an extreem long half-life. Protons (p) are provided by (absorbed) Hydrogen ions. Electrons (e-) are released due to Vibrationally Promoted Electron Emission (VPEE). The released energy is caused by two sources: 1. The emitted electrons e- (with very high kinetic energy, 5 - 8 MeV); the electrons are absorbed by the reactor wall causing eddy currents that are converted into heat due to resistance of that wall material. Those eddy currents also may be the cause of the extreemly high magnetic fields that have been observed (Defkalion). 2. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. Some ballpark figures on the total energy generated and the amount of fuel involved: Assuming all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58 and finally all transmutted into Cu63: Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu. The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu. Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu. Delta mass is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu. 1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion 0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV. So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy. So, without further energy losses it requires 2 - 3 grams of Ni and approx. 0.2 grams of H2 to produce 10KW of heat over a 6 months period continuously.
RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
While on the subject of high-Q coupling, trihydrogen should be mentioned. The trihydrogen cation - [H3+] is one of the most abundant ions in the universe, far more abundant than H2, since it is stable in the interstellar medium. Therefore, due to its natural stability in extreme circumstance - trihydrogen can form the basis of a compelling model for one variety of LENR. In this type of LENR, which is one of perhaps a dozen possible energetic hydrogen reactions - nanocavities are present; and H3+ could be the active agent for gain within these cavities. Here is a visualization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laSRGS8-BU4 The center ball would be a proton with both electrons, preferably in reduced orbitals, tightly bound. There is no need for full electron degeneracy in this model. Therefore it could have a higher probability than reactions requiring electron degeneracy, which is rare. The two protons on either end of the centered hydride - are normally oscillating and bound by electrostatic and magnetic bonds which can flip to one of two net spin polarities - ortho and para. These two alignments have different spin energies. What is not shown in the video is the cavity walls, where the proton, on its excursions away from the center of mass, encounters the near field of the metal containment structure. This would provide electrostatic attraction to the wall, and enhanced range of oscillation and also would disrupt the oscillation resonance. Very often, due to the delay and phase shift, a returning proton will encounter the other returning proton, within the electron smear of the tight orbitals, and will react in the known diproton reaction, due to strong force attraction. This is not an elastic collision but is technically reversible fusion since the protons are still protons after the encounter and Pauli exclusion statistics prevents anything more. This reaction provides for asymmetric spin alteration from low spin to high spin via mass conversion and by coupling of nuclear spin to the net magnon spin of the entire system, including the nickel containment. The result is anomalous heat via a sequential Lamb shift, happening at THz frequencies. This would be a mechanism which functions as an alternative or in parallel to ZPE conversion, which can also happen at the same time in the same circumstances. In neither case is real fusion required, yet in both cases, there can be an occasional nuclear reaction or transmutation as a side effect. The side effect would typically supply only a tiny fraction of the excess energy of the sequential Lamb shift so it can be ignored. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
The behavior of two balls can not be applied to LENR. Imagining how photons might interact ignores the fact that the protons are not isolated in space when in a chemical lattice. When LENR occurs in a lattice, all the protons, deuterons and electrons are innerconnected. They all are restrained in their motion by forces that hold the lattice together. People who have the mind of the physicist seem to ignore what actually happens in a chemical structure. This structure is not plasma as is experienced in hot fusion. The atoms in such a structure are not free to move except under well known restraint. The amount of energy available is limited by the energy holding the structure together, which is no more than a few eV. Pretending otherwise has made the present theories worthless. If you are a physicist and want to explain LENR, please first learn some chemistry. Ed Storms On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Harry and Jones-- I have not said anything about these balls--Jones has said it all. They demonstrate the instantaneous change of kinetic energy, angular momentum and linear momentum into spin--rotational energy alone. However, if the potential energy of the welded bond or the magnetic field goes away, the spin energy would transform back into kinetic energy of the two balls. They would fly apart with the same kinetic energy (or nearly as much less friction loss) that they had when they first met. (Kind of like getting married and then divorced.) LENR is nice since the system starts out with high spin energy and only increases its potential energy (remaining married) with no destructive kinetic energy to speak of--only well managed heat. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:47 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor From: H Veeder …two steel ball bearings welded together … are a metaphorical cooper-pair, so to speak... raising another weird question: is there something about spherical-pairing alone, which is special - at any level? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvq8laPb498 Nice…. two magnetic balls roll together and their linear motion is converted into rotational motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIfTKBVI6ZQ Thank, Harry - this video is another good visual example of a larger phenomenon involving pairing - since we can better visualize how linear motion is converted to rotational naturally. This is somewhat along the lines of how Bob Cook wants to fashion the LENR reaction, with the conversion of kinetic energy of reactants being spin-coupled, in the end. However, IMO - this process does not require actual fusion to be anomalously energetic. And coupling would never hide gamma rays, if there was a nuclear reaction, so essentially coupling cannot be related to permanent fusion, since the energies are too high. However, moderate excess energy – well above chemical but less than nuclear, requires only the same basic force which keeps electrons from interacting with protons to begin with. That force is the zero point field. Puthoff and associates have elegantly framed the details of this kind of energy transfer, but until recently, there was doubt that ZPE could be easily converted to energy at a macro scale. The armchair theorist can imagine that the two balls are protons at a distance, and when they are accelerated together, say during the collapse of molecule of H2 due to electron degeneracy, Pauli exclusion keeps the two from fusing, and yet their linear motion is converted to spin. Extraordinary spin such as is the visual effect of the videos. In fact, just prior to this happening with protons, the two electrons of H2 could have joined into a temporary cooper pair of electrons, which function to accelerate the electrons towards each other. Thus one cooper-pair starts the LENR reaction and another finishes it, but no permanent fusion takes place. The transient electron pairing only needs to happen for a femtosecond to set the stage for this form of LENR). This model serves to explain, to an large extent, why Ni-H LENR can be so robust with no permanent nuclear reaction at all – since all of the resultant high spin is coupled back to magnons – which are easier to couple within a ferromagnetic lattice than within an exciton. When the exciton is ferromagnetic itself, the reaction is boosted and ZPE is converted to thermal energy. Jones One further point about “pairing of spheres” being special or natural or favored at many levels of geometry. This goes beyond cooper pairs - to cosmology. In our solar system, out sun is a single star, and consequently humans are misled into thinking that most stars are singlets. In fact that is not true - and only about 15% of stars in our galaxy are singlets. 85% of stars are found as
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
Jones-- What about D3+ cat ion? Pauli is not working in this case--the D is integral spin in an excited state. However, Ed's chemistry would be the same maybe. Its only held together with electric and magnetic forces. The outside D's would bump the metal containment however. Pd is mostly integral spin (Bose particles) however one natural isotope of Pd is a Fermi particle (Pd-105). Ni is also mostly integral spin with Ni 61 odd or Fermi. If the lattice cell includes only Pd 105 or in the case of Ni, only Ni-61, does the interaction and spin coupling to the H3 or D3 change for the cells? What about the other combinations of isotopes making up a lattice cell? Does D3+ have the same stability in space as H3+? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 7:54 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor While on the subject of high-Q coupling, trihydrogen should be mentioned. The trihydrogen cation - [H3+] is one of the most abundant ions in the universe, far more abundant than H2, since it is stable in the interstellar medium. Therefore, due to its natural stability in extreme circumstance - trihydrogen can form the basis of a compelling model for one variety of LENR. In this type of LENR, which is one of perhaps a dozen possible energetic hydrogen reactions - nanocavities are present; and H3+ could be the active agent for gain within these cavities. Here is a visualization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laSRGS8-BU4 The center ball would be a proton with both electrons, preferably in reduced orbitals, tightly bound. There is no need for full electron degeneracy in this model. Therefore it could have a higher probability than reactions requiring electron degeneracy, which is rare. The two protons on either end of the centered hydride - are normally oscillating and bound by electrostatic and magnetic bonds which can flip to one of two net spin polarities - ortho and para. These two alignments have different spin energies. What is not shown in the video is the cavity walls, where the proton, on its excursions away from the center of mass, encounters the near field of the metal containment structure. This would provide electrostatic attraction to the wall, and enhanced range of oscillation and also would disrupt the oscillation resonance. Very often, due to the delay and phase shift, a returning proton will encounter the other returning proton, within the electron smear of the tight orbitals, and will react in the known diproton reaction, due to strong force attraction. This is not an elastic collision but is technically reversible fusion since the protons are still protons after the encounter and Pauli exclusion statistics prevents anything more. This reaction provides for asymmetric spin alteration from low spin to high spin via mass conversion and by coupling of nuclear spin to the net magnon spin of the entire system, including the nickel containment. The result is anomalous heat via a sequential Lamb shift, happening at THz frequencies. This would be a mechanism which functions as an alternative or in parallel to ZPE conversion, which can also happen at the same time in the same circumstances. In neither case is real fusion required, yet in both cases, there can be an occasional nuclear reaction or transmutation as a side effect. The side effect would typically supply only a tiny fraction of the excess energy of the sequential Lamb shift so it can be ignored. Jones
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
You should take a look at the table 2 and table 3 element list from the DGT ICCF-17 document. http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2012-08-13-ICCF-17__Paper_DGTGx.pdf The is a large increase in very light elements and not much nickel to copper transmutation. This means that Cluster fusion of many nuclei including many protons and a heavy metal nucleus is occurring per fusion event. In the Rossi ash, iron was 10% of the element assay. *1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron.* Fusion cannot happen if the nucleon count is odd, e.g. Ni61. This indicates photofusion. Gamma Radiation is converted to huge magnetic fields and will result in EUV radiation from the eventual destruction of the EMF soliton that will be thermalized by election capture. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I've been reading quite some theories and views on what exactly Rossi's / Defkalion's processes might be. Here's my current view focussing on the main effects only. Comments and (dis)agreements are welcome: The main chain of fusions/transmutations is in my view: Ni58+p Cu59 + e- Ni59 +p Cu60 + e- Ni59 + p Cu60 + e- - - - - - Cu63 + e-. All Cu isotopes in the range of Cu59 - Cu62 have relative short half-life. The longest half-life is that of Cu61 (3.3 hours). This is why Rossi's process needs quite some time to shut down. The fusion/transmutation chain stops at Cu63 because Cu63 is stable with an extreem long half-life. Protons (p) are provided by (absorbed) Hydrogen ions. Electrons (e-) are released due to Vibrationally Promoted Electron Emission (VPEE). The released energy is caused by two sources: 1. The emitted electrons e- (with very high kinetic energy, 5 - 8 MeV); the electrons are absorbed by the reactor wall causing eddy currents that are converted into heat due to resistance of that wall material. Those eddy currents also may be the cause of the extreemly high magnetic fields that have been observed (Defkalion). 2. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. Some ballpark figures on the total energy generated and the amount of fuel involved: Assuming all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58 and finally all transmutted into Cu63: Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu. The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu. Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu. Delta mass is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu. 1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion 0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV. So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy. So, without further energy losses it requires 2 - 3 grams of Ni and approx. 0.2 grams of H2 to produce 10KW of heat over a 6 months period continuously.
Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
MIT has nothing to do with the colloquium. Hagelstein is an associate professor there and is being allowed to use the facilities. I'm sure there are those at the Institute who grind their teeth at the thought of the gathering being there. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:06 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What's with all this activity at MIT lately? Why isn't the provost sending in the inquisitors? This can't really be under the auspices of MIT, can it?
RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
From: Edmund Storms When LENR occurs in a lattice, all the protons, deuterons and electrons are innerconnected. They all are restrained in their motion by forces that hold the lattice together. What you say is true, Ed - but essentially irrelevant. You did not read the premise - at least not carefully - which clearly states that we are talking about nano-porosity and NOT about lattice chemistry such as is seen in Pd-D. Why are you always lost in the old world of Pd-D? A Casimir pore inside Raney nickel for instance could have a diameter of 8 nm. Plenty of room. In which case we would NOT be talking about chemistry but about plasma physics. Should the contents of that pore be H3+ then chemistry is modestly helpful but insufficient to explain the operative dynamics. Thus you entire argument favoring electrochemistry falls apart from the starting premise. * If you are a physicist and want to explain LENR, please first learn some chemistry. If you are a chemist and want to understand the Ni-H reaction as it happens in nanocavities, please first learn to appreciate the physics of nanocavities, the Casimir force, quantum opto-mechanics, QCD and the strong force, the solar diproton reaction, SPP and Pauli exclusion. There is no room for fusion of protons to deuterium in this kind of physics. The dark ages of Pd-D are ancient history in 2014, and we are now moving into a new level of understanding demanding a multi-disciplinary approach based on quantum physics. It is one in which electrochemistry is helpful - but far from sufficient to explain the dynamics of gain in Ni-H. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The continuing reports (on various alternative energy sites) about RAR having recently demonstrated overunity in Brazil, are provocative... but nothing more than rumor. Should we wait to explore the ramifications of perpmo - until it is fact? I must say, this is all beginning to remind me of Eric Laithwaite: http://www.quantumgravity.us/TheSwingsSecrets/SS-Part-A.html
RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
From: Bob Cook What about D3+ cation? Pauli is not working in this case--the D is integral spin in an excited state. However, Ed's chemistry would be the same . Yes. Nothing in the previous thread applies to deuterium or to Pd-D. The physics of protons is so completely different from deuterium, that it only adds a level of confusion try to merge the two fields in search of commonality. Best to completely separate them IMHO.
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms When LENR occurs in a lattice, all the protons, deuterons and electrons are innerconnected. They all are restrained in their motion by forces that hold the lattice together. What you say is true, Ed - but essentially irrelevant. You did not read the premise – at least not carefully - which clearly states that we are talking about nano-porosity and NOT about lattice chemistry such as is seen in Pd-D. Why are you always lost in the old world of Pd-D? Jones, ALL chemical structures are similar in this behavior to PdD. I use PdD as an example only because it is the most investigated and the most cited. A Casimir pore inside Raney nickel for instance could have a diameter of 8 nm. Plenty of room. In which case we would NOT be talking about chemistry but about plasma physics. Should the contents of that pore be H3+ then chemistry is modestly helpful but insufficient to explain the operative dynamics. OK, now you are describing a different feature, which I agree can accommodate behavior that is not possible in the lattice itself. In fact, I go this path when I place the Hydroton in a crack. Now the discussion has to address whether the Casimir effect is real or not. I do not believe it is real, as I said before. I believe a structure like the Hydroton must be created for the observed behavior to take place in PdD or in NiH, but in both cases in a nano-crack. We agree that a nano-crack or nano-cavity is required. We differ in what happens in this structure. Thus you entire argument favoring electrochemistry falls apart from the starting premise. I'm not discussing electrochemistry. No one mentioned electrochemistry. Electrochemistry is only one of the 7 methods that have been used to force hydrogen isotopes into a structure where the NAE can be created. It has no other function. Ø If you are a physicist and want to explain LENR, please first learn some chemistry. If you are a chemist and want to understand the Ni-H reaction as it happens in nanocavities, please first learn to appreciate the physics of nanocavities, the Casimir force, quantum opto-mechanics, QCD and the strong force, the solar diproton reaction, SPP and Pauli exclusion. There is no room for fusion of protons to deuterium in this kind of physics. Yes, that is your claim. That is where we differ. I propose that the LENR occurs outside the lattice, as you do, but by a different process. It would help if you focused on where we actually differ rather than on imagined irrelevant differences. The dark ages of Pd-D are ancient history in 2014, and we are now moving into a new level of understanding demanding a multi-disciplinary approach based on quantum physics. It is one in which electrochemistry is helpful - but far from sufficient to explain the dynamics of gain in Ni-H. Here again, we differe. I believe Nature has only one mechanism that applies to PdD, PdH, NiH and any other environment where the mechanism can be made to operate. Only one universal NAE is causing what is observed using PdD or NiH. You apparently believe that several mechanisms are operating. Is that true? If so, what are these mechanisms? Ed Storms Jones
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
Jones-- What about Ed's idea that chemistry is separate from physics? D and H should react the same, if its chemistry that controls their demise. Maybe the differential mass makes the vibrations of the molecules a little different with different reaction rates? I'm not sure. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:19 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor From: Bob Cook What about D3+ cation? Pauli is not working in this case--the D is integral spin in an excited state. However, Ed's chemistry would be the same . Yes. Nothing in the previous thread applies to deuterium or to Pd-D. The physics of protons is so completely different from deuterium, that it only adds a level of confusion try to merge the two fields in search of commonality. Best to completely separate them IMHO.
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
Jones-- What about my question regarding the presence of D3+ as a common particle in space--I think not--Li 6 is the likely more stable item? Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:19 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor From: Bob Cook What about D3+ cation? Pauli is not working in this case--the D is integral spin in an excited state. However, Ed's chemistry would be the same . Yes. Nothing in the previous thread applies to deuterium or to Pd-D. The physics of protons is so completely different from deuterium, that it only adds a level of confusion try to merge the two fields in search of commonality. Best to completely separate them IMHO
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
What would be the testable predictions of your theory? What should we be looking for when someone tests a device and publishes data about it? On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I've been reading quite some theories and views on what exactly Rossi's / Defkalion's processes might be. Here's my current view focussing on the main effects only. Comments and (dis)agreements are welcome: The main chain of fusions/transmutations is in my view: Ni58+p Cu59 + e- Ni59 +p Cu60 + e- Ni59 + p Cu60 + e- - - - - - Cu63 + e-. All Cu isotopes in the range of Cu59 - Cu62 have relative short half-life. The longest half-life is that of Cu61 (3.3 hours). This is why Rossi's process needs quite some time to shut down. The fusion/transmutation chain stops at Cu63 because Cu63 is stable with an extreem long half-life. Protons (p) are provided by (absorbed) Hydrogen ions. Electrons (e-) are released due to Vibrationally Promoted Electron Emission (VPEE). The released energy is caused by two sources: 1. The emitted electrons e- (with very high kinetic energy, 5 - 8 MeV); the electrons are absorbed by the reactor wall causing eddy currents that are converted into heat due to resistance of that wall material. Those eddy currents also may be the cause of the extreemly high magnetic fields that have been observed (Defkalion). 2. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. Some ballpark figures on the total energy generated and the amount of fuel involved: Assuming all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58 and finally all transmutted into Cu63: Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu. The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu. Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu. Delta mass is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu. 1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion 0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV. So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy. So, without further energy losses it requires 2 - 3 grams of Ni and approx. 0.2 grams of H2 to produce 10KW of heat over a 6 months period continuously.
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
That sorta goes to my point about looking for experimental results that either lend support or reduce support for a particular theory. I'm noticing that a lot of the experiments are veering towards testing nuclear products, which is going to be expensive. It won't matter much if Rossi is selling reactors, it soon becomes someone else's problem to properly theorize how it's happening. But it will matter a bunch if Rossi stalls and we need to know what's going on in order to get to production. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You should take a look at the table 2 and table 3 element list from the DGT ICCF-17 document. http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2012-08-13-ICCF-17__Paper_DGTGx.pdf The is a large increase in very light elements and not much nickel to copper transmutation. This means that Cluster fusion of many nuclei including many protons and a heavy metal nucleus is occurring per fusion event. In the Rossi ash, iron was 10% of the element assay. *1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron.* Fusion cannot happen if the nucleon count is odd, e.g. Ni61. This indicates photofusion. Gamma Radiation is converted to huge magnetic fields and will result in EUV radiation from the eventual destruction of the EMF soliton that will be thermalized by election capture. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: I've been reading quite some theories and views on what exactly Rossi's / Defkalion's processes might be. Here's my current view focussing on the main effects only. Comments and (dis)agreements are welcome: The main chain of fusions/transmutations is in my view: Ni58+p Cu59 + e- Ni59 +p Cu60 + e- Ni59 + p Cu60 + e- - - - - - Cu63 + e-. All Cu isotopes in the range of Cu59 - Cu62 have relative short half-life. The longest half-life is that of Cu61 (3.3 hours). This is why Rossi's process needs quite some time to shut down. The fusion/transmutation chain stops at Cu63 because Cu63 is stable with an extreem long half-life. Protons (p) are provided by (absorbed) Hydrogen ions. Electrons (e-) are released due to Vibrationally Promoted Electron Emission (VPEE). The released energy is caused by two sources: 1. The emitted electrons e- (with very high kinetic energy, 5 - 8 MeV); the electrons are absorbed by the reactor wall causing eddy currents that are converted into heat due to resistance of that wall material. Those eddy currents also may be the cause of the extreemly high magnetic fields that have been observed (Defkalion). 2. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up. Some ballpark figures on the total energy generated and the amount of fuel involved: Assuming all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58 and finally all transmutted into Cu63: Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu. The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu. Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu. Delta mass is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu. 1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion 0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV. So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy. So, without further energy losses it requires 2 - 3 grams of Ni and approx. 0.2 grams of H2 to produce 10KW of heat over a 6 months period continuously.
[Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
One of the best developments that has come out of the H Cat open source developers movements has been finding the guys at thunderboltperformance.comhttp://www.thunderboltperformance.com/, which is a manufacturer of catalytic converters. They are extremely friendly to this idea of providing Cat reactors to experimenters, and have a lot of options they can offer us, including integrating different nano-metals in various combinations (e.g. Palladium, Platinum, Nickel), leaving off the insulation around the catalytic converter, embedding heat exchangers in the matrix. It's pretty much just a matter of pressing some buttons, and out comes the product type of E Cat you want. To get ours going, we just went with an off-the-shelf matrix combination of palladium and rhodium on a metal substrate (300 cells/inch) in a 4 (outer diameter) stainless steel pipe, with an extra 2.75 inches on the incoming side to place some ceramic insulation to prevent back-flash, and with no insulation around the catalytic converter. That was easy for them to make. He'll make those available for $100, and shipping was only around $14 from Florida. It would be easy for him to make this just Nickel, or Nickel and Palladium, or just Palladium; but would require a lead time of about a week or two; and he wasn't sure what the price would be for that kind of custom order. There no excuse to not get your E Cat experiments off the ground now. So writeup your reactor specs and get them in now.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
That is great! I have been thinking for a long time that catalytic converts should be used in cold fusion. They are engineered to be robust, and to expose all of the catalytic metal to the gas. Off the shelf hydrogen filters have been used to good effect. Hydrogen filter palladium is engineered to be robust. In this case, to withstand high loading without cracking. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
From: Jed Rothwell That is great! I have been thinking for a long time that catalytic converts should be used in cold fusion. They are engineered to be robust, and to expose all of the catalytic metal to the gas. Off the shelf hydrogen filters have been used to good effect. Hydrogen filter palladium is engineered to be robust. In this case, to withstand high loading without cracking. If the gain is really from LENR then it makes more sense to use hydrogen from a tank - there is no need for electrolysis and the risk of explosion from HHO. And no need for a very expensive hydrogen filter. And no need for oxygen either. Of course, many of the proponents think that HHO as a mixed gas is more potent than is the same amount of H2 from a tank, but that is not proved. A meaningful experiment to test for LENR would be an Arata - Cravens type of unpowered experiment with low pressure hydrogen filing a sealed catalytic converter (flushed of air so no combustion). Do you get a small temperature gain with no power input? Based on Cravens demo, there could be a significant thermal gain given the very large amount of catalyst in contact with H2.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sal e-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sa le-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessoriesh ash=item58a6d66d0avxp=mtr hash=item58a6d66d0avxp=mtr about $40 with free shipping.. From: Axil Axil He'll make those available for $100, and shipping was only around $14 from Florida.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sale-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessorieshash=item58a6d66d0avxp=mtr about $40 with free shipping What is good about the arrangement Axil described is the company will custom manufacture converters with different metals. They are extremely friendly to this idea of providing Cat reactors to experimenters, and have a lot of options they can offer us, including integrating different nano-metals in various combinations (e.g. Palladium, Platinum, Nickel) . . . That is much better than using off-the-shelf catalytic converters. The hard part is knowing what metals you want. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note
The hypothesis that I would like to see tested in the water cluster theory of cavitation. This idea goes as follows: Cavitation produces water clusters of H2O, H, and O atoms in various configurations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster Evanescent *surface plasmon polariton* nano - reactions will then produce over unity heat generation in the cat converter. If the solutions of water clusters are pre prepared via cavitation, addition types of nano-particles can be included in the colloid that from which the HHO is generated. Potassium carbonate would be a good addition to that colloid. Different nano-particle combination colloid mixtures could be tested that vary in particle micro/nano size and/or chemical composition; for example, single and multiple wall carbon nanotubes, and Bucky balls are a must to try. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed Rothwell That is great! I have been thinking for a long time that catalytic converts should be used in cold fusion. They are engineered to be robust, and to expose all of the catalytic metal to the gas. Off the shelf hydrogen filters have been used to good effect. Hydrogen filter palladium is engineered to be robust. In this case, to withstand high loading without cracking. If the gain is really from LENR then it makes more sense to use hydrogen from a tank - there is no need for electrolysis and the risk of explosion from HHO. And no need for a very expensive hydrogen filter. And no need for oxygen either. Of course, many of the proponents think that HHO as a mixed gas is more potent than is the same amount of H2 from a tank, but that is not proved. A meaningful experiment to test for LENR would be an Arata - Cravens type of unpowered experiment with low pressure hydrogen filing a sealed catalytic converter (flushed of air so no combustion). Do you get a small temperature gain with no power input? Based on Cravens demo, there could be a significant thermal gain given the very large amount of catalyst in contact with H2.
Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT
Someone at the conference informed me that they are recording it, and that Hadjichristos was a no-show. That's about all I have heard. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What if we live in a simulated reality?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4 It's sort of like minecraft and the simulator was seeded with the random number 42. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Blaze Spinnaker http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/is-the-universe-a-simulation.html?_r=0 This is a shallow rehash analysis in a way, at least for those of us who want to see further developments and insight in the Sim field, and considering the pedigree of Frenkel. He could have dug a bit deeper IMO. Forget a Universal sim and look at the more probable case. For instance, one twist which came up recently is the possibility that some, or many, individuals, can be living lives which are caught in their own personal neural simulation, but within the framework of a normal reality. This could be a natural thing - like karma, not requiring AI and so on. Or there could be minimal supervision. Think about the Bruce Willis character in the Shyamalan film Sixth Sense... you remember... the kick in the gut when the kid sez I see dead people and you realize he's talking about you. Another twist in the Sim vs Real dichotomy is highlighted in the neglected cult TV series Doll house (episode 10) where Echo, the Active (which is a euphemism for occasional psychic-prostitute, and more), becomes the vehicle for the potential immortality of a recently deceased, very wealthy client. This happenstance is fiction for now but actually a near-term technological reality - and it brings into focus the issue of wealth and mortality-morality in a most unusual way. Can we buy immortality - even if it is a Sim? In fact, isn't the sequential Sim preferable in many ways? Heck, we get tired of one beautiful body and the next one costs only a few hundred million more, no problem. Everyone is happy. Wealth is redistributed. What's wrong with this picture?
