[Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

The COP of the Fleischmann Pons Effect appears in two primary modes:

Barely Measurable (COP perhaps 10% or so over unity).

Obvious (COP frequently infinite and long-duration).

I've never seen a breakdown of the literature into these two categories,
yet it seems this is important for 2 reasons:

1) An infinite COP of long-duration  is something that true believers in
the current "theory" will have difficulty rationalizing away.

2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or
data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately
recorded merely by digital camera showing the event.

I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its
mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

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

 

Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI
Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be
confirmed).

 

If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP.

 

From: James Bowery 

 

1) An infinite COP of long-duration  is something that true believers in the
current "theory" will have difficulty rationalizing away.

 

2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or
data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately
recorded merely by digital camera showing the event.

 

I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its
mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

How expensive is it to replicate?


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf
>
>
>
> Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI
> Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be
> confirmed).
>
>
>
> If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP.
>
>
>
> *From:* James Bowery
>
>
>
> 1) An infinite COP of long-duration  is something that true believers in
> the current "theory" will have difficulty rationalizing away.
>
>
>
> 2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or
> data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately
> recorded merely by digital camera showing the event.
>
>
>
> I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
> starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
> positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its
> mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Alain Sepeda]

it looks like the evidence that proved Radium ?


2014-03-22 15:14 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene :

>  http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf
>
>
>
> Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI
> Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be
> confirmed).
>
>
>
> If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP.
>
>
>
> *From:* James Bowery
>
>
>
> 1) An infinite COP of long-duration  is something that true believers in
> the current "theory" will have difficulty rationalizing away.
>
>
>
> 2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or
> data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately
> recorded merely by digital camera showing the event.
>
>
>
> I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
> starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
> positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its
> mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

James,

The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in
its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive
catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could show a
steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing gain of 5
degrees - essentially for years. 

That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred, out-of-pocket dollars for
any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC, thermocouples and about a
square meter of space to spare. To actually burn the hydrogen is
counter-productive for proving gain.

From: James Bowery 

How expensive is it to replicate?
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf

Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5
months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that
needs to be confirmed).
If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at
infinite COP.

<>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:


> I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
> starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
> positions of power . . .
>

Who are these inquisitorial true believers?!? What constitutes "holding
power" in this field?

Note that Fleischmann made this point about low and high power 20 years ago.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

Caveat: 
There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC)
will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to
Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result,
based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. 

Once a particular brand, or type of CC has been identified as active, then
it would be significant if a half dozen experimenters - or possibly many
more-  were able to verify the ongoing thermal anomaly in different parts of
the US and the World - but all using unpowered experiments in the
Arata-to-Cravens tradition.

Essentially this kind of democratic experimental base - and hopefully a
positive end-result is was what A. Lomax was trying to do with his LENR
kits. I'm not sure how that went over, but it was probably doomed by
complexity and cost.

However, this type of CC demonstration would be more dramatic and cheaper,
since it gets away from deuterium and promises significant output. The CC
are mass-produced devices, coming from low wage suppliers, and there is
certainly no more efficient way to get large amount of catalytic transition
metals onto a ceramic support. 

In short, this could be a great opportunity for grass-root science to be
able to stuff a bit of experimental truth about LENR down the collective
throats of ivory tower skeptics... 
_

The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful
experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an
automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could
show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing
gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. 

That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred,
out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC,
thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn
the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain.

From: James Bowery 

How expensive is it to replicate?

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf 
Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite
COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it
going (that needs to be confirmed).
If true, this one has been ongoing for
almost 10 months at infinite COP.

<>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
>> starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
>> positions of power . . .
>>
>
> Who are these inquisitorial true believers?!? What constitutes "holding
> power" in this field?
>

Strange you should ask about the identity of the people you've been
fighting for decades.


>
> Note that Fleischmann made this point about low and high power 20 years
> ago.
>

They did not make the point about focusing on replicating infinite COP as
strategic "in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true
believers".

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> James,
>
> The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in
> its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive
> catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen


Don't you mean deuterium?

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a 
special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this 
special condition is created (I call the NAE)  no treatment will cause LENR. 
This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be 
concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry.  

Occasionally, this special condition is created in a material by chance, which 
produces the unreliable reproducibility. In contrast, Rossi has found a way to 
make this condition every time. Once an active material is created, it can be 
caused to make LENR many different ways, including simply by heating it in 
hydrogen gas (any isotope). Once the process starts, the rate can be increased 
using lasers, magnetic fields, increased temperature, and probably other ways 
not yet considered.

Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made 
active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does 
this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way 
to make it active, success will be based on chance. 

If people want to advance the field, they need to focus on how a material can 
be made active. What about the material has to change and what unique condition 
has to be created?  


Ed Storms


On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> Caveat: 
> There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC)
> will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to
> Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result,
> based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. 
> 
> Once a particular brand, or type of CC has been identified as active, then
> it would be significant if a half dozen experimenters - or possibly many
> more-  were able to verify the ongoing thermal anomaly in different parts of
> the US and the World - but all using unpowered experiments in the
> Arata-to-Cravens tradition.
> 
> Essentially this kind of democratic experimental base - and hopefully a
> positive end-result is was what A. Lomax was trying to do with his LENR
> kits. I'm not sure how that went over, but it was probably doomed by
> complexity and cost.
> 
> However, this type of CC demonstration would be more dramatic and cheaper,
> since it gets away from deuterium and promises significant output. The CC
> are mass-produced devices, coming from low wage suppliers, and there is
> certainly no more efficient way to get large amount of catalytic transition
> metals onto a ceramic support. 
> 
> In short, this could be a great opportunity for grass-root science to be
> able to stuff a bit of experimental truth about LENR down the collective
> throats of ivory tower skeptics... 
>   _
>   
>   The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful
> experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an
> automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could
> show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing
> gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. 
> 
>   That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred,
> out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC,
> thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn
> the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain.
> 
>   From: James Bowery 
>   
>   How expensive is it to replicate?
>   
> http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf 
>   Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite
> COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it
> going (that needs to be confirmed).
>   If true, this one has been ongoing for
> almost 10 months at infinite COP.
>   
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Jones etal--

SPIN IS THE CONTROLLING PARAMETER.

At page 3 of the Craven/Gimpel paper on their demonstrations at the NI 2013 
convention, they state the following:

>>"Notice the metal nano particles are held within 9 nm pores within carbon 
>>particles matched to the expected blackbody radiation.  Nano particles alone 
>>have lower energy of vacancy of formation than large bulk material because 
>>they are more >>surface -like than bulk-like.  However they are only a few 
>>hundred atoms.  If the reaction is deuterium going to helium, we expect 24 
>>Mev of energy to be released.  The energy holding most chemical bonds is only 
>>on the order of a few ev.  That >>means the reaction must "dump" energy to 
>>more than tens of millions of bonds or the reaction site would be destroyed.  
>>This is where the carbon framework comes in.  It provides a path for the 
>>energy out of the reaction that does not destroy the >>reaction site which 
>>would have limited the useful lifetime of the material."

Craven and Gimpel go on to point out the following:

>>"Also in side the sphere is powdered samarium cobalt.  This is to help align 
>>(actually anti-align) the spins of the deuterium.  A reaction pathway to 
>>helium-4-- i.e., tritium, neutrons, etc.-- without the anti-alignment 
>>pathway."<<

As I have often suggested, the control of the spin as a key parameter in 
getting the best controlled reaction without destruction of the metal lattice 
is very important.  These two researchers seem to understand this importance.  

In addition I think they have identified basically a two dimensional system as 
a key--the surface-like structure of the carbon particles--to encourage the 
reaction in the magnetic field.  As Axil has repeated many times, dimensional 
control of the reaction-- one versus two versus three--is well founded in other 
research that have considered local micro magnetic fields of significant 
magnitude.

Bob Cook


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:14 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE


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

   

  Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, 
and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed).

   

  If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP.

   

  From: James Bowery 

   

  1) An infinite COP of long-duration  is something that true believers in the 
current "theory" will have difficulty rationalizing away.

   

  2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or 
data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately recorded 
merely by digital camera showing the event.

   

  I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved 
field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power, 
it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its mode of infinite COP of 
long duration sans expensive measurement.

   

   

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

From: James Bowery 

The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful
experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an
automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen

Don't you mean deuterium? 

No - Not if you want to do this for lowest cost and especially to maximize
the number of experimenters who will participate (as a grass-roots effort).

Many experimenters have hydrogen tanks - not so many deuterium. 

Of course - there could be the possibility that deuterium gas would work
better than hydrogen gas, and that is more likely to be true if the CC being
used has more platinum than other catalytic metals. 

Apparently platinum works far better with deuterium than with protium- but
in the CC there is also less of it. Different CC use different mixes, but
almost none of them have much platinum due to its extreme cost. Iridium and
rhodium are more likely - and nickel. There are a number of experiments in
the literature where protium is more active than deuterium using the same
catalyst.

This probably gets down to trial and error at the start. The big question is
whether an inexpensive CC is available which works well with hydrogen. That
would be the first step towards putting together an experiment which dozens
of participants will be involved in. 

Deuterium would be a deal-breaker for a grass-roots effort.



<>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:


> Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made
> active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does
> this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a
> way to make it active, success will be based on chance.
>

I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic
converter technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who
make those cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision.
And because those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for
years. It is the ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion.

We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Alain Sepeda]

I agree that scientifically the affair is done since 1991-1992.

Since then there is effort to progress in reliability, intensity,
understanding...

the denial will only be resolved by mass adoption, of a working technology.

Turkey reality can only be proven on thanksgiving.

I know that LENR is accepted in top HQ, with some CTO of 50bn sales corps.

the rest is manipulation of the masses, by desperate oligarchy of science
and their minions.

Imagine how violent must be those minions to terrorize CTO of 50-100bn
sales international group.



2014-03-22 15:54 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
>
>> I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource
>> starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding
>> positions of power . . .
>>
>
> Who are these inquisitorial true believers?!? What constitutes "holding
> power" in this field?
>
> Note that Fleischmann made this point about low and high power 20 years
> ago.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

Getting Cravens AND Gimpel is a good idea.

Do you know where Gimpel lives in Washington.  He may be a neighbor of mine.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE


  Edmund Storms  wrote:

Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made 
active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does 
this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way 
to make it active, success will be based on chance.



  I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic converter 
technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who make those 
cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision. And because 
those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for years. It is the 
ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion.


  We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>  
> Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made 
> active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does 
> this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way 
> to make it active, success will be based on chance.
> 
> I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic converter 
> technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who make those 
> cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision. And because 
> those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for years. It is the 
> ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion.

I agree, the present technology for making catalysts would apply and could be 
used to make large amouns of active material. The challenge is to tell them 
what to do to the catalyst to make it active. 

This treatment can be very subtile. For example, the Case catalyst was made 
from a barrel of coconut charcoal. Once this source of charcoal was lost, new 
catalyst no longer worked. No one knows why.
> 
> We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project.

Based on what Cravens has said, he actually has no idea why his material works 
and could not tell a person how to make active material. If he can tell me how 
to do this, I can easily make and test such material. 

Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the 
require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
getting the right size is the problem.  This problem would be easy to solve 
once access to the right tools is possible. That access requires money combined 
with knowledge. That combination has not been achieved.

Ed Storms
> 
> - Jed
> 

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

Ed,

Sorry, but once again, you are only half-right. It is fairly clear to anyone
who is paying close attention that you fear and will lobby against positive
results from any kind of democratic experimental effort - since it will
further marginalize your own theory if successful.

Ed's theory is not incorrect... let me be clear on that. 

But he has "fallen in love" with an incomplete theory, which was one of Fred
Sparber's fundamental warnings: never fall in love with your own theory to
the exclusion of all others.

Moreover, Ed's theory applies to only one of many gainful hydrogen reactions
in LENR. That is what he does not want to be revealed. 

Experimenters will be able to see gain in LENR with or without Ed's theory.
It may not even be among the top tier theories for gain, but it is relevant
to some extent, and should not be ignored.

It is as simple as that. I would hate to see any kind of meaningful
open-sourced effort disparaged before it gets off the ground... assuming of
course - that there is a CC which works well with hydrogen in an unpowered
mode... the hidden motivation for negativity is rather transparent.


-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a
special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this
special condition is created (I call the NAE)  no treatment will cause LENR.
This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be
concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry

[Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[James Bowery]

I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.

This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
religious and political circles.

To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is
more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:

http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml

On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
"decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
costs rationally you go out of business in short order.

Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.

In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
"knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
"tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
experience, then they are not "true believers".

So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of
physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?

Simple:

The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ Fleischmann
and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" and/or
"delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by the
true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as
a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental
evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to
fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.

Re: [Vo]:2014 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT

[Steve High]

Greetings from the MIT colloquium. As far as I know I may be the only Vortex 
follower here so I will provide updates as long as my iPhone battery holds out
  Saturday morning started with Dr Ahern. He presented the bittersweet tale 
of a garage tinkerer from New Hampshire who called him up to evaluate a 
nanopowder powerpack the guy built and installed in the trunk of his  electric 
car. Ahern measured it and found to his satisfaction that the car's electric 
battery was being recharged continuously by this device which was also able to 
power a sixty watt lightbulb for six consecutive days while still adding to the 
net charge on the batteries. End of story: the tinkerer calls Ahern to say he 
wants to give Ahern the device but two days later collapses into a vegetative 
state with a brain aneurysm. Ahern goes to pickup the device only to find that 
the tinkerer has diassembled it into meaningless parts. Where have we heard 
this story before? I guess I'll add it to my MU (mysterious universe) file

Steve High

On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I get Vortex 
> postinghttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92048.html. See:
> 
> http://www.amasci.com/weird/wvort.html
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note

[Kevin O'Malley]

I know what metals I want, but I don't know how to get ahold of monoatomic
hydrogen gas.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sale-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item58a6d66d0a&vxp=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

[Kevin O'Malley]

Not for sale in California.

Well, that sucks... for me.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sale-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item58a6d66d0a&vxp=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]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant descriptions of 
what you think I believe.

 My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. It is a 
simple description of what has been observed by hundreds of experiments. You 
are free to accept this experience or not, that is your choice. Nevertheless, 
please understand what you are doing. 

I'm not and never have disparaged any effort. However, a great deal of 
experience has shown what works and what does not. Why ignore this experience? 
Why keep trying things that are known not to work? Why keep reinventing the 
wheel just because you don't like my "theory".

You are a smart man and I'm at a loss why you cannot understand such simple 
concepts and respond to my comments accurately.

Ed Storms


On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> Ed,
> 
> Sorry, but once again, you are only half-right. It is fairly clear to anyone
> who is paying close attention that you fear and will lobby against positive
> results from any kind of democratic experimental effort - since it will
> further marginalize your own theory if successful.
> 
> Ed's theory is not incorrect... let me be clear on that. 
> 
> But he has "fallen in love" with an incomplete theory, which was one of Fred
> Sparber's fundamental warnings: never fall in love with your own theory to
> the exclusion of all others.
> 
> Moreover, Ed's theory applies to only one of many gainful hydrogen reactions
> in LENR. That is what he does not want to be revealed. 
> 
> Experimenters will be able to see gain in LENR with or without Ed's theory.
> It may not even be among the top tier theories for gain, but it is relevant
> to some extent, and should not be ignored.
> 
> It is as simple as that. I would hate to see any kind of meaningful
> open-sourced effort disparaged before it gets off the ground... assuming of
> course - that there is a CC which works well with hydrogen in an unpowered
> mode... the hidden motivation for negativity is rather transparent.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms 
> 
> Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a
> special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this
> special condition is created (I call the NAE)  no treatment will cause LENR.
> This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be
> concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note

[Axil Axil]

Install an electric arc or spark plug in one or both ends of the closed and
pressure sealed catalytic converter and proceed to spark as required.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> I know what metals I want, but I don't know how to get ahold of monoatomic
> hydrogen gas.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Catalytic-Converter-by-Eastern-not-for-sale-in-California-70249-/380756192522?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item58a6d66d0a&vxp=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
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Steve High]

The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey. Ruby 
Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings. Curiously 
Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken, leaving a void 
as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned. Celani had two 
interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the fiberglass insulators 
he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to tremendously augment the 
anomalous heat output based on the observation that glass seems to be able to 
sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way that makes it more available to the 
constantan. He also mentioned that his Boss completely terminated funding for 
his CF research last fall but that an angel jumped in and he's back in the 
saddle at least for now

Steve High

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Caveat:
> There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC)
> will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to
> Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result,
> based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated.

When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they
thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC.  They kindly
explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and
loading and liquids.  Patted me on the head politely and sent me
along.

Amusing, innit?

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note

[Jones Beene]

From: Kevin 

 

I know what metals I want, but I don't know how to get ahold of monoatomic
hydrogen gas.

 

The nature of any "spillover" catalyst, and any CC is loaded with them, is
to convert H2 into monatomic nuclei. It will not be a gas per se, but proton
will attach to the catalyst. 

 

BTW - the California-legal CC costs more but is more active. 

 

You can get one for less than $100 on eBay.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 

> Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant
descriptions of what you think I believe.

>From my perspective, arrogance was not intended- and if seen, then it must
have been a result of mirroring of the initial comment, which as you may
recall began with an what can be called a rather arrogant belittlement of a
proposed experiment that does not fit into someone's own pet theory.

> My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. 

LOL. Sure fooled me.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Alain Sepeda]

does anybody know who is the angel?



2014-03-22 18:05 GMT+01:00 Steve High :

> The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey.
> Ruby Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings.
> Curiously Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken,
> leaving a void as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned.
> Celani had two interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the
> fiberglass insulators he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to
> tremendously augment the anomalous heat output based on the observation
> that glass seems to be able to sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way
> that makes it more available to the constantan. He also mentioned that his
> Boss completely terminated funding for his CF research last fall but that
> an angel jumped in and he's back in the saddle at least for now
>
> Steve High
>

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Steve High]

On Friday we had Dr Yasuhiro Iwamura. He's sucking deuterium gas through a 
membrane containing palladium and a surface splotching of other elements lets 
say cobalt. After the run he can demonstrate the presence of other elements 
four eight or twelve atomic numbers above said cobalt, depending on the number 
of deuterons added. No word yet on a trial using an element with an atomic 
number 4 8 or twelve under that of gold

Steve High

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Steve High  wrote:

> The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey. Ruby 
> Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings. Curiously 
> Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken, leaving a 
> void as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned. Celani had two 
> interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the fiberglass 
> insulators he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to tremendously 
> augment the anomalous heat output based on the observation that glass seems 
> to be able to sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way that makes it more 
> available to the constantan. He also mentioned that his Boss completely 
> terminated funding for his CF research last fall but that an angel jumped in 
> and he's back in the saddle at least for now
> 
> Steve High

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
> Caveat:
> There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC)
will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to
Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result,
based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated.

When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they
thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC.  They kindly
explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and
loading and liquids.  Patted me on the head politely and sent me
along Amusing, innit?


Cough... cough. In an alternative Universe, you went ahead and tried it
anyway. It was a great success. You became rich and famous. The world did
not need oil anymore and the price dropped in half. We did not go to war in
the Middle East for oil. 9/11 never happened. And vortex became the home of
nutters who thought LENR was too expensive.
<>

RE: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Jones Beene]

A good guess would be STM. He mentions them often.

 

From: Alain Sepeda

 

does anybody know who is the angel?

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at
> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways,
> but getting the right size is the problem.
>
> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
sizes?

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Let me say this again as simply and as unambiguously as possible. LENR has been 
studied for 24 years. Hundreds of papers describing the behavior and the 
required conditions have been published. This data set shows what is required 
and what does not work. My comments are not a theory. I'm simply describing 
what has been discovered. Based on reading this experience, I can say with 
absolute certainty that LENR requires a special condition to form in a material 
before it can be initiated. What that special condition is can be called a 
theory but that a special condition is required is not a theory. 

No study will be successful or useful unless that special condition forms. That 
condition forms by chance on some occasions. Anyone attempting to study LENR 
needs to discover how to make this change occur. If the field is to advance, 
people need to focus on this problem.  Simply testing a variety of materials is 
useful but it is a poor way to find what works. I'm suggesting that people 
actually be guided by what has been done, not try any crazy idea that might be 
suggested. 

Yes, I know you do not believe the NAE exists, Jones. You believe the treatment 
is the important variable, not the material itself. That is fair, but please 
keep the discussion focused on this difference of opinion and not wonder into 
what else you think I believe or not.


Ed Storms


On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms 
> 
>> Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant
> descriptions of what you think I believe.
> 
> From my perspective, arrogance was not intended- and if seen, then it must
> have been a result of mirroring of the initial comment, which as you may
> recall began with an what can be called a rather arrogant belittlement of a
> proposed experiment that does not fit into someone's own pet theory.
> 
>> My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. 
> 
> LOL. Sure fooled me.
> 
> Jones
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Terry, you need to now that Arata explored many sources of palladium black 
before be found one that worked. He never revealed his source or what made the 
particular batch active.  Dissociation, loading and liquids are not the 
essential requirements.  An essential requirement exists in a material, but the 
nature of that critical condition is being debated.  

Ed Srorms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> Caveat:
>> There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC)
>> will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to
>> Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result,
>> based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated.
> 
> When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they
> thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC.  They kindly
> explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and
> loading and liquids.  Patted me on the head politely and sent me
> along.
> 
> Amusing, innit?
> 

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Bob Cook]

Alain and Jones--

I thought of STM also.  I own 1000 shares of that stock even though it is 
Swiss..

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:27 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:MIT colloquium


  A good guess would be STM. He mentions them often.

   

  From: Alain Sepeda

   

  does anybody know who is the angel?

   

   

   

RE: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Steve:
Just want to thank you, as I think all Vorts do, for providing the updates
from MIT...
The 150 attendance is good to see... 
B Well,
-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:05 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey. Ruby
Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings. Curiously
Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken, leaving a
void as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned. Celani had
two interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the fiberglass
insulators he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to tremendously
augment the anomalous heat output based on the observation that glass seems
to be able to sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way that makes it more
available to the constantan. He also mentioned that his Boss completely
terminated funding for his CF research last fall but that an angel jumped in
and he's back in the saddle at least for now

Steve High

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

There, there... Terry 
  
It's all gonna be ok...
:-)

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Caveat:
> There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter 
> (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, 
> similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation 
> of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is
easily demonstrated.

When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they thought it
was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC.  They kindly explained to the
naive newcomer that it required dissociation and loading and liquids.
Patted me on the head politely and sent me along.

Amusing, innit?

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

James--

I agree.  In fact that may be desirable to make a metal lattice with differing 
size voids so that close by reactions do not damage the overall lattice by 
adding too much heat in one spot.  I other words designing the lattice with a 
low percentage of potentially active voids.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: James Bowery 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE







  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:



Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
getting the right size is the problem. 


  Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes? 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size 
in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give 
enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the 
occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites.  However, 
these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and 
skill are not common.

 Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief times, 
but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random 
event. 

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> 
> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the 
> require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
> getting the right size is the problem.
> 
> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes? 
> 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[hohlr...@gmail.com]

- Reply message -
From: "Jones Beene" 
To: 
Subject: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Date: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 1:26 PM

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
> Caveat:
> There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC)
will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to
Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result,
based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated.

When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they
thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC.  They kindly
explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and
loading and liquids.  Patted me on the head politely and sent me
along Amusing, innit?


Cough... cough. In an alternative Universe, you went ahead and tried it
anyway. It was a great success. You became rich and famous. The world did
not need oil anymore and the price dropped in half. We did not go to war in
the Middle East for oil. 9/11 never happened. And vortex became the home of
nutters who thought LENR was too expensive.

This calls for a QUANTUM JUMP!

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Steve High]

Angel described as a private financier. No word on wings

Steve High

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> does anybody know who is the angel?
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-22 18:05 GMT+01:00 Steve High :
>> The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey. Ruby 
>> Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings. Curiously 
>> Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken, leaving a 
>> void as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned. Celani had 
>> two interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the fiberglass 
>> insulators he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to tremendously 
>> augment the anomalous heat output based on the observation that glass seems 
>> to be able to sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way that makes it more 
>> available to the constantan. He also mentioned that his Boss completely 
>> terminated funding for his CF research last fall but that an angel jumped in 
>> and he's back in the saddle at least for now
>> 
>> Steve High
> 

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Steve High]

First Saturday afternoon presenter was Mizuno being represented by a young 
Japanese scientist. Their reactor : nickle mesh surface prepped by exposure to 
plasma discharge. Reactor consists of prepped nickel mesh heated by resistance 
with pressurized deuterium gas. The device able to measure the composition of 
gases by atomic number in real time. Results: 1) excess heat as soon as 
deuterium pumped in ie no loading needed. 2) 75 watts excess heat over thirty 
five days. 3) gas composition monitored during run (as atomic number): 4 (D 2) 
progressively decreased 3 (?tritium- they couldn't say) rose and fell as an 
intermediate product,  2 (that would be H2 or atomic D) rose as the final 
product. How does that fit in, smart dudes?

Steve High

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:41 PM, "MarkI-ZeroPoint"  wrote:

> Steve:
> Just want to thank you, as I think all Vorts do, for providing the updates
> from MIT...
> The 150 attendance is good to see... 
> B Well,
> -Mark Iverson
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:05 AM
> To: Vortex
> Subject: [Vo]:MIT colloquium
> 
> The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey. Ruby
> Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings. Curiously
> Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken, leaving a
> void as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned. Celani had
> two interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the fiberglass
> insulators he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to tremendously
> augment the anomalous heat output based on the observation that glass seems
> to be able to sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way that makes it more
> available to the constantan. He also mentioned that his Boss completely
> terminated funding for his CF research last fall but that an angel jumped in
> and he's back in the saddle at least for now
> 
> Steve High
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate
the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right
> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will
> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to
> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active
> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably
> because the tools and skill are not common.
>
>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result,
> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief
> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather
> than a random event.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at
>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways,
>> but getting the right size is the problem.
>>
>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
> sizes?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and 
that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but 
it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and 
give absolute values for power.  No need exists to reinvent. 

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment 
> with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference 
> economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate the voltage 
> out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material 
> from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount 
> of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization.  This is 
> not an expensive device.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably 
> because the tools and skill are not common.
> 
>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief times, 
> but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a 
> random event. 
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the 
>> require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
>> getting the right size is the problem.
>> 
>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
>> sizes? 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.

Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the
cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to
getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
significant degree.

Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust
> and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the
> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to
> reinvent.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate
> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
> treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
> provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
> pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right
>> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will
>> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to
>> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active
>> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably
>> because the tools and skill are not common.
>>
>>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result,
>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief
>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather
>> than a random event.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at
>>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways,
>>> but getting the right size is the problem.
>>>
>>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
>> sizes?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
tritium:

Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of
crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary
cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made
economical?


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
>
> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the
> cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to
> getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
> significant degree.
>
> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can
>> trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
>> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the
>> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to
>> reinvent.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
>> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
>> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate
>> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
>> treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
>> provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
>> pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the
>>> right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
>>> size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium
>>> is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using
>>> fewer active sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often,
>>> probably because the tools and skill are not common.
>>>
>>>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a
>>> result, production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for
>>> brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening
>>> rather than a random event.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these
 at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different
 ways, but getting the right size is the problem.

 Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
>>> sizes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic 
associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack population.  
Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.

Bob 
From: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size 
in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give 
enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the 
occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites.  However, 
these methods hav e not been used very often, probably because the tools and 
skill are not common. 

Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief times, 
but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random 
event. 

Ed Stormss 

On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:






  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:


Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
getting the right size is the problem. 


  Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes? 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

So am I. A person gets what they pay for. It proves nothing if a person claims 
to see heat using a method that no one will accept as showing excess energy no 
matter how cheap the method. That has been a major problem in getting LENR 
accepted in the first place.  If heating power is sought, it MUST be measured 
with accuracy and confidence no matter the cost. On the other hand, radiation 
is easy to measure with confidence and very cheeply. However, this requires a 
change in attitude, which is not easy.

Ed Storms




On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:56 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
> 
> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the 
> cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting 
> a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant 
> degree.
> 
> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust 
> and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job 
> much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to reinvent. 
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control 
>> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
>> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate 
>> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated 
>> material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a 
>> small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure 
>> equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
>> wrote:
>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
>> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
>> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
>> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
>> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably 
>> because the tools and skill are not common.
>> 
>>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief 
>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than 
>> a random event. 
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
>>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, 
>>> but getting the right size is the problem.
>>> 
>>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
>>> sizes? 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to 
convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation 
metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many 
people if they wish. 

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium:
> 
> Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens 
> style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, 
> and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on 
> the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made economical?
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
> 
> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the 
> cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting 
> a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant 
> degree.
> 
> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust 
> and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job 
> much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to reinvent. 
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control 
>> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
>> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate 
>> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated 
>> material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a 
>> small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure 
>> equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
>> wrote:
>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
>> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
>> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
>> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
>> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably 
>> because the tools and skill are not common.
>> 
>>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief 
>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than 
>> a random event. 
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
>>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, 
>>> but getting the right size is the problem.
>>> 
>>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
>>> sizes? 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

[Vo]:Re: MIT colloquium

[Steve High]

Nikita Alexandrov. Looks to be 27 and president of permanetixcorp. Has a scheme 
for mass screening of sputtered potential LENR materials. His company has a 
device that can be placed inside a reaction vessel to capture in real time soft 
ionizing radiation. Take home: exactly the kind of young dude that LENR needs 

Steve High

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Steve High  wrote:

> The event is well attended. I would estimate 150 heads about 90 % grey. Ruby 
> Carat and Alien Scientist are here recording the proceedings. Curiously 
> Hadjichristos was on the agenda but his name has been stricken, leaving a 
> void as far as the "kilowatt output" performers are concerned. Celani had two 
> interesting things to say. He's finding evidence that the fiberglass 
> insulators he's wrapping around his constantan wires seem to tremendously 
> augment the anomalous heat output based on the observation that glass seems 
> to be able to sequester hydrogen on its surface in a way that makes it more 
> available to the constantan. He also mentioned that his Boss completely 
> terminated funding for his CF research last fall but that an angel jumped in 
> and he's back in the saddle at least for now
> 
> Steve High

Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their 
function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to the 
crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can find an 
explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf.

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:

> Ed--
>  
> Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic 
> associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack population. 
>  Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.
>  
> Bob
> From: Edmund Storms
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>  
> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
> sites.  However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably 
> because the tools and skill are not common.
>  
> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief times, 
> but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a 
> random event.
>  
> Ed Stormss 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
>> wrote:
>>  
>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the 
>> require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
>> getting the right size is the problem.
>> 
>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
>>  
> 
>  

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide
distribution of crack sizes?



On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is
> to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation
> metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many
> people if they wish.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
> tritium:
>
> Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
> Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of
> crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary
> cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made
> economical?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
>>
>> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping
>> the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to
>> getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
>> significant degree.
>>
>> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can
>>> trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
>>> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the
>>> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to
>>> reinvent.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
>>> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
>>> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate
>>> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
>>> treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
>>> provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
>>> pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the
 right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
 size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium
 is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using
 fewer active sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often,
 probably because the tools and skill are not common.

  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a
 result, production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for
 brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening
 rather than a random event.

 Ed Storms

 On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:




 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

>
> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these
> at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different
> ways, but getting the right size is the problem.
>
> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
 sizes?



>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge 
literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how 
this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that 
address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to 
your question is not easy to supply.

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide 
> distribution of crack sizes?
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to 
> convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation 
> metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many 
> people if they wish. 
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with 
>> tritium:
>> 
>> Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens 
>> style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack 
>> sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost 
>> constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made 
>> economical?
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
>> 
>> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the 
>> cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting 
>> a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant 
>> degree.
>> 
>> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
>> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust 
>> and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
>> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the 
>> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to 
>> reinvent. 
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control 
>>> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
>>> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate 
>>> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the 
>>> treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that 
>>> provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for 
>>> pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
>>> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
>>> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
>>> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
>>> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably 
>>> because the tools and skill are not common.
>>> 
>>>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
>>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief 
>>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather 
>>> than a random event. 
>>> 
>>> Ed Storms
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>> 
 
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
 
 Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
 the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, 
 but getting the right size is the problem.
 
 Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
 sizes? 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:

A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat
(very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such
cracks of course).

This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates
different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.

Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with
scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single
sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a
> huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials
> and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my
> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of
> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide
> distribution of crack sizes?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is
>> to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation
>> metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many
>> people if they wish.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
>> tritium:
>>
>> Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
>> Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of
>> crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary
>> cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made
>> economical?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
>>>
>>> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping
>>> the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to
>>> getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
>>> significant degree.
>>>
>>> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
 James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can
 trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
 demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the
 job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to
 reinvent.

 Ed Storms

 On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:

 If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
 experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
 difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate
 the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
 treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
 provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
 pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.


 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the
> right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
> size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium
> is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using
> fewer active sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often,
> probably because the tools and skill are not common.
>
>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a
> result, production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for
> brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening
> rather than a random event.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these
>> at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different
>> ways, but getting the right size is the problem.
>>
>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of
> crack sizes?
>
>
>


>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is 
the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but I can 
not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky 
sometimes.

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
> 
> A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very 
> low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks 
> of course).
> 
> This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates 
> different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
> 
> Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with 
> scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single 
> sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a 
> huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and 
> how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my 
> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of 
> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide 
>> distribution of crack sizes?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
>> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to 
>> convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation 
>> metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many 
>> people if they wish. 
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with 
>>> tritium:
>>> 
>>> Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a 
>>> Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of 
>>> crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary 
>>> cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made 
>>> economical?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
>>> 
>>> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the 
>>> cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to 
>>> getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically 
>>> significant degree.
>>> 
>>> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust 
>>> and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
>>> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the 
>>> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to 
>>> reinvent. 
>>> 
>>> Ed Storms
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>> 
 If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control 
 experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
 difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate 
 the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the 
 treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that 
 provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for 
 pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
 Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
 size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size 
 will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is 
 used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer 
 active sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, 
 probably because the tools and skill are not common.
 
  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
 production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief 
 times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather 
 than a random event. 
 
 Ed Storms
 
 On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
> wrote:
> 
> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different 
> ways, but getting the right size is the problem.
> 
> Might there be a technique

Re:[Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[a.ashfield]

Someone asked about crack formation.  What work I have done was to 
prevent them rather than make them.


Basically you heat the object up and then cool the surface sufficiently 
rapidly that a tensile stress is created that exceeds the tensile 
strength of the material.  Much easier to do with non ductile materials 
like glass.
Glass is rather strange.  Even if you make a crack free surface, contact 
with anything from dust to say touching with a paper handkerchief will 
cause cracks.  A typical glass tumbler has 70,000 cracks per sq.cm.  So 
polishing might also be a method.

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Ed,

The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks
are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack
theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble
transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are
probably quite different species.
Peter


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that
> is the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but
> I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get
> lucky sometimes.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
>
> A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat
> (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such
> cracks of course).
>
> This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates
> different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
>
> Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with
> scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single
> sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However,
>> a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials
>> and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my
>> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of
>> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide
>> distribution of crack sizes?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way
>>> is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the
>>> scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of
>>> time by many people if they wish.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
>>> tritium:
>>>
>>> Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
>>> Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of
>>> crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary
>>> cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made
>>> economical?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.

 Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping
 the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to
 getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
 significant degree.

 Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.


 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can
> trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the
> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to
> reinvent.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate
> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
> treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
> provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
> pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  > wrote:
>
>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the
>> right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
>> size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or 
>> tritium
>> is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using
>> fewer active sites.  However, these methods have not been used very 
>> often,
>> probably because the tools and skill are not common.
>>
>>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a
>> result, production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for
>> brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.

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


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

>  Someone asked about crack formation.  What work I have done was to
> prevent them rather than make them.
>
> Basically you heat the object up and then cool the surface sufficiently
> rapidly that a tensile stress is created that exceeds the tensile strength
> of the material.  Much easier to do with non ductile materials like glass.
> Glass is rather strange.  Even if you make a crack free surface, contact
> with anything from dust to say touching with a paper handkerchief will
> cause cracks.  A typical glass tumbler has 70,000 cracks per sq.cm.  So
> polishing might also be a method.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Axil Axil]

There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be
produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than
the way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust
at it.



Rossi produces NAE with his "mouse" which is a nano-particle generator.
Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates.
These arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They
enclose countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE.



Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate:



http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg



Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally through
electrostatic processes.



When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the micro
particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the dust
bunnies.



I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It
would be better for LENR if he did.












On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their
> function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to
> the crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can
> find an explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>   Ed--
>
> Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic
> associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack
> population.  Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.
>
> Bob
>  *From:* Edmund Storms 
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>
> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right
> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will
> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to
> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active
> sites.  However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably
> because the tools and skill are not common.
>
> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result,
> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief
> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather
> than a random event.
>
> Ed Stormss
>  On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>>   Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these
>> at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different
>> ways, but getting the right size is the problem.
>>
>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
> sizes?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Perter, what you say is not true based on my understanding. Cracks can be made 
stable. However, LENR does have a lifetime problem that will limit the upper 
temperature and/or the time before the active material has to replaced.

Yes, I know that some people including yourself think PdD and NiH are 
different. I have no proof at this time, but I prefer to believe that Nature 
does not have more than one mechanism to initiate nuclear reactions in a 
material. 

I also can identify the requirements a mechanism must met in order not to 
violate accepted natural law and present observations.  So far, I see no reason 
for PdD and NiH to be different. I'm waiting for someone to look for deuterium 
and tritium production in the NiH system and report the result in a way that 
can be understood and evaulated. So far, we only have personal comments.

Ed Storms


On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:

> Dear Ed,
> 
> The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks 
> are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack 
> theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble 
> transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are 
> probably quite different species.
> Peter 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is 
> the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but I can 
> not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky 
> sometimes.
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
>> 
>> A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat 
>> (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such 
>> cracks of course).
>> 
>> This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates 
>> different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
>> 
>> Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with 
>> scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single 
>> sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
>> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a 
>> huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials 
>> and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my 
>> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of 
>> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide 
>>> distribution of crack sizes?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is 
>>> to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation 
>>> metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many 
>>> people if they wish. 
>>> 
>>> Ed Storms
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>> 
 Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with 
 tritium:
 
 Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a 
 Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of 
 crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary 
 cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made 
 economical?
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
 Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
 
 Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the 
 cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to 
 getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically 
 significant degree.
 
 Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
 James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust 
 and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
 demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the 
 job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to 
 reinvent. 
 
 Ed Storms
 
 On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
 
> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control 
> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just 
> integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall 
> sepa

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Axil Axil]

 Regarding this post:

There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be
produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than
the way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust
at it.



Rossi produces NAE with his "mouse" which is a nano-particle generator.
Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates.
These arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They
enclose countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE.



Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate:



http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg



Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally through
electrostatic processes.



When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the micro
particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the dust
bunnies.


I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It
would be better for LENR if he did.


Here is the reference that describes the EMF forces that Rossi uses to
produce dust bunnies:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063030/fulltext/


In general, any process that can increase a dusty plasma will result in
LENR when properly utilized (i.e. use with 5 micron nickel micro particles)












On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Perter, what you say is not true based on my understanding. Cracks can be
> made stable. However, LENR does have a lifetime problem that will limit the
> upper temperature and/or the time before the active material has to
> replaced.
>
> Yes, I know that some people including yourself think PdD and NiH are
> different. I have no proof at this time, but I prefer to believe that
> Nature does not have more than one mechanism to initiate nuclear reactions
> in a material.
>
> I also can identify the requirements a mechanism must met in order not to
> violate accepted natural law and present observations.  So far, I see no
> reason for PdD and NiH to be different. I'm waiting for someone to look for
> deuterium and tritium production in the NiH system and report the result in
> a way that can be understood and evaulated. So far, we only have personal
> comments.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks
> are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack
> theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble
> transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are
> probably quite different species.
> Peter
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that
>> is the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but
>> I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get
>> lucky sometimes.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
>>
>> A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat
>> (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such
>> cracks of course).
>>
>> This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates
>> different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
>>
>> Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with
>> scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single
>> sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However,
>>> a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials
>>> and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my
>>> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of
>>> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide
>>> distribution of crack sizes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
 Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way
 is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the
 scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of
 time by many people if they wish.

 Ed Storms

 On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:

 Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
 tritium:

 Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
 Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range

Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Axil, how do you know how I produce the NAE. I do not know this and neither of 
us knows how Rossi does this.  Your guesses are not useful.  

I can comprehend the process you describe. I just do not believe it. Do you see 
the difference? 

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be produced 
> in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than the way Ed 
> Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust at it.
>  
> Rossi produces NAE with his “mouse” which is a nano-particle generator. 
> Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates. These 
> arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They enclose 
> countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE.
>  
> Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate:
>  
> http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg
>  
> Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally through 
> electrostatic processes.  
>  
> When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the micro 
> particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the dust 
> bunnies.
>  
> I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It 
> would be better for LENR if he did.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their 
> function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to the 
> crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can find 
> an explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf.
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
> 
>> Ed--
>>  
>> Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic 
>> associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack 
>> population.  Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.
>>  
>> Bob
>> From: Edmund Storms
>> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Cc: Edmund Storms
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>>  
>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
>> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
>> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
>> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
>> sites.  However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably 
>> because the tools and skill are not common.
>>  
>> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief 
>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than 
>> a random event.
>>  
>> Ed Stormss 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
>>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, 
>>> but getting the right size is the problem.
>>> 
>>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
>>> sizes?
>>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Alain Sepeda]

beyond cracks , maybe is there some topological defect, longitudinal
defects, crystallographic-phase change planes...

is there document about hydroton.

naively among possibilities I imagine a circular hydroton ring and thing
about a superconductor.. to explain magnetic fields.
maybe stupid...


2014-03-22 22:12 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck :

> Dear Ed,
>
> The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks
> are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack
> theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble
> transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are
> probably quite different species.
> Peter
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that
>> is the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but
>> I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get
>> lucky sometimes.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
>>
>> A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat
>> (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such
>> cracks of course).
>>
>> This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates
>> different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
>>
>> Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with
>> scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single
>> sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However,
>>> a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials
>>> and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my
>>> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of
>>> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide
>>> distribution of crack sizes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
 Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way
 is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the
 scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of
 time by many people if they wish.

 Ed Storms

 On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:

 Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with
 tritium:

 Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a
 Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of
 crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary
 cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made
 economical?


 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
>
> Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping
> the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to
> getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically
> significant degree.
>
> Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:
>
>> James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can
>> trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice
>> demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the
>> job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to
>> reinvent.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control
>> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature
>> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just 
>> integrate
>> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the
>> treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that
>> provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for
>> pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <
>> stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the
>>> right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
>>> size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiati

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[a.ashfield]

James Bowery 
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22> 
Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700 
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322>



 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.


Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous 
metal - if it behaves like glass.
I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium 
electrodes was one of the keys.

Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if the 
material is not too ductile, just the
formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with the 
ball mill might be one possibility.

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Alain, you can find the description of the Hydroton at

http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-monday-july-22/
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf

Ed Storms

On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

> beyond cracks , maybe is there some topological defect, longitudinal defects, 
> crystallographic-phase change planes...
> 
> is there document about hydroton.
> 
> naively among possibilities I imagine a circular hydroton ring and thing 
> about a superconductor.. to explain magnetic fields.
> maybe stupid...
> 
> 
> 2014-03-22 22:12 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck :
> Dear Ed,
> 
> The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks 
> are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack 
> theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble 
> transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are 
> probably quite different species.
> Peter 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is 
> the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but I can 
> not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky 
> sometimes.
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for:
>> 
>> A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat 
>> (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such 
>> cracks of course).
>> 
>> This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates 
>> different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.
>> 
>> Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with 
>> scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single 
>> sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
>> I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a 
>> huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials 
>> and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my 
>> collection that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of 
>> study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply.
>> 
>> Ed Storms
>> 
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide 
>>> distribution of crack sizes?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms  
>>> wrote:
>>> Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is 
>>> to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation 
>>> metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many 
>>> people if they wish. 
>>> 
>>> Ed Storms
>>> 
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>> 
 Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with 
 tritium:
 
 Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a 
 Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of 
 crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary 
 cost constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made 
 economical?
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
 Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost.
 
 Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the 
 cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to 
 getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically 
 significant degree.
 
 Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
 James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust 
 and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
 demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the 
 job much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to 
 reinvent. 
 
 Ed Storms
 
 On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
 
> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control 
> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
> difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just 
> integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall 
> separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common 
> vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the 
> chambers for pressure equalization.  This is not an expensive device.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms  
> wrote:
> Yes,

Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Axil Axil]

Yes, a guess but a good guess. Rossi's mouse is stimulating the "Cat" with
something that floats on a hydrogen gas current and whose production is
controlled through the application of heat.

Rossi solved his control problem by separating dust bunnies production in
one unit that has a very low Q and is not subject to  run away
reaction; independent of  a very reactive high Q unit (the Cat) that is
essentially supercritical.  The Cat just consumes these dust particles
vigorously, but this stage cannot produce dust bunnies to cause a positive
feedback runaway reaction through a direct thermal connection.

It is so obvious and so simple.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Axil, how do you know how I produce the NAE. I do not know this and
> neither of us knows how Rossi does this.  Your guesses are not useful.
>
> I can comprehend the process you describe. I just do not believe it. Do
> you see the difference?
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be
> produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than
> the way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust
> at it.
>
>
> Rossi produces NAE with his "mouse" which is a nano-particle generator.
> Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates.
> These arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They
> enclose countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE.
>
>
> Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate:
>
>
> http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg
>
>
> Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally
> through electrostatic processes.
>
>
> When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the micro
> particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the dust
> bunnies.
>
>
> I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It
> would be better for LENR if he did.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their
>> function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to
>> the crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can
>> find an explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf
>> .
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>>
>>   Ed--
>>
>> Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic
>> associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack
>> population.  Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.
>>
>> Bob
>>  *From:* Edmund Storms 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Cc:* Edmund Storms 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>>
>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right
>> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will
>> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to
>> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active
>> sites.  However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably
>> because the tools and skill are not common.
>>
>> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result,
>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief
>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather
>> than a random event.
>>
>> Ed Stormss
>>  On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>   Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these
>>> at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different
>>> ways, but getting the right size is the problem.
>>>
>>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
>> sizes?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Axil Axil]

More...

The Rossi reaction is a two step operation where the "mouse" produces NAEs
and the "Cat" consumes these NAEs that are mobile one currents of hydrogen.

How else can it work???


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Yes, a guess but a good guess. Rossi's mouse is stimulating the "Cat" with
> something that floats on a hydrogen gas current and whose production is
> controlled through the application of heat.
>
> Rossi solved his control problem by separating dust bunnies production in
> one unit that has a very low Q and is not subject to  run away
> reaction; independent of  a very reactive high Q unit (the Cat) that is
> essentially supercritical.  The Cat just consumes these dust particles
> vigorously, but this stage cannot produce dust bunnies to cause a positive
> feedback runaway reaction through a direct thermal connection.
>
> It is so obvious and so simple.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Axil, how do you know how I produce the NAE. I do not know this and
>> neither of us knows how Rossi does this.  Your guesses are not useful.
>>
>> I can comprehend the process you describe. I just do not believe it. Do
>> you see the difference?
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be
>> produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than
>> the way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust
>> at it.
>>
>>
>> Rossi produces NAE with his "mouse" which is a nano-particle generator.
>> Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates.
>> These arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They
>> enclose countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE.
>>
>>
>> Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate:
>>
>>
>> http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg
>>
>>
>> Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally
>> through electrostatic processes.
>>
>>
>> When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the
>> micro particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside
>> the dust bunnies.
>>
>>
>> I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It
>> would be better for LENR if he did.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their
>>> function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to
>>> the crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can
>>> find an explanation at
>>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>   Ed--
>>>
>>> Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic
>>> associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack
>>> population.  Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>  *From:* Edmund Storms 
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Cc:* Edmund Storms 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>>>
>>> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the
>>> right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right
>>> size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium
>>> is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using
>>> fewer active sites.  However, these methods hav e not been used very often,
>>> probably because the tools and skill are not common.
>>>
>>> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result,
>>> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief
>>> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather
>>> than a random event.
>>>
>>> Ed Stormss
>>>  On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>

   Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making
 these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many
 different ways, but getting the right size is the problem.

 Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack
>>> sizes?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Axil and Ed— 

I do not admit to understanding the effect of temperature in detail.  However, 
I do  consider  temperature will change the magnitude of magnetic fields in the 
lattice and the vibrational frequencies of the lattice depending upon local 
geometry.  The latter  would effect how the distribution of phonons would or 
would not occur at a NAE and hence how the distribution of small packets of 
energy from a reaction may or may not happen.  Resonant coupling between the 
lattice and the reaction species is the crux of understanding the reaction.

Bob
From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 3:01 PM,
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

More...

The Rossi reaction is a two step operation where the "mouse" produces NAEs and 
the "Cat" consumes these NAEs that are mobile one currents of hydrogen.

How else can it work???



On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  Yes, a guess but a good guess. Rossi's mouse is stimulating the "Cat" with 
something that floats on a hydrogen gas current and whose production is 
controlled through the application of heat.

  Rossi solved his control problem by separating dust bunnies production in one 
unit that has a very low Q and is not subject to  run away reaction; 
independent of  a very reactive high Q unit (the Cat) that is essentially 
supercritical.  The Cat just consumes these dust particles vigorously, but this 
stage cannot produce dust bunnies to cause a positive feedback runaway reaction 
through a direct thermal connection.

  It is so obvious and so simple.



  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote

Axil, how do you know how I produce the NAE. I do not know this and neither 
of us knows how Rossi does this.  Your guesses are not useful.   

I can comprehend the process you describe. I just do not believe it. Do you 
see the difference?  

Ed Storms 

On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


  There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be 
produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than the 
way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust at it.


  Rossi produces NAE with his “mouse” which is a nano-particle generator. 
Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates. These 
arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They enclose 
countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE.


  Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate:


  http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg


  Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally 
through electrostatic processes.  


  When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the 
micro particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the 
dust bunnies.


  I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It 
would be better for LENR if he did.













  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Edmund Storms  
wrote:

Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their 
function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to the 
crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can find an 
explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf. 

Ed Storms 

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


  Ed--

  Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic 
associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack population.  
Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.

  Bob 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

  Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the 
right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size 
will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used 
to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
sites.  However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably because 
the tools and skill are not common. 

  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a 
result, production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief 
times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a 
random event. 

  Ed Stormss 

  On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:






On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:


  Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making 
these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different 
ways, but getting the right size is the problem. 


Might there be a technique that generates a w

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural
result of this method of metal nanoparticle
synthesis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis>
:

Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals
with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and
then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor
condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the
inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

>  James 
> Bowery<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22>
>  Sat,
> 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 
> -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322>
>
> >  It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.
>
> Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous 
> metal - if it behaves like glass.
> I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium 
> electrodes was one of the keys.
>
> Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if 
> the material is not too ductile, just the
> formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with 
> the ball mill might be one possibility.
>
>

[Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Ed—

I did not say temperature was the source of cracks.  I said it may help expand 
the useful crack populational.  This could happen by changing the vibrational 
frequency of any given crack structure closer to  its resonant frequency, 
making LENR at that crack likely.

Bob

From: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 12:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

Bob, temperature is not the source of cracks or have any role in their 
function. Temperature changes the rate at which hydrogen is delivered to the 
crack. It is important to understand the role of each variable. You can find an 
explanation at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf. 

Ed Storms

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


  Ed--

  Engineering resonances associated with any given crack characteristic 
associated with LENR activation may help expand the useful  crack population.  
Rossi seems to use temperature as a control.

  Bob 
  From: Edmund Storms 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:46 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Cc: Edmund Storms 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

  Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not 
give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect 
the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites.  
However, these methods hav e not been used very often, probably because the 
tools and skill are not common. 

  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief times, 
but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random 
event. 

  Ed Stormss 

  On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:






On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
wrote:


  Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at 
the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
getting the right size is the problem. 


Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
sizes? 

[Vo]:Re: 2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Ed--

What about crack orientation; is it more important than size when a magnetic 
field is present?

Bob

From: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 1:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is 
the method we are trying to find.  I can make cracks anytime I want but I can 
not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky 
sometimes. 

Ed Storms

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote:


  I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: 

  A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very 
low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of 
course).

  This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates 
different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes.

  Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with 
scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample 
and getting detectable tritium -- however small.



  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a 
huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and 
how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection 
that address this issue.  Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an 
answer to your question is not easy to supply. 

Ed Storms 

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote:


  Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide 
distribution of crack sizes? 




  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms  
wrote:

Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way 
is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation 
metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many 
people if they wish.  

Ed Storms 

On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote:


  Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with 
tritium: 

  Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a 
Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack 
sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost 
constraint on the beta-emission counter.  Can such counters be made economical?



  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery  
wrote:

Ed, I'm attacking a different problem:  Cost. 

Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, 
keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck 
to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically 
significant degree.

Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key.



On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

  James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I 
can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice 
demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job 
much better and give absolute values for power.  No need exists to reinvent.  

  Ed Storms 

  On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:


If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated 
control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature 
difference economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate the 
voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated 
material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small 
amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization.  
This is not an expensive device.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

  Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough 
of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right 
size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is 
used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer 
active sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably 
because the tools and skill are not common. 

  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  
As a result, production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for 
brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather 
than a random event. 

  Ed Storms 

  On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:






On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:


  Based on my theory, the active material are n

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[James Bowery]

These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles:

http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf

Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a
wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles.

Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return
various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural
> result of this method of metal nanoparticle 
> synthesis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis>
> :
>
> Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from
> metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber
> and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor
> condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the
> inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
>
>>  James 
>> Bowery<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22>
>>  Sat,
>> 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 
>> -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322>
>>
>> >  It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.
>>
>> Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous 
>> metal - if it behaves like glass.
>> I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium 
>> electrodes was one of the keys.
>>
>> Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if 
>> the material is not too ductile, just the
>> formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with 
>> the ball mill might be one possibility.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Jed Rothwell]

Steve High  wrote:

First Saturday afternoon presenter was Mizuno being represented by a young
> Japanese scientist. Their reactor : nickle mesh surface prepped by exposure
> to plasma discharge.


I believe this is a continuation of the work described here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

Steve High wrote:

First Saturday afternoon presenter was Mizuno being
represented by a young Japanese scientist. Their reactor : nickle mesh
surface prepped by exposure to plasma discharge.

I believe this is a continuation of the work described here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465

Brian Ahern told me that this was the potentially the most important
presentation he saw this day, not only for the present results (10s of
watts) but because the next two planned iterations at 1 kW and 10 kW where
not only imagined but actually shown in pictures as prototypes, indicating
that they were near the testing stage. 

10 kW - in a deuterium reactor - wow, that certainly seems to break new
ground. Notably they have switched away from palladium to nickel. I asked
about radiation, but this was not known.




<>

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence:

"Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk
materials."

 

This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on ". the laws from
the past 100 years of chemistry/physics".  Those laws were developed with
bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what's
happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel properties which the referenced
paper is studying.  This may also be the reason why the 'gray-hairs', or
grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this
out; they can't think out of the bulk-matter-box.

 

So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that's what we
Vorts are good at!  J

 

-Mark Iverson 

 

From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

 

These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles:

 

http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf

 

Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a
wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles.

 

Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return
various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd.

 

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result
of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesis
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis> :

 

Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals
with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then
supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses
into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas
stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ.

 

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

James Bowery
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bo
wery%22>  Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700
<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322>  

>  It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.
 
Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous
metal - if it behaves like glass.
I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium
electrodes was one of the keys.
 
Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if
the material is not too ductile, just the
formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with
the ball mill might be one possibility.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[Axil Axil]

"This method produces nanoparticles by bombarding the electrodes with
electrons during ~30 hours of glow discharge. The nanoparticles are created *in
situ *in electrodes. The electrodes have already been cleaned and
purified...

The particle size and number of particles is controlled by varying the
strength and duration of initial glow discharge. This, in turn, controls
the reaction rate."



LENR is produced as a result of nanoparticle production and the character
of the LENR reaction is related to the size and shape of the nanoparticles.



Ed Storms sees this in black and white but does not believe it.




On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Steve High  wrote:
>
> First Saturday afternoon presenter was Mizuno being represented by a young
>> Japanese scientist. Their reactor : nickle mesh surface prepped by exposure
>> to plasma discharge.
>
>
> I believe this is a continuation of the work described here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The 
question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge 
ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical 
change.  You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply 
this knowledge.  If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb 
barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy 
is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected 
by chemical conditions.  If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you 
need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to 
be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence:
> “Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk 
> materials.”
>  
> This is why some here take issue with Ed’s relying only on “… the laws from 
> the past 100 years of chemistry/physics”.  Those laws were developed with 
> bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what’s 
> happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel propertieswhich the referenced 
> paper is studying.  This may also be the reason why the ‘gray-hairs’, or 
> grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this 
> out; they can’t think out of the bulk-matter-box.
>  
> So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that’s what we Vorts 
> are good at!  J
>  
> -Mark Iverson
>  
> From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>  
> These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles:
>  
> http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf
>  
> Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a wide 
> range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles.
>  
> Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return 
> various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd.
>  
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result 
> of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesis:
>  
> Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals 
> with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then 
> supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses 
> into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream 
> and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ.
>  
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
> James Bowery Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700
> 
> >  It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.
>  
> Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous 
> metal - if it behaves like glass.
> I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium 
> electrodes was one of the keys.
>  
> Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if 
> the material is not too ductile, just the
> formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with 
> the ball mill might be one possibility.
>  
>  

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Axil Axil]

Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to
an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb
barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics,
and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration
to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion
exclusion principle.

Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in
current scientific development.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The
> question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A
> huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a
> chemical change.  You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics
> and apply this knowledge.  If you check, you will discover the thing called
> the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well
> known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur
> in and are not affected by chemical conditions.  If you want to explain
> LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical
> properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are
> engaging in fantasy.
>
> Ed Storms
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
> A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence:
> "Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk
> materials."
>
> This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on "... the laws
> from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics".  Those laws were developed
> with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to
> what's happening in LENR, and my $ is on the *novel properties*which the
> referenced paper is studying.  This may also be the reason why the
> 'gray-hairs', or grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been
> able to figure this out; they can't think out of the bulk-matter-box.
>
> So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that's what we
> Vorts are good at!  J
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>
> These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles:
>
> http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf
>
> Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a
> wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles.
>
> Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there
> return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural
> result of this method of metal nanoparticle 
> synthesis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis>
> :
>
> Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from
> metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber
> and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor
> condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the
> inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
> James 
> Bowery<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22>
>  Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 
> -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322>
>
> >  It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.
>
>
>
> Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous 
> metal - if it behaves like glass.
>
> I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium 
> electrodes was one of the keys.
>
>
>
> Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if 
> the material is not too ductile, just the
>
> formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with 
> the ball mill might be one possibility.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MIT colloquium

[James Bowery]

10s of watts, 100s of watts, 100s of watts  watts watts everywhere but
not an input so I guess we're talking infinite COP because no one would
report just output alone unless the input was zero, would they?


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Jed Rothwell
>
> Steve High wrote:
>
> First Saturday afternoon presenter was Mizuno being
> represented by a young Japanese scientist. Their reactor : nickle mesh
> surface prepped by exposure to plasma discharge.
>
> I believe this is a continuation of the work described
> here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1465
>
> Brian Ahern told me that this was the potentially the most important
> presentation he saw this day, not only for the present results (10s of
> watts) but because the next two planned iterations at 1 kW and 10 kW where
> not only imagined but actually shown in pictures as prototypes, indicating
> that they were near the testing stage.
>
> 10 kW - in a deuterium reactor - wow, that certainly seems to break new
> ground. Notably they have switched away from palladium to nickel. I asked
> about radiation, but this was not known.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Jones Beene]

From: Edmund Storms 

 

Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The
question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A
huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a
chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics
and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called
the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well
known. 

 

No it isn't! this energy level is not well-known. Storms would do well to
learn a little QM. His comments consistently demonstrate that he does not
understand nuclear tunneling or quantum mechanics at a level of minimal
competency.

 

Talk about arrogant verbiage !  

 

Once again, Storms makes the same mistake that he often makes in assuming
that LENR must requires a known fusion reaction - the one that he thinks he
understands. 

 

Not to mention: Storms wants to "talk down" to a  competent scientist who
probably knows more about QM, in general, than he does. 

 

This is almost unforgiveable on a forum which is looking for truth, not self
aggrandizement or promotion of a pet theory. 

 

We should promote cooperation instead of sniping. Isn't that in the rules,
actually?

 

Jones

[Vo]:Bose-Einstein condensation of quasi-particles such as excitons, polaritons, magnons

[Axil Axil]

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140311/ncomms4452/full/ncomms4452.html
Abstract*
Bose-Einstein condensation of quasi-particles such as excitons, polaritons,
magnons and photons is a fascinating quantum mechanical phenomenon. Unlike
the Bose-Einstein condensation of real particles (like atoms), these
processes do not require low temperatures, since the high densities of
low-energy quasi-particles needed for the condensate to form can be
produced via external pumping. Here we demonstrate that such a pumping can
create remarkably high effective temperatures in a narrow spectral region
of the lowest energy states in a magnon gas, resulting in strikingly
unexpected transitional dynamics of Bose-Einstein magnon condensate: the
density of the condensate increases immediately after the external magnon
flow is switched off and initially decreases if it is switched on again.
This behaviour finds explanation in a nonlinear 'evaporative supercooling'
mechanism that couples the low-energy magnons overheated by pumping with
all the other thermal magnons, removing the excess heat, and allowing
Bose-Einstein condensate formation.

 The correct buzz word for this is nonlinear 'evaporative supercooling'
mechanism... is how a BEC can form in a polariton ensemble.

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Kevin O'Malley]

This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on the
same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.
***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The
crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by
the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to
further scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard
against the science of LENR.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
> properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
> phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.
>
> This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
> religious and political circles.
>
> To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is
> more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
> worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
> in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:
>
> http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml
>
> On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
> what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
> "decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
> deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
> than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
> value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
> the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
> Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
> and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
> costs rationally you go out of business in short order.
>
> Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
> targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.
>
> In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
> Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
> prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
> of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
> often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
> "knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
> "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
> theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
> experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
> whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
> Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
> knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
> belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
> believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
> experience, then they are not "true believers".
>
> So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of
> physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
> who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?
>
> Simple:
>
> The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ Fleischmann
> and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" and/or
> "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by the
> true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as
> a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental
> evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to
> fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Bob Cook]

Ed stated:

->>---Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. 
The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A 
huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a 
chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and 
apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the 
Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This 
energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not 
affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano 
particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the 
Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.-<< 

I would note Ed, that there are well documented low energy  nuclear reactions 
that are called fusion  reactions where the  coulomb barrier is overcome.  One 
is  the fusion of two deuterons   in  a molecule that is bound together with a 
muon and an electron.  The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field between 
the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the attractive 
negatively charged muon and  an electron to the extent that the wave function 
of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system force (not 
coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with a relase of 
energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle with respect 
to the mass of the two initial  deuterons.

I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction.  
There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take 
place or "get over this barrier" (your words)  between the two deuterons.  As 
long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave 
function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new 
wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together 
consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that result 
in an increase of entropy and spin conservation.   This increase in entropy is 
a long-held  principle  of chemical reactions as well.   Spin conservation 
principle  is only about 75 years old. 

The existence of electrons pairs in  in chemical reactions is important 
relative to ionization potentials.  Here it is believed the electrons pair up 
with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as 
described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its 
distinctive characteristics as described  by its wave function.  Cooper paring 
is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons.  These are consider to 
be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions.  Bose Einstein 
Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0  spin particles) result from 
nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the coulomb 
barriers between such particles.

Bob



From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE


  Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an 
extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. 
This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum 
mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur 
because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion 
principle.


  Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in 
current scientific development.



  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The 
question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge 
ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical 
change.  You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply 
this knowledge.  If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb 
barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy 
is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected 
by chemical conditions.  If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you 
need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to 
be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.


Ed Storms

On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


  A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence:
  "Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk 
materials."

  This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on ". the laws 
from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics".  Those laws were developed with 
bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what's 
happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel propertieswhich the reference

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Bob Cook]

Kevin--

This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks


  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on the 
same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.

  ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The 
crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by the 
ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to further 
scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard against the 
science of LENR.  




  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers" 
properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the phrase 
"true believers" to refer to scientists.


This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in 
religious and political circles.


To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is 
more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or, worse, 
"skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief" in relation 
to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:


http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml



On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of 
what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to "decision 
networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about deciding what 
experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather than the more general 
"perform".  Investment must take into account the value of the information 
obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of the experiment.  This is why 
decision theory is taught in places like Harvard business school:  Business is 
largely about obtaining information and obtaining information has associated 
costs.  If you can't treat those costs rationally you go out of business in 
short order.


Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science 
targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.


In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior 
Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience prior 
to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability of various 
outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is often abbreviated) 
is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all "knowledge" is tentative.  The 
key word here is "tentative".  What does "tentative" mean in relation to 
"knowledge"?  It means all of your theoretic understanding of the world is mere 
"belief" subject to further experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", 
then, is a person in whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their 
"Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that 
all knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to 
belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true 
believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new 
experience, then they are not "true believers".


So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of 
physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists who 
question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?


Simple:


The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ Fleischmann 
and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" and/or 
"delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by the true 
believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a 
"belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence. 
 Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to fashion set by 
the powerful, they succeeded.

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[ChemE Stewart]

[image: Monkeys]


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Kevin--
>
> This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
>
>  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on
> the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.
> ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The
> crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by
> the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to
> further scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard
> against the science of LENR.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
>> properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
>> phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.
>>
>> This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
>> religious and political circles.
>>
>> To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is
>> more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
>> worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
>> in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:
>>
>> http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml
>>
>> On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
>> what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
>> "decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
>> deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
>> than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
>> value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
>> the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
>> Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
>> and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
>> costs rationally you go out of business in short order.
>>
>> Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
>> targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.
>>
>> In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
>> Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
>> prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
>> of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
>> often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
>> "knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
>> "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
>> theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
>> experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
>> whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
>> Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
>> knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
>> belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
>> believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
>> experience, then they are not "true believers".
>>
>> So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of
>> physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
>> who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?
>>
>> Simple:
>>
>> The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ Fleischmann
>> and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" and/or
>> "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by the
>> true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as
>> a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental
>> evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to
>> fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Axil Axil]

[image: Monkeys]


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:39 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> [image: Monkeys]
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
>>  Kevin--
>>
>> This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
>>
>>  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on
>> the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.
>> ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The
>> crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by
>> the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to
>> further scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard
>> against the science of LENR.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
>>> properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
>>> phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.
>>>
>>> This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
>>> religious and political circles.
>>>
>>> To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is
>>> more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
>>> worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
>>> in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:
>>>
>>> http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml
>>>
>>> On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
>>> what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
>>> "decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
>>> deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
>>> than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
>>> value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
>>> the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
>>> Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
>>> and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
>>> costs rationally you go out of business in short order.
>>>
>>> Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
>>> targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.
>>>
>>> In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
>>> Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
>>> prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
>>> of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
>>> often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
>>> "knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
>>> "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
>>> theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
>>> experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
>>> whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
>>> Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
>>> knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
>>> belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
>>> believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
>>> experience, then they are not "true believers".
>>>
>>> So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation
>>> of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
>>> who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?
>>>
>>> Simple:
>>>
>>> The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_
>>> Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence"
>>> and/or "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge"
>>> by the true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific
>>> method as a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to
>>> experimental evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly
>>> committed to fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[H Veeder]

Suppose only 2% of the material in a catalytic converter has the NAE
capable of producing the putative excess heat. Since a catalytic converter
contains so much more potentially NAE than a familiar CF cell it is like
running a thousand CF cells at the same time of which only twenty produce
excess heat.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Edmund Storms]

Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my 
papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what 
you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The 
process has no relationship to cold fusion. 

I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I 
consider a useful explanation.  I have found these discussions interesting and 
useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in 
continuing to subscribe to Vortex.  The goal here is not to understand but to 
speculate.  That is not my goal. 

Ed Storms

On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Bob Cook wrote:

> Ed stated:
>  
> ->>---Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. 
> The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A 
> huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a 
> chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and 
> apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the 
> Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. 
> This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are 
> not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano 
> particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the 
> Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.-<<
>  
> I would note Ed, that there are well documented low energy  nuclear reactions 
> that are called fusion  reactions where the  coulomb barrier is overcome.  
> One is  the fusion of two deuterons   in  a molecule that is bound together 
> with a muon and an electron.  The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field 
> between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the 
> attractive negatively charged muon and  an electron to the extent that the 
> wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system 
> force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with 
> a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle 
> with respect to the mass of the two initial  deuterons.   
>  
> I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. 
>  There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take 
> place or "get over this barrier" (your words)  between the two deuterons.  As 
> long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave 
> function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new 
> wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together 
> consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that 
> result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation.   This increase in 
> entropy is a long-held  principle  of chemical reactions as well.   Spin 
> conservation principle  is only about 75 years old. 
>  
> The existence of electrons pairs in  in chemical reactions is important 
> relative to ionization potentials.  Here it is believed the electrons pair up 
> with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as 
> described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its 
> distinctive characteristics as described  by its wave function.  Cooper 
> paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons.  These are 
> consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions.  
> Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0  spin particles) 
> result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the 
> coulomb barriers between such particles.
>  
> Bob
>  
>  
>  
> From: Axil Axil
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
> 
> Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an 
> extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. 
> This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum 
> mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur 
> because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion 
> principle.
> 
> Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in 
> current scientific development.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:
> Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The 
> question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A 
> huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a 
> chemical change.  You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics 
> and apply this knowledge.  If you check, you will discover the thing called 
> the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well 
> known. This energy is huge and th

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Edmund Storms]

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Axil Axil]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/22/5535022/stanford-opening-new-lab-to-study-bad-science

Stanford opening new lab to study bad science

An epidemiologist  famously wrote in 2005  "Why most published research
findings are 
false,"


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> [image: Monkeys]
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:39 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> [image: Monkeys]
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Bob Cook wrote:
>>
>>>  Kevin--
>>>
>>> This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
>>> *To:* vortex-l 
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
>>>
>>>  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief"
>>> on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.
>>> ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.
>>> The crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations
>>> (fueled by the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as
>>> a cue to further scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so
>>> hard against the science of LENR.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>
 I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
 properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
 phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.

 This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
 religious and political circles.

 To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers"
 is more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
 worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
 in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:

 http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml

 On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
 what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
 "decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
 deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
 than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
 value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
 the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
 Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
 and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
 costs rationally you go out of business in short order.

 Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
 targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.

 In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
 Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
 prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
 of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
 often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
 "knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
 "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
 theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
 experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
 whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
 Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
 knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
 belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
 believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
 experience, then they are not "true believers".

 So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation
 of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
 who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?

 Simple:

 The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_
 Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence"
 and/or "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge"
 by the true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific
 method as a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to
 experimental evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly
 committed to fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[James Bowery]

A true loss.  I doubt anything I said contributed to his departure because
I was genuinely seeking his guidance since he, unlike many here, seemed
willing to discuss the economic particulars of experimental tests of his
direction.  No matter what you may think of his direction, his willingness
to discuss such particulars places him head and shoulders above the crowd.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Kevin O'Malley]

Bob:

Not even close.

The story as told by Watson and Keyes is popular among New
Ageauthors and personal
growth  gurus and has become
an urban legend  and part of New
Age mythology .

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



On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Kevin--
>
> This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
>
>  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on
> the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.
> ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The
> crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by
> the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to
> further scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard
> against the science of LENR.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
>> properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
>> phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.
>>
>> This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
>> religious and political circles.
>>
>> To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is
>> more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
>> worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
>> in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:
>>
>> http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml
>>
>> On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
>> what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
>> "decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
>> deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
>> than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
>> value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
>> the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
>> Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
>> and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
>> costs rationally you go out of business in short order.
>>
>> Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
>> targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.
>>
>> In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
>> Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
>> prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
>> of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
>> often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
>> "knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
>> "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
>> theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
>> experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
>> whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
>> Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
>> knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
>> belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
>> believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
>> experience, then they are not "true believers".
>>
>> So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of
>> physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
>> who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?
>>
>> Simple:
>>
>> The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ Fleischmann
>> and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" and/or
>> "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by the
>> true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as
>> a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental
>> evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to
>> fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Kevin O'Malley]

Look what kind of trouble you caused -- Ed Storms just unsubscribed, on
Vortex-L it shows up in this thread.  What did you or any of us say that
pissed him off?


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Kevin--
>
> This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Kevin O'Malley 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks
>
>  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on
> the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.
> ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The
> crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by
> the ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to
> further scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard
> against the science of LENR.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers"
>> properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the
>> phrase "true believers" to refer to scientists.
>>
>> This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in
>> religious and political circles.
>>
>> To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" is
>> more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or,
>> worse, "skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief"
>> in relation to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:
>>
>> http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml
>>
>> On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of
>> what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to
>> "decision networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about
>> deciding what experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather
>> than the more general "perform".  Investment must take into account the
>> value of the information obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of
>> the experiment.  This is why decision theory is taught in places like
>> Harvard business school:  Business is largely about obtaining information
>> and obtaining information has associated costs.  If you can't treat those
>> costs rationally you go out of business in short order.
>>
>> Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science
>> targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.
>>
>> In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior
>> Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience
>> prior to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability
>> of various outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is
>> often abbreviated) is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all
>> "knowledge" is tentative.  The key word here is "tentative".  What does
>> "tentative" mean in relation to "knowledge"?  It means all of your
>> theoretic understanding of the world is mere "belief" subject to further
>> experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", then, is a person in
>> whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their "Bayesian Prior
>> Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that all
>> knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to
>> belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true
>> believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new
>> experience, then they are not "true believers".
>>
>> So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation of
>> physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists
>> who question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?
>>
>> Simple:
>>
>> The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ Fleischmann
>> and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" and/or
>> "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by the
>> true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as
>> a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental
>> evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to
>> fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE

[Kevin O'Malley]

mulation and concentration
> to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion
> exclusion principle.
>
> Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way
> in current scientific development.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:
>
>> Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties.
>> The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction?
>> A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and
>> a chemical change.  You would do well to actually study some nuclear
>> physics and apply this knowledge.  If you check, you will discover the
>> thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this
>> barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear
>> reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions.  If
>> you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why
>> the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise
>> you are engaging in fantasy.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>>
>> A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence:
>> "Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk
>> materials."
>>
>> This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on "... the laws
>> from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics".  Those laws were developed
>> with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to
>> what's happening in LENR, and my $ is on the *novel properties*which the
>> referenced paper is studying.  This may also be the reason why the
>> 'gray-hairs', or grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been
>> able to figure this out; they can't think out of the bulk-matter-box.
>>
>> So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that's what we
>> Vorts are good at!  J
>>
>> -Mark Iverson
>>
>> *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
>>
>> These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles:
>>
>> http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf
>>
>> Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a
>> wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles.
>>
>> Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there
>> return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>> Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural
>> result of this method of metal nanoparticle 
>> synthesis<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis>
>> :
>>
>> Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from
>> metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber
>> and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor
>> condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the
>> inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>> James 
>> Bowery<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=from:%22James+Bowery%22>
>>  Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 
>> -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=date:20140322>
>>
>> >  It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous 
>> metal - if it behaves like glass.
>>
>> I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium 
>> electrodes was one of the keys.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material.  I suppose that if 
>> the material is not too ductile, just the
>>
>> formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it.  SO experimenting with 
>> the ball mill might be one possibility.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat experimenters take note

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jones:

Thanks for the informative heads up about spillover.

What I would need is to know how much H1 monoatomic gas I'm feeding into
the system.  It would not have to be exact, it would just have to be within
3 to 5%.


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* Kevin
>
>
>
> I know what metals I want, but I don't know how to get ahold of monoatomic
> hydrogen gas.
>
>
>
> The nature of any "spillover" catalyst, and any CC is loaded with them, is
> to convert H2 into monatomic nuclei. It will not be a gas per se, but
> proton will attach to the catalyst.
>
>
>
> BTW - the California-legal CC costs more but is more active.
>
>
>
> You can get one for less than $100 on eBay.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Terry Blanton]

It goes to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com

Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks

[Bob Cook]

Kevin--

I guess my characterization of Scientism was a little unCooked.  

My apology,

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks


  Bob:


  Not even close.  

  The story as told by Watson and Keyes is popular among New Age authors and 
personal growth gurus and has become an urban legend and part of New Age 
mythology.

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





  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Kevin--

This is what is called the 100th monkey principle.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin O'Malley 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:True Believers and Belief Networks


  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as a "belief" on 
the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental evidence.

  ***Yup.  Scientism, which is rapidly becoming a world wide religion.  The 
crazy thing is, when LENR breaks out, huge swaths of populations (fueled by the 
ignorant press) will credit "science" and will take this as a cue to further 
scientism.  Even though it was "scientists" who fought so hard against the 
science of LENR.  




  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

I just ran into trouble because I used the phrase "true believers" 
properly.  This is because the true "true believers" have captured the phrase 
"true believers" to refer to scientists. 


This kind of hypocritical projection is standard operating procedure in 
religious and political circles.


To illustrate with mathematical rigor why the phrase "true believers" 
is more properly applied to folks often referred to as "skeptopaths" or, worse, 
"skeptics", let please note that the mathematical model of "belief" in relation 
to "theory" and "experiment" is well understood:


http://www.aispace.org/bayes/index.shtml



On the above link you will find a tool for the mathematical modeling of 
what is known as a "belief network" -- in particular with relation to "decision 
networks".  Decision networks are how rational actors go about deciding what 
experiments to invest in.  Note I said "invest in" rather than the more general 
"perform".  Investment must take into account the value of the information 
obtained by the experiment in ratio to the cost of the experiment.  This is why 
decision theory is taught in places like Harvard business school:  Business is 
largely about obtaining information and obtaining information has associated 
costs.  If you can't treat those costs rationally you go out of business in 
short order.


Nowhere is this more the case than in resource constrained science 
targeting knowledge of potentially profound value.


In belief networks, you have what is known as the "Bayesian Prior 
Probability Distribution" -- which amounts to the cumulative experience prior 
to the present, distilled in a model that tells you the probability of various 
outcomes based on various decisions.  This "Prior" (as it is often abbreviated) 
is, simply, "knowledge" -- recognizing that all "knowledge" is tentative.  The 
key word here is "tentative".  What does "tentative" mean in relation to 
"knowledge"?  It means all of your theoretic understanding of the world is mere 
"belief" subject to further experience.  The sin qua non of a "true believer", 
then, is a person in whom "knowledge" prevents experience from modifying their 
"Bayesian Prior Probability Distribution" because they refuse to knowledge that 
all knowledge is tentative -- that all knowledge is belief.  Such commitment to 
belief is the only reasonable criterion for applying the phrase "true 
believer".  If someone is open to questioning their beliefs based on new 
experience, then they are not "true believers".


So how did the true believers in the currently dominant interpretation 
of physical theory successfully project their own pathology onto scientists who 
question the currently dominant interpretation of physical theory?


Simple:


The true believers focused on a "belief" in the _possibility_ 
Fleischmann and Pons had not victimized the world with their "incompetence" 
and/or "delusion", to use the characterization now adopted as "knowledge" by 
the true believers.  This is tantamount to portraying the scientific method as 
a "belief" on the same par as someone who is impervious to experimental 
evidence.  Since they were powerful and the press ignorantly committed to 
fashion set by the powerful, they succeeded.

Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor

[H Veeder]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *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.
>
>
>

Suppose the fusion energy which is normally expressed as gamma rays in a
very high temperature plasma environment is divided between rotational
kinetic energy and much lower energy rays in a condensed matter
environment. Since not all the gamma energy would go into rotation the
newly formed nucleus would be stable and the rotational kinetic energy of
the nucleus would heat the lattice by way of its rotating fields.



>  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
>
>
>


A stable pair of nucleons or a stable pair of stars both require energy to
pull them apart.

Harry