date:20140323

The link to the Hurricane balls slow motion movie is also interesting.  The two 
fused balls start out rotating with each ball on the surface but shift to a 
position where only one ball is on the surface and the other attached ball 
rotates somewhat above the surface.  It looks like a coupling with the 
gravitational field which causes a step change in the rotating positions of the 
two balls with one touching the surface and one above that surface.  

Strange.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor







  On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Harry and Jones--

You two do what I would call out of the box thinking on this issue--I 
wonder where Axil is.  More thoughts:

1. There have been two different coupling experiments I seen--one where the 
balls are fused and the other where the balls are magnetically coupled.  They 
both represented a connected mostly Fe ferro-magnetic structure.  The rotation 
clearly creates a rotating magnetic field I think.  It also would cause a 
certain electric charge to be established in some pattern on the outer surfaces 
of the balls at an equal voltage.  At some point or points inside the metal 
surface the electric field should be 0.  A conduction sphere distributes 
charge--electrons for example--over its surface so as to create a null coulomb 
(electric) field inside the surface.  What happens when there are 2 conducting 
spheres attached together is another thing.  When you add a magnetic field and 
some apparent electric current or megaton currents, you have even a more 
complex condition.   

2. The magnetic field must be rotating with its own rotational energy and 
angular momentum/inertia.  What is this inertia and how does it add or subtract 
from the to the mass rotating inertia?  It seems the system must be coupled by 
this spinning.  It seems there is a collapse of the spin coupling when the 
spinning slows.  (There was  an abrupt stop as noted by the researcher that 
demonstrated the fused balls.)

3. What happens to the angular momentum of the rolling balls in the 
magnetic coupling experiment.  It seems to be converted to the angular momentum 
of the system of balls once they come together and it seems to happen pretty 
fast.  The net angular of the two balls as they approach each other would be 
essentially 0 since the J vector points in an opposite direction for each ball. 
 

4. A high speed moving picture of this would be interesting and also 
something to monitor the change of the magnetic fields with time would be 
interesting.  How fast are are the field changed?  Is there any other way to 
investigate the nuclear magnetic conditions in this system of rotating balls.  





  Hurricane balls in slow motion:


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZwuPyBzp20




5. What happens if the balls are gold instead of iron?  Or Pd?  Or Ni? 

6. What would happen if once the balls are rotating fast you put another 
conducting surface around to modify the magnetic fields.  



  This video appears to show the spin rate of hurricane balls can be increased 
by an electric coil.


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5VfGpV6tWI




7. Is there a coupling to the Earth's magnetic or gravitational field that 
happens in steps or macroscopic quantum jumps considering the abrupt  stopping 
of the rotation.  Or is this merely a loss of energy via an abrupt change in 
the coeff. of friction?   

I think I have a good science fair project for a grandson. 


  and for yourself ? ;-)

A little high tech monitoring equipment is all that is necessary.  Maybe NI 
would be interested in loaning the instruments.  A transient change in the 
temperature of the ball and the surface upon which they spin would be nice to 
know to understand the issue of friction changes.   An evacuated chamber would 
be warranted to eliminate the issue with loss of energy via   stirring the air 
around the rotating balls.

Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor







  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 con

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

2014-03-23 Thread H Veeder

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Harry and Jones--
>
> You two do what I would call out of the box thinking on this issue--I
> wonder where Axil is.  More thoughts:
>
> 1. There have been two different coupling experiments I seen--one where
> the balls are fused and the other where the balls are magnetically
> coupled.  They both represented a connected mostly Fe ferro-magnetic
> structure.  The rotation clearly creates a rotating magnetic field I
> think.  It also would cause a certain electric charge to be established in
> some pattern on the outer surfaces of the balls at an equal voltage.  At
> some point or points inside the metal surface the electric field should be
> 0.  A conduction sphere distributes charge--electrons for example--over its
> surface so as to create a null coulomb (electric) field inside the
> surface.  What happens when there are 2 conducting spheres attached
> together is another thing.  When you add a magnetic field and some apparent
> electric current or megaton currents, you have even a more complex
> condition.
>
> 2. The magnetic field must be rotating with its own rotational energy and
> angular momentum/inertia.  What is this inertia and how does it add or
> subtract from the to the mass rotating inertia?  It seems the system must
> be coupled by this spinning.  It seems there is a collapse of the spin
> coupling when the spinning slows.  (There was  an abrupt stop as noted by
> the researcher that demonstrated the fused balls.)
>
> 3. What happens to the angular momentum of the rolling balls in the
> magnetic coupling experiment.  It seems to be converted to the angular
> momentum of the system of balls once they come together and it seems to
> happen pretty fast.  The net angular of the two balls as they approach each
> other would be essentially 0 since the J vector points in an opposite
> direction for each ball.
>
> 4. A high speed moving picture of this would be interesting and also
> something to monitor the change of the magnetic fields with time would be
> interesting.  How fast are are the field changed?  Is there any other way
> to investigate the nuclear magnetic conditions in this system of rotating
> balls.
>
>


Hurricane balls in slow motion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZwuPyBzp20



> 5. What happens if the balls are gold instead of iron?  Or Pd?  Or Ni?
>
> 6. What would happen if once the balls are rotating fast you put another
> conducting surface around to modify the magnetic fields.
>
>

This video appears to show the spin rate of hurricane balls can be
increased by an electric coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5VfGpV6tWI



> 7. Is there a coupling to the Earth's magnetic or gravitational field that
> happens in steps or macroscopic quantum jumps considering the abrupt
> stopping of the rotation.  Or is this merely a loss of energy via an abrupt
> change in the coeff. of friction?
>
> I think I have a good science fair project for a grandson.
>

and for yourself ? ;-)


> A little high tech monitoring equipment is all that is necessary.  Maybe
> NI would be interested in loaning the instruments.  A transient change in
> the temperature of the ball and the surface upon which they spin would be
> nice to know to understand the issue of friction changes.   An evacuated
> chamber would be warranted to eliminate the issue with loss of energy via
> stirring the air around the rotating balls.
>
> Bob
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* H Veeder 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:56 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
>
>
>
>
> 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 a

RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation

From: Axil 

 

DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think?

 

Possibly, but no one knows. They have presented interesting claims,
especially the magnetic claim - but the scientific data is basically limited
to one joint paper in which Kim says he did not actually validate the data.
Shortly after this IE interview, everything seemed to fall apart for them
financially.

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

 

They have no patent, no replications, dwindling support among experts and no
respected scientist to speak for them without Kim - who seems to be less
than enthusiastic these days. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is
pitiable. Their presence in Canada is reportedly reduced to an answering
machine and shared office with no full time staff. Essentially they seem to
be broke. 

 

Worst of all - the main feature of their reactor - the electrical discharge
into hydrogen loaded powder - is covered in Ahern's prior patent
application. Their main claim to fame may be having "borrowed" Rossi's
secret recipe, but the bottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably
stemming from a crazy business plan based on extraordinarily high up-front
fees. No one signed up, apparently.

 

Don't hold your breath until they deliver. It's too bad, since they probably
have seen gain. 

 

Perhaps they can snatch victory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just
demonstrate the incredible magnetic field to a potential investor, that
would seem to be enough. It could have other uses. Note - Rossi has been
focusing on jet engine substitution recently- and the DGT design could be
better suited for that.

Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed
> the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas
> this looks solid and professional.
>

I'm glad to see that Mizuno might be hot on the trail of the "kilowatt
producers."

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Art Exhibition: The Potato Eaters Discover Cold Fusion

2014-03-23 Thread H Veeder

Sorry, I accidentally inserted a space in the first link so it won't work.
This is the correct link
http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/title/the-potato-eaters-discover-cold-
fusion/id/6548#.Uy-m2vldWSq

Harry

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:55 PM, H Veeder  wrote:

> This article is about a current art exhibition called "The Potato Eaters
> Discover Cold Fusion". The Potato Eaters is a painting by Van Gogh. The
> artist does not seem to know anything about the ongoing CF research. In his
> paintings he contemplates the modernist utopian dream of cheap nuclear
> power for everyone.
>
>
> http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/title/the-potato-eaters-discover-cold-fusion/id/6548#.Uy-m2vldWSq
>
> The gallery's website
> http://www.boningtongallery.co.uk/current-exhibitions
>
> Harry
>

[Vo]:Art Exhibition: The Potato Eaters Discover Cold Fusion

2014-03-23 Thread H Veeder

This article is about a current art exhibition called "The Potato Eaters
Discover Cold Fusion". The Potato Eaters is a painting by Van Gogh. The
artist does not seem to know anything about the ongoing CF research. In his
paintings he contemplates the modernist utopian dream of cheap nuclear
power for everyone.

http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/title/the-potato-eaters-discover-cold-fusion/id/6548#.Uy-m2vldWSq

The gallery's website
http://www.boningtongallery.co.uk/current-exhibitions

Harry

Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation

2014-03-23 Thread Axil Axil

DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think?


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> This appears to be the new venture which is sponsoring Dr Mizuno's work
> these days...
>
> http://cleanplanet.co.jp/ourTeam.php?lang=en
>
> Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive
> and informed about the details.
>
> It is said that one the wealthiest men in Japan is behind CleanPlanet.
>
> Too bad that we do not have such a farsighted sponsor in the USA.
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene
>
> Here is some more information which comes out of the MIT
> colloquium on what could be a major advance in the making. This information
> is third hand, so it needs to be confirmed.
>
> Let's hope that Jed can use his considerable influence to
> get hold of this paper, which is an update and significant advance from
> this
> prior work from last year.
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf
>
> See Table 2 of that paper. These details would be a
> long-term run similar to those short term runs
>
> 1)  The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous - with a COP of
> ~1.9
> 2)  Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out
> 3)  The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and
> NOT the glow discharge as reported earlier
> 4)  However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to
> condition
> the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire.
> 5)  From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the
> nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps
> instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN.
> 6)  About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel.
> This is over 100 meters of wire.
> 7)  The wire was about .2 mm diameter
> 8)  The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that -
> whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the
> prior paper.
> 9)  Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge
> and
> higher during the run.
> 10) Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account
> for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear
> fusion.
> 11) They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready
> which is capable of 10 kW.
> 12) They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up.
>
> All in all - this work seems to also validate Andrea Rossi
> to a great extent, since they clearly show that either D2 or H2 work with
> nickel which has nano surface features.
>
> This is very good news for LENR, due to the long run at
> relatively high power, at significant gain, along the reputation of
> Mizuno...
>
> ...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have
> already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of
> Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation

This appears to be the new venture which is sponsoring Dr Mizuno's work
these days...

http://cleanplanet.co.jp/ourTeam.php?lang=en

Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive
and informed about the details.

It is said that one the wealthiest men in Japan is behind CleanPlanet. 

Too bad that we do not have such a farsighted sponsor in the USA.

_
From: Jones Beene 

Here is some more information which comes out of the MIT
colloquium on what could be a major advance in the making. This information
is third hand, so it needs to be confirmed.

Let's hope that Jed can use his considerable influence to
get hold of this paper, which is an update and significant advance from this
prior work from last year.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

See Table 2 of that paper. These details would be a
long-term run similar to those short term runs

1)  The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous - with a COP of ~1.9
2)  Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out
3)  The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and
NOT the glow discharge as reported earlier
4)  However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to condition
the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire. 
5)  From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the
nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps
instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN.
6)  About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel.
This is over 100 meters of wire.
7)  The wire was about .2 mm diameter
8)  The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that -
whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the
prior paper.
9)  Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge and
higher during the run.
10) Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account
for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear
fusion.
11) They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready
which is capable of 10 kW.
12) They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up.

All in all - this work seems to also validate Andrea Rossi
to a great extent, since they clearly show that either D2 or H2 work with
nickel which has nano surface features. 

This is very good news for LENR, due to the long run at
relatively high power, at significant gain, along the reputation of
Mizuno... 

...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have
already witnessed the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of
Rossi - whereas this looks solid and professional.


<>

[Vo]:Goodnight from the MIT colloquium

Well the conference is over and I would like to tell you about the serious 
emotions that bubbled up at the end. Dr Hagelstein had the last word and he 
wished to observe that today was the 25th anniversary of the Pons and 
Fleischmann announcement. I've noticed before that he tends to have a somewhat 
pessimistic view of the prospects for cold fusion. He described the field as 
hanging on by its fingernails, and recounted how few research groups are active 
now compared to four years after the announcement. He also said he was feeling 
a glimmering of hope, and acknowledged the apparent success and good feeling 
generated by the just completed colloquium.
He then moved to recognize the friends that are no longer with us, and 
literally hit a brick wall. His eyes filled with tears and he was not able to 
speak the name of Martin Fleischman or the others. At the suggestion of the 
audience he wrote on the chalkboard "Thanks for twenty five years of struggle 
and hard work". I sensed that his sadness was for the deceased, but also for 
the wearying burden he himself has carried for the last twenty-five years. All 
those years of pushing a stone uphill, the best years of his life, with so 
little support or recognition. I say the good doctor has no reason to feel bad 
about his show of emotion. The whole conference was touched and found meaning 
in it. Now for those of us who are becoming more certain that the winds of 
change are blowing at last, to find the gumption to push this thing over the 
finish line!

Steve High

[Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation

Here is some more information which comes out of the MIT colloquium on what
could be a major advance in the making. This information is third hand, so
it needs to be confirmed.

Let's hope that Jed can use his considerable influence to get hold of this
paper, which is an update and significant advance from this prior work from
last year.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

See Table 2 of that paper. These details would be a long-term run similar to
those short term runs

1)  The hero effort was for over 30 days continuous - with a COP of ~1.9
2)  Something like 70 watts in and 130 thermal watts out
3)  The input power is resistance heat (like Rossi) during the run and
NOT the glow discharge as reported earlier
4)  However, a glow discharge was applied for about one day to condition
the nickel electrodes. It is said to form nanoparticles on the wire. 
5)  From the earlier paper and the SEM image (figure 19) the
nanoparticles which are raised on the nickel look like bubbles or bumps
instead of cracks. Without the glow discharge treatment there is NO GAIN.
6)  About 20 grams of thin nickel wire was wound on a ceramic mandrel.
This is over 100 meters of wire.
7)  The wire was about .2 mm diameter
8)  The gas was D2 but there seems to be some confusion on that -
whether D2O (heavy water vapor) or D2. Results with H2 are also good in the
prior paper.
9)  Pressure was about 150 Pa or about .02 psi during glow discharge and
higher during the run.
10) Radiation is seen but it is orders of magnitude too low to account
for the heat, yet they seem to be certain that the reaction is nuclear
fusion.
11) They believe the design will scale, and have a reactor nearly ready
which is capable of 10 kW.
12) They think the COP will rise, rather than fall with scale up.

All in all - this work seems to also validate Andrea Rossi to a great
extent, since they clearly show that either D2 or H2 work with nickel which
has nano surface features. 

This is very good news for LENR, due to the long run at relatively high
power, at significant gain, along the reputation of Mizuno... 

...not to mention the validation of Rossi - who may have already witnessed
the higher power and higher COP, but we cannot be sure of Rossi - whereas
this looks solid and professional.


<>

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

To conserve momentum and spin they go off in opposite directions and polarized 
in opposite directions so that the net spin is 0 as well as the linear momentum 
of the two photons..

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 3:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

  On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Until they get to real low energies they mostly move in a straight line.  
Thus even shielding will not destroy the coincident events that detectors will 
record. 

  Interesting; I didn't realize that.  Somewhere I got the impression that the 
remission of a photon after a scattering with an electron would be in a random 
direction.

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement--ideas for production

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Teslaalset wrote:

Celani holds a patent application that combines oxidation and adding a
> silicate layer to significantly speed up absorption of Hydrogen. His
> process also includes rapid cooling, creating small grain sizes during
> re-crystallisation.
>

I think silicates also have a high dielectric strength.  I assume this
would facilitate the occurrence of electric arcs between grain boundaries.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

 Until they get to real low energies they mostly move in a straight line.
> Thus even shielding will not destroy the coincident events that detectors
> will record.
>

Interesting; I didn't realize that.  Somewhere I got the impression that
the remission of a photon after a scattering with an electron would be in a
random direction.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

Your description is exactly as I understand it.  The random walk is not very 
long however, since it probably occurs at the first electron it attracts and 
that is pretty quick after the nucleus gives it up.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 3:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

  On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Teslaalset  
wrote:

Eric, on the little info I could find in public domain, I understand that 
ß+ decay happens within the nucleus. 
Are you saying that there are quite some exceptions?

  Perhaps Robin or Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way 
beta-plus decay works is that the unstable nucleus emits a positron during the 
transition to the daughter.  The positron does something of a random walk 
around the (extra-nuclear) environment until it encounters an electron, at 
which point you get the annihilation and resulting 511 keV photon pair (each 
going off in opposite directions).

  Eric

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Teslaalset wrote:

Eric, on the little info I could find in public domain, I understand that
> ß+ decay happens within the nucleus.
> Are you saying that there are quite some exceptions?
>

Perhaps Robin or Bob can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way
beta-plus decay works is that the unstable nucleus emits a positron during
the transition to the daughter.  The positron does something of a random
walk around the (extra-nuclear) environment until it encounters an
electron, at which point you get the annihilation and resulting 511 keV
photon pair (each going off in opposite directions).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

Eric--

I think the key to looking for beta+/beta- annihilation is to do co-incident 
counting in detectors looking for photons coming in opposite directions (from a 
single point) and to  look for radiation of any wave length and above--say 50 
ev.  The annihilation photons come off back-to-back.   I did this experiment on 
a radioactic sodium isotope that decays by beta+ emission to determine the rest 
mass (energy) of an electron in 1959.  It was quite  an accurate experiment.   
The photons will loose energy as they pass by atoms with electrons in any 
shield.  The denser the material the quicker the loss of energy.  Until they 
get to real low energies they mostly move in a straight line.  Thus even 
shielding will not destroy the coincident events that detectors will record.  

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'


  On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Teslaalset  
wrote:


  1.. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) > Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each 
decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up.
  I think the electron-positron annihilation photons from the radioactive decay 
of certain isotopes of nickel would escape the system.  Since the mean free 
path of these photons is long, they would be unlikely to thermalize, unless 
some sort of 100 percent efficiency gamma thermalization mechanism is at play.  
(Only handfuls of gammas are typically seen.)


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

Bob Cook  wrote:

> What would you expect to happen, if I put the note in talk section of
> Wikipedia?  Would I also be banned to comment on the topic?
>

First they erase your messages. If you keep posting messages, they ban you.

http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/10/31/tis-the-season-to-be-banning-at-wikipedia/

It is a waste of time to get involved with Wikipedia. It is like building a
sandcastle in an incoming tide.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement--ideas for production

Looks like trying to find a needle in a haystack ;).
It is indeed known that Hydrogen penetration is concentrated around grain
boundaries.
Crystallisation may play a role, however both Defkalion and Rossi's
reactors are able to be turned off and on. In particular Rossi shows that
his reactor seems to work way above the crystallisation temperature of
Nickel. Cooling these reactors down slowly will re-crystallise the Nickel
particles.

Likely very fine grains are only important in 'virgin' Nickel powder to
allow certain speed of Hydrogen absorption during first operation of such
load.
Celani holds a patent application that combines oxidation and adding a
silicate layer to significantly speed up absorption of Hydrogen. His
process also includes rapid cooling, creating small grain sizes during
re-crystallisation.


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Alain etal.--
>
> This paper by Duncan etal. from ICCF-18 identified by Alain remind me of
> an experience involving stress corrosion in Ni-Cr-Fe alloy 600 over 40
> years ago.  The material specification being used to procure the Ni-Cr-Fe
> material did not control the concentration of Niobium.  It was not believed
> to be an element that need to be controlled.  However, some heats of
> material were subject to stress corrosion and some were not.  The ones
> coming from one vendor were generally good and ones coming from another
> vendor were not so good.  It turned out that the vendor producing the good
> heats--those that did not corrode--had added Nb in a very small
> amount--several parts per million--to its heats, still meeting the
> specification, since this element, Nb, was not controlled by the
> specification.  The small amount of Nb turned out to tie up carbon which
> was allowed to a small extent per the specification.   It reacted with the
> carbon in the grain boundaries and prevented stress corrosion from
> occurring.  The micro stress patterns were changed and internal stress
> small.  The local energy necessary for the stress corrosion cracking did
> not develop.
>
> Embrittlement is what happened in the welds of hulls of Liberty Ships that
> broke up under stressing and fatigue during  WW1. The welds were embrittled
> by ionization of water in stick electrodes used to weld sections of the
> hulls together. The migration of the hydrogen to local defects caused
> internal pressure and the embrittlement. The lesson was: Do not to use wet
> electrodes for welding steel.
>
> The devil is in the details.
>
> Separately,  a good mechanism for controlling cracks may be the
> introduction of water during alloying.  Various small amount of crystals of
> hydration can be added to a preparation of an alloy using powder metals
> mixed and diced in a cryogenic ball-milling machine.  (Such a device uses
> liquid N-2 as the liquid in the ball milling process to get very
> fine--maybe nano scale--particles of an alloy and the hydrated crystal.
> The N-2 is nice, since it prevents the agglomeration of particles by
> coating each particle with a layer of N-2.  Very good mixing is possible.
> The slurry mixture is poured into molds under a vacuum to keep stray atoms
> out and the N-2 is allowed to evaporate under the vacuum and added
> temperature and pressure.  Pressure bonding is accomplished with the
> hydrated crystal in the bonded metal lattice.  During the heating
> and pressure bonding process, the water of hydration changes to O-2 and
> H-2, the O-2 reacts to form a metal oxide and the hydrogen collects in
> defects to form an internal pressure and embrittlement.   The metal atoms
> bond together being very pure with little on no excess heat and whatever
> pressure it takes.  (He may be used in the pressure bonding process once
> the N-2 is off gassed.) There is no oxide reduction necessary to get  the
> metal to bond well..  The small amount of O-2 reacts locally at the point
> where the crystal of hydration ends up in the mix.   The grains are very
> small and well controlled in size considering the amount of water of
> hydration used in the mix.  For magnetic materials like Ni and Pd these
> boundaries may even be oriented in a desired direction during bonding.
>
> Deuterated water of hydration crystals may be a good sauce in this mix for
> Pd, giving pockets of D-2 at the grain boundaries without preloading.
>
> Anybody wanting a patent on this process idea should get to work. (smile)
>
> Bob
>

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

2014-03-23 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Steve High  wrote:
> Bob Smith says the ideal configuration for an LENR reactor would be a Menger 
> Sponge a fractal affair with infinite surface area and well-configured for 
> cooling. Not sure how to add a link for sponge image but it looks like it 
> would be comfortable in an MC Escher sketchbook

Google yields many images  http://goo.gl/4qkvfZ

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

I think a little mass lead, for example. will pretty well shield the 511 ev 
x-rays coming from Beta+/electron annihilation.  Rossi had such shielding in 
his earlier E-Cat design. 

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Teslaalset 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

  Eric, on the little info I could find in public domain, I understand that ß+ 
decay happens within the nucleus. 
  Are you saying that there are quite some exceptions?

  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Teslaalset  
wrote:

1.. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) > Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each 
decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up.
I think the electron-positron annihilation photons from the radioactive 
decay of certain isotopes of nickel would escape the system.  Since the mean 
free path of these photons is long, they would be unlikely to thermalize, 
unless some sort of 100 percent efficiency gamma thermalization mechanism is at 
play.  (Only handfuls of gammas are typically seen.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Re: Was there radiation emitted in Fisher model?

Loads of 14MEV (or was it 1.4?) shooting every which way as I recall

Steve High

On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Was there radiation emitted in Fisher model?

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

Jed--

What would you expect to happen, if I put the note in talk section of 
Wikipedia?  Would I also be banned to comment on the topic?

Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:52 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

  I put that comment in the Wikipedia talk section. Someone named McSly deleted 
it within minutes, saying: "(Revert. User is topic banned)." Those people stay 
on their toes!

  Here is what I wrote:

  No criticism to papers and presentations?!?[edit]Someone told me that you 
recently changed this article to say that at ICCF conferences "Attendees 
offered no criticism to papers and presentations for fear of..." This is 
hilarious. At the most recent conference, the second keynote speaker from the 
NRL roundly insulted Iwamura and several other leading researchers. At my 
luncheon presentation later that day, I described a major experiment as "tuning 
a piano with a sledgehammer." It turned out the principle researcher was in the 
audience. It was awkward even by my standards. He was very gracious.

  Whoever wrote this has no clue what these conferences are like. Like most 
academic conferences they feature backbiting, sniping, arguments and way too 
much food. The first cold fusion conference was held by the NSF in the summer 
of 1989. You can read the entire proceedings and all of the comments by 
participants at LENR-CANR.org. You will see that they were not reticent.

  - Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org. - Preceding unsigned comment added 
by 99.120.8.235 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  I put the comment back and added:

  McSly, whoever you are, kindly refrain from deleting this. It is good to have 
some trace of reality in these remarks, rather than mere fantasy.

  It should be gone again within minutes, and then I will be once again banned 
from Wikipedia.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Bob Smith says the ideal configuration for an LENR reactor would be a Menger 
Sponge a fractal affair with infinite surface area and well-configured for 
cooling. Not sure how to add a link for sponge image but it looks like it would 
be comfortable in an MC Escher sketchbook

Steve High

>

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

Jones--

I have just established a separate Vortex-1 file for possible science fair 
projects.

Thanks, Bob
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jones Beene 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 8:51 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor

  From: Bob Cook 

  I think I have a good science fair project for a grandson. A little high tech 
monitoring equipment is all that is necessary.  Maybe NI would be interested in 
loaning the instruments.  A transient change in the temperature of the ball and 
the surface upon which they spin would be nice to know to understand the issue 
of friction changes.   An evacuated chamber would be warranted to eliminate the 
issue with loss of energy via stirring the air around the rotating balls.

  Yes, in a simple evacuated bell jar, it would be interesting to see if a pair 
of magnetized balls could be started and kept in rotation via an external laser 
beam, shining through the bell jar somewhat like a Crookes radiometer (which 
only works with a partial vacuum and not in the way commonly perceived.) 

  However, in place of one side having a more absorbent coating, as in Crookes, 
we would be probably going for asymmetry in coherent photons causing tiny phase 
changes or spin coupling on one side or the other of the rotational vector. 
Does forward side irradiation help or hinder compared to trailing side? Lasers 
up to 10 watts are affordable but must be monitored with a grandson's science 
project. A 10 watt laser would possibly transfer 200 milliwatts through a bell 
jar - which should be more than enough.

  If the mirror is placed on top of a number of magnet configurations, then we 
have another possibility - does any kind of a magnetic field alignment help or 
hinder rotation. 

  There could be a lesson or two here wrt any spin system, even at nanoscale.

RE: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning


Here is Fisher's theory.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FisherJCpolyneutroa.pdf

It is hard to take seriously since he fails to adequately address the lack
of gamma radiation. 

However, as a firm believer in "many routes to thermal gain" this could be
one more which has some relevance.

-Original Message-
From: Steve High

Actually Fisher challenged the audience to name the theory that explains the
binding of a deuteron and no hands were raised. I am a doctor of humans and
not fisicks so I will defer further comment on the matter to you. The word
for polyneutrons that I heard in the men's washroom was "unobservium"

Steve High

> "Fisher points out that the binding force that holds a deuteron together
is unknown." 
 
Since when? 

Binding energy of deuteron 2.224589 ± 0.02 MeV

<>

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning


Steve--

Gluons would mediated the force holding neutrons together.  They do it for 
protons and neutrons in a nucleus.   Is there a good model of the gluon wave 
function and what its dimensional influence might be?   A neutron is a Fermi 
particle I think.  The group of neutrons  could be no more than a BEC of 
pairs of neutrons, maybe Cooper pairs coupled with spins in opposite 
directions.  There would have to be an even number of neutrons in any group, 
however.   Thus, 2 neutrons would have to react at once if any new particle 
or particles are formed.   If deuterons were also in the BEC as Kim 
postulates would be possible (deuterons and paired neutrons are both Bose 
particles or Bose quasi-particles.)


Was there radiation emitted in Fisher model?

Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Steve High" 

To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning


John C Fisher. Undergraduate at MIT in the forties!!! He says he's he solved 
the LENR quandary with polyneutron theory. A clump of naked neutrons sitting 
in lattice. Absorbs deuterium atoms and spits out hydrogen atoms plus 
energy. (Then the hydrogen atoms recombine to hydrogen molecules) A real 
outlier model but it would correlate Mizuno's news of yesterday that the 
final gas product from his reactor has an atomic number of two which would 
likely be hydrogen molecules. Audience  respectful of an impressively sharp 
performance from a man who has to be in his mid nineties. The audience 
objects that the binding force that would hold a polyneutron together is 
unknown. Fisher points out that the binding force that holds a deuteron 
together is unknown.


Steve High

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Actually Fisher challenged the audience to name the theory that explains the 
binding of a deuteron and no hands were raised. I am a doctor of humans and not 
fisicks so I will defer further comment on the matter to you. The word for 
polyneutrons that I heard in the men's washroom was "unobservium"

Steve High

On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:02 PM, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve High 
> 
> "Fisher points out that the binding force that holds a deuteron together is
> unknown." 
> 
> Since when? 
> 
> Binding energy of deuteron 2.224589 ± 0.02 MeV
> 
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

2014-03-23 Thread Alan Fletcher

I changed that line to : Attendees at some of the early conferences 
were described as offering no criticism to papers and presentations 
for fear of giving ammunition to external critics  ...


The refs about that are to Parks and Hzuigenda (sp)  -- I have an 
early Hzuigenda edition (200 miles away), but not Parks.

Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement--ideas for production

Alain etal.--

This paper by Duncan etal. from ICCF-18 identified by Alain remind me of an
experience involving stress corrosion in Ni-Cr-Fe alloy 600 over 40 years ago.
The material specification being used to procure the Ni-Cr-Fe material did not
control the concentration of Niobium. It was not believed to be an element
that need to be controlled. However, some heats of material were subject to
stress corrosion and some were not. The ones coming from one vendor were
generally good and ones coming from another vendor were not so good. It turned
out that the vendor producing the good heats--those that did not corrode--had
added Nb in a very small amount--several parts per million--to its heats, still
meeting the specification, since this element, Nb, was not controlled by the
specification. The small amount of Nb turned out to tie up carbon which was
allowed to a small extent per the specification. It reacted with the carbon
in the grain boundaries and prevented stress corrosion from occurring. The
micro stress patterns were changed and internal stress small. The local energy
necessary for the stress corrosion cracking did not develop.

Embrittlement is what happened in the welds of hulls of Liberty Ships that
broke up under stressing and fatigue during WW1. The welds were embrittled by
ionization of water in stick electrodes used to weld sections of the hulls
together. The migration of the hydrogen to local defects caused internal
pressure and the embrittlement. The lesson was: Do not to use wet electrodes
for welding steel.

The devil is in the details.

Separately, a good mechanism for controlling cracks may be the introduction of
water during alloying. Various small amount of crystals of hydration can be
added to a preparation of an alloy using powder metals mixed and diced in a
cryogenic ball-milling machine. (Such a device uses liquid N-2 as the liquid
in the ball milling process to get very fine--maybe nano scale--particles of an
alloy and the hydrated crystal. The N-2 is nice, since it prevents the
agglomeration of particles by coating each particle with a layer of N-2. Very
good mixing is possible. The slurry mixture is poured into molds under a
vacuum to keep stray atoms out and the N-2 is allowed to evaporate under the
vacuum and added temperature and pressure. Pressure bonding is accomplished
with the hydrated crystal in the bonded metal lattice. During the heating and
pressure bonding process, the water of hydration changes to O-2 and H-2, the
O-2 reacts to form a metal oxide and the hydrogen collects in defects to form
an internal pressure and embrittlement. The metal atoms bond together being
very pure with little on no excess heat and whatever pressure it takes. (He
may be used in the pressure bonding process once the N-2 is off gassed.) There
is no oxide reduction necessary to get the metal to bond well.. The small
amount of O-2 reacts locally at the point where the crystal of hydration ends
up in the mix. The grains are very small and well controlled in size
considering the amount of water of hydration used in the mix. For magnetic
materials like Ni and Pd these boundaries may even be oriented in a desired
direction during bonding.

Deuterated water of hydration crystals may be a good sauce in this mix for Pd,
giving pockets of D-2 at the grain boundaries without preloading.

Anybody wanting a patent on this process idea should get to work. (smile)

Bob
- Original Message -
From: Alain Sepeda
To: Vortex List
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement

you can add to that the observation by ENEA that 100 structure of the surface
(can someone explain me... it seems meaning just that cutting is done parallel
to the cube facets)

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1

2014-03-23 15:48 GMT+01:00 Teslaalset :

The topic of creating the right NAEs touches my recent querries for
optimizing Nickel embrittlement.
There's lots of info available in the public and scientific domain on
reducing embrittlement of Nickel, hinting at some of the main possible causes.

Some of those causes:
a.. Copper - Nickel alloys, where oxidized copper clusters in nickel
alloys can form H2O and Copper, where the local H2O can cause very high
pressures that in their turn can cause cracks (and holes). My association with
this is the use of the Cu-Ni-Mn alloys Celani used for his recent research.

b.. Carbon to enforce Nickel alloys. Under pressure and elevated
temperatures Hydrogen and Carbon can form pockets of Methane causing
embrittlement.

Looking to causes of embrittlement of pure Nickel there are not so many
hints that I could find so far.
I guess absorbtion and desorbtion at certain rates are the most common
known causes to create Nickel embrittlemen

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Got it. Well nobody in the audience challenged his response, perhaps out of 
deference.

Steve High

On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:02 PM, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve High 
> 
> "Fisher points out that the binding force that holds a deuteron together is
> unknown." 
> 
> Since when? 
> 
> Binding energy of deuteron 2.224589 ± 0.02 MeV
> 
> 
>

RE: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

-Original Message-
From: Steve High 

"Fisher points out that the binding force that holds a deuteron together is
unknown." 

Since when? 

Binding energy of deuteron 2.224589 ± 0.02 MeV

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

I put that comment in the Wikipedia talk section. Someone named McSly
deleted it within minutes, saying: "(Revert. User is topic banned)." Those
people stay on their toes!

Here is what I wrote:

No criticism to papers and
presentations?!?[edit
]

Someone told me that you recently changed this article to say that at ICCF
conferences "Attendees offered no criticism to papers and presentations for
fear of..." This is hilarious. At the most recent conference, the second
keynote speaker from the NRL roundly insulted Iwamura and several other
leading researchers. At my luncheon presentation later that day, I
described a major experiment as "tuning a piano with a sledgehammer." It
turned out the principle researcher was in the audience. It was awkward
even by my standards. He was very gracious.

Whoever wrote this has no clue what these conferences are like. Like most
academic conferences they feature backbiting, sniping, arguments and way
too much food. The first cold fusion conference was held by the NSF in the
summer of 1989. You can read the entire proceedings and all of the comments
by participants at LENR-CANR.org. You will see that they were not reticent.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org. -- Preceding
unsigned comment
added by 
99.120.8.235
 
(talk)
15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


I put the comment back and added:

McSly, whoever you are, kindly refrain from deleting this. It is good to
have some trace of reality in these remarks, rather than mere fantasy.

It should be gone again within minutes, and then I will be once again
banned from Wikipedia.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

First time for me and my boys are in their thirties. Hope restored 

Steve High

On Mar 23, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Steve High  wrote:
> 
>> Just got a text telling me my sons wife is apparently pregnant. What a 
>> morning!
> 
> Congratulations, grandpa.  How many does that make?  (I have four.)
>

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Hagelstein said a bubble chamber across the lab turned cloudy-after the 
neutrons traversed his midsection. There was no earthquake to cloudify the 
chamber. He's satisfied it is real 

Steve High

On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Steve High  wrote:
> 
>> Hagelstein: puzzling over Carpintieri  granite fracture experiments seeing 
>> neutrons, excess aluminum and deficient iron. Conjectures lattice vibrations 
>> (induced by megahertz acoustic signal at moment of fracture) causing 
>> coherent LENR associated fission . . .
> 
> Conjecture: instrument noise caused by all that banging and vibration. I have 
> heard those detectors are finicky.
> 
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

2014-03-23 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Steve High  wrote:

> Just got a text telling me my sons wife is apparently pregnant. What a 
> morning!

Congratulations, grandpa.  How many does that make?  (I have four.)

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

John C Fisher. Undergraduate at MIT in the forties!!! He says he's he solved 
the LENR quandary with polyneutron theory. A clump of naked neutrons sitting in 
lattice. Absorbs deuterium atoms and spits out hydrogen atoms plus energy. 
(Then the hydrogen atoms recombine to hydrogen molecules) A real outlier model 
but it would correlate Mizuno's news of yesterday that the final gas product 
from his reactor has an atomic number of two which would likely be hydrogen 
molecules. Audience  respectful of an impressively sharp performance from a man 
who has to be in his mid nineties. The audience objects that the binding force 
that would hold a polyneutron together is unknown. Fisher points out that the 
binding force that holds a deuteron together is unknown. 

Steve High

Re: [Vo]:OT: What if we live in a simulated reality?

All you need to do is be a Pantheist to settle the questions that arises 
between scientists and theists.  Pantheism--the doctrine that the natural 
laws that govern  matter and energy and whatever else there is (and may 
change with time as we know it)  taken together are god.  However, there is 
no anthropomorphic concept of God in this belief.   (This differential part 
of many theist concepts may allow the questions to linger on.)  These 
natural  laws--god--existed before (as we understand time) the  Big Bang and 
caused our Universe to develop.   These laws are eternal in the present 
accepted concept of eternal time.  They apply to everything everywhere at 
least in this universe, and they keep track of everything, at least in a 
fuzzy way?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: What if we live in a simulated reality?



Speaking about beliefs and belief networks, today being an
appropriate reminder (both at MIT, and in a facility near you) - there was 
a

post from a few days ago which deserves comment:

From: Blaze Spinnaker


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offe
r-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4
Is the Big Bang even remotely "proof" of God?
Very doubtful... or definitely... depending on POV. The "proof" claim is
beyond anything scientifically relevant, other than showing how years of
indoctrination bleeds over - but this subject does tie into an expanded
notion of the "sim meme" in a more basic (natural) way, which is the
self-imposed sim.
Anyway, to dispense with the article's claim - a steady state Universe
(succession of little bangs) may offer more evidence of Divinity to 
logical

thinking than does a Big Bang... since the latter implies annihilation of
everything - physical and spiritual, between long cycles of expansion. A
steady-state implies a persistent kind of continuity, one that true
believers demand, at the topIn this perspective "universal expansion" 
is

no more than a temporary blip in the local frame (local contraction). And
yes, gravity waves can be better explained from the steady state POV.
Surprisingly, from the sim perspective, one can certainly define Divinity
itself as a gigantic sim in which the programmer or "player" is always the
same old dude :-) If that characterization sounds disrespectful then, it 
is

further proof that religion should be divorced from science - for this and
almost every other reason.
However, the sim-meme discussion, and the distinct possibility that some 
or
us (or all of us) can be living in a "special" or computer generated 
reality

(or alternatively a natural kind of information-processed reality)... in
which individualized happenstance is based to varying extents on nonrandom
input and even whim ... that discussion always breaks down to religion in
the end- and to identifying the source of whim, karma or capriciousness in
the behind-the-scene players (assuming the players are less than divine).
Anyway, despite the possibility of one kind of natural sim being the only
relevant reality, religion is not science, anti-science or anything in
between - it is more the result of a human biological genetic trait, which
goes back in prehistory to a "pack mentality." It is based on a survival
imperatives from an earlier time where the pack (tribe, clan, or whatever)
had to identify with leadership skills of the alpha male (as politically
incorrect as that fact may sound to you in 2014).
There is no fact or experiment - in all of science which cannot be
rationalized either way - for or against the reality of God. Get over it.
Darwinian evolution is fully compatible with Divinity, perhaps even better
adaptable than the silly biblical pronouncement. Evolution represents the
strategy of a God who simply chose this modality as a better way to 
created

sentient beings than by fiat. He knows a thing or two about cars as well
(Latin: "Let there be" as in Fiat Lux, "Let there be light" in Genesis).
In the end, each human is either spiritual or not - and science cannot 
help

much to alter that, nor can it hinder the basic orientation. The spiritual
scientist has no problem at all with Darwinian evolution, nor even with an
"evolved Divinity" in the sense of the Buddhist/Jainist notion of the sum 
of
all souls. In this view, God evolves just as the sum of souls increases. 
Yet
this is a state which is always "perfection" of a sort, at any single 
point

in time.
As a matter of coincidence, yesterday Mark Iverson sent me this video, 
which
has a bit of deeper meaning over and above the obvious. It relates to one 
of

the judge's comments (that this 9 year old girl is an "old soul"). It is
just an aria, but it brings many non-opera aficionados to tears.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZWpLfncliwU?rel=0
Can this kind of prodigy happen in anyone's personal reality-frame without
some notion of the primordial "natural sim" (the one called karma, fate o

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

From: Bob Cook 

 

I think I have a good science fair project for a grandson. A little high
tech monitoring equipment is all that is necessary.  Maybe NI would be
interested in loaning the instruments.  A transient change in the
temperature of the ball and the surface upon which they spin would be nice
to know to understand the issue of friction changes.   An evacuated chamber
would be warranted to eliminate the issue with loss of energy via stirring
the air around the rotating balls.

 

Yes, in a simple evacuated bell jar, it would be interesting to see if a
pair of magnetized balls could be started and kept in rotation via an
external laser beam, shining through the bell jar somewhat like a Crookes
radiometer (which only works with a partial vacuum and not in the way
commonly perceived.) 

 

However, in place of one side having a more absorbent coating, as in
Crookes, we would be probably going for asymmetry in coherent photons
causing tiny phase changes or spin coupling on one side or the other of the
rotational vector. Does forward side irradiation help or hinder compared to
trailing side? Lasers up to 10 watts are affordable but must be monitored
with a grandson's science project. A 10 watt laser would possibly transfer
200 milliwatts through a bell jar - which should be more than enough.

 

If the mirror is placed on top of a number of magnet configurations, then we
have another possibility - does any kind of a magnetic field alignment help
or hinder rotation. 

 

There could be a lesson or two here wrt any spin system, even at nanoscale.

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

This is especially hilarious in view of the ICCF18 conference, where the
second keynote speaker roundly insulted Iwamura and several other leading
researchers, and at my luncheon presentation I described a major experiment
as "tuning a piano with a sledgehammer." It turned out that Steve Jones,
the principle researcher, was sitting in the audience there. It was awkward
even by my standards. He was very gracious.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement

2014-03-23 Thread Alain Sepeda

you can add to that the observation by ENEA that 100 structure of the
surface (can someone explain me... it seems meaning just that cutting is
done parallel to the cube facets)
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1




2014-03-23 15:48 GMT+01:00 Teslaalset :

> The topic of creating the right NAEs touches my recent querries for
> optimizing Nickel embrittlement.
> There's lots of info available in the public and scientific domain on
> reducing embrittlement of Nickel, hinting at some of the main possible
> causes.
>
> Some of those causes:
>
>- Copper - Nickel alloys, where oxidized copper clusters in nickel
>alloys can form H2O and Copper, where the local H2O can cause very high
>pressures that in their turn can cause cracks (and holes). My association
>with this is the use of the Cu-Ni-Mn alloys Celani used for his recent
>research.
>- Carbon to enforce Nickel alloys. Under pressure and elevated
>temperatures Hydrogen and Carbon can form pockets of Methane causing
>embrittlement.
>
>
> Looking to causes of embrittlement of pure Nickel there are not so many
> hints that I could find so far.
> I guess absorbtion and desorbtion at certain rates are the most common
> known causes to create Nickel embrittlement.
> Are there others known?
>
> Last thing I would like to mention is the remarking indication of
> Defkalion of modifying Nickel lattice from FCC to C4 or a Pm3m structure,
> Any clues on how they would do this?
>
>

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

Harry and Jones--

You two do what I would call out of the box thinking on this issue--I wonder 
where Axil is.  More thoughts:

1. There have been two different coupling experiments I seen--one where the 
balls are fused and the other where the balls are magnetically coupled.  They 
both represented a connected mostly Fe ferro-magnetic structure.  The rotation 
clearly creates a rotating magnetic field I think.  It also would cause a 
certain electric charge to be established in some pattern on the outer surfaces 
of the balls at an equal voltage.  At some point or points inside the metal 
surface the electric field should be 0.  A conduction sphere distributes 
charge--electrons for example--over its surface so as to create a null coulomb 
(electric) field inside the surface.  What happens when there are 2 conducting 
spheres attached together is another thing.  When you add a magnetic field and 
some apparent electric current or megaton currents, you have even a more 
complex condition.   

2. The magnetic field must be rotating with its own rotational energy and 
angular momentum/inertia.  What is this inertia and how does it add or subtract 
from the to the mass rotating inertia?  It seems the system must be coupled by 
this spinning.  It seems there is a collapse of the spin coupling when the 
spinning slows.  (There was  an abrupt stop as noted by the researcher that 
demonstrated the fused balls.)

3. What happens to the angular momentum of the rolling balls in the magnetic 
coupling experiment.  It seems to be converted to the angular momentum of the 
system of balls once they come together and it seems to happen pretty fast.  
The net angular of the two balls as they approach each other would be 
essentially 0 since the J vector points in an opposite direction for each ball. 
 

4. A high speed moving picture of this would be interesting and also something 
to monitor the change of the magnetic fields with time would be interesting.  
How fast are are the field changed?  Is there any other way to investigate the 
nuclear magnetic conditions in this system of rotating balls.  

5. What happens if the balls are gold instead of iron?  Or Pd?  Or Ni? 

6. What would happen if once the balls are rotating fast you put another 
conducting surface around to modify the magnetic fields.  

7. Is there a coupling to the Earth's magnetic or gravitational field that 
happens in steps or macroscopic quantum jumps considering the abrupt  stopping 
of the rotation.  Or is this merely a loss of energy via an abrupt change in 
the coeff. of friction?   

I think I have a good science fair project for a grandson. A little high tech 
monitoring equipment is all that is necessary.  Maybe NI would be interested in 
loaning the instruments.  A transient change in the temperature of the ball and 
the surface upon which they spin would be nice to know to understand the issue 
of friction changes.   An evacuated chamber would be warranted to eliminate the 
issue with loss of energy via   stirring the air around the rotating balls.

Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: H Veeder 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor







  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

Re: [Vo]:OT: What if we live in a simulated reality?

2014-03-23 Thread ChemE Stewart

Amazing


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Speaking about beliefs and belief networks, today being an
> appropriate reminder (both at MIT, and in a facility near you) - there was
> a
> post from a few days ago which deserves comment:
>
> From: Blaze Spinnaker
>
>
>
> http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offe
> r-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4
> Is the Big Bang even remotely "proof" of God?
> Very doubtful... or definitely... depending on POV. The "proof" claim is
> beyond anything scientifically relevant, other than showing how years of
> indoctrination bleeds over - but this subject does tie into an expanded
> notion of the "sim meme" in a more basic (natural) way, which is the
> self-imposed sim.
> Anyway, to dispense with the article's claim - a steady state Universe
> (succession of little bangs) may offer more evidence of Divinity to logical
> thinking than does a Big Bang... since the latter implies annihilation of
> everything - physical and spiritual, between long cycles of expansion. A
> steady-state implies a persistent kind of continuity, one that true
> believers demand, at the topIn this perspective "universal expansion"
> is
> no more than a temporary blip in the local frame (local contraction). And
> yes, gravity waves can be better explained from the steady state POV.
> Surprisingly, from the sim perspective, one can certainly define Divinity
> itself as a gigantic sim in which the programmer or "player" is always the
> same old dude :-) If that characterization sounds disrespectful then, it is
> further proof that religion should be divorced from science - for this and
> almost every other reason.
> However, the sim-meme discussion, and the distinct possibility that some or
> us (or all of us) can be living in a "special" or computer generated
> reality
> (or alternatively a natural kind of information-processed reality)... in
> which individualized happenstance is based to varying extents on nonrandom
> input and even whim ... that discussion always breaks down to religion in
> the end- and to identifying the source of whim, karma or capriciousness in
> the behind-the-scene players (assuming the players are less than divine).
> Anyway, despite the possibility of one kind of natural sim being the only
> relevant reality, religion is not science, anti-science or anything in
> between - it is more the result of a human biological genetic trait, which
> goes back in prehistory to a "pack mentality." It is based on a survival
> imperatives from an earlier time where the pack (tribe, clan, or whatever)
> had to identify with leadership skills of the alpha male (as politically
> incorrect as that fact may sound to you in 2014).
> There is no fact or experiment - in all of science which cannot be
> rationalized either way - for or against the reality of God. Get over it.
> Darwinian evolution is fully compatible with Divinity, perhaps even better
> adaptable than the silly biblical pronouncement. Evolution represents the
> strategy of a God who simply chose this modality as a better way to created
> sentient beings than by fiat. He knows a thing or two about cars as well
> (Latin: "Let there be" as in Fiat Lux, "Let there be light" in Genesis).
> In the end, each human is either spiritual or not - and science cannot help
> much to alter that, nor can it hinder the basic orientation. The spiritual
> scientist has no problem at all with Darwinian evolution, nor even with an
> "evolved Divinity" in the sense of the Buddhist/Jainist notion of the sum
> of
> all souls. In this view, God evolves just as the sum of souls increases.
> Yet
> this is a state which is always "perfection" of a sort, at any single point
> in time.
> As a matter of coincidence, yesterday Mark Iverson sent me this video,
> which
> has a bit of deeper meaning over and above the obvious. It relates to one
> of
> the judge's comments (that this 9 year old girl is an "old soul"). It is
> just an aria, but it brings many non-opera aficionados to tears.
> https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZWpLfncliwU?rel=0
> Can this kind of prodigy happen in anyone's personal reality-frame without
> some notion of the primordial "natural sim" (the one called karma, fate or
> reincarnation) which is espoused more in Buddhism, but which many
> Christians
> incorporate into their own spirit-package ... and in which the present life
> is somehow merged with a progression of former lives?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement

The topic of creating the right NAEs touches my recent querries for
optimizing Nickel embrittlement.
There's lots of info available in the public and scientific domain on
reducing embrittlement of Nickel, hinting at some of the main possible
causes.

Some of those causes:

   - Copper - Nickel alloys, where oxidized copper clusters in nickel
   alloys can form H2O and Copper, where the local H2O can cause very high
   pressures that in their turn can cause cracks (and holes). My association
   with this is the use of the Cu-Ni-Mn alloys Celani used for his recent
   research.
   - Carbon to enforce Nickel alloys. Under pressure and elevated
   temperatures Hydrogen and Carbon can form pockets of Methane causing
   embrittlement.


Looking to causes of embrittlement of pure Nickel there are not so many
hints that I could find so far.
I guess absorbtion and desorbtion at certain rates are the most common
known causes to create Nickel embrittlement.
Are there others known?

Last thing I would like to mention is the remarking indication of Defkalion
of modifying Nickel lattice from FCC to C4 or a Pm3m structure,
Any clues on how they would do this?

RE: [Vo]:OT: What if we live in a simulated reality?

Speaking about beliefs and belief networks, today being an
appropriate reminder (both at MIT, and in a facility near you) - there was a
post from a few days ago which deserves comment:  

From: Blaze Spinnaker 


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offe
r-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4
Is the Big Bang even remotely "proof" of God? 
Very doubtful... or definitely... depending on POV. The "proof" claim is
beyond anything scientifically relevant, other than showing how years of
indoctrination bleeds over - but this subject does tie into an expanded
notion of the "sim meme" in a more basic (natural) way, which is the
self-imposed sim.
Anyway, to dispense with the article's claim - a steady state Universe
(succession of little bangs) may offer more evidence of Divinity to logical
thinking than does a Big Bang... since the latter implies annihilation of
everything - physical and spiritual, between long cycles of expansion. A
steady-state implies a persistent kind of continuity, one that true
believers demand, at the topIn this perspective "universal expansion" is
no more than a temporary blip in the local frame (local contraction). And
yes, gravity waves can be better explained from the steady state POV.
Surprisingly, from the sim perspective, one can certainly define Divinity
itself as a gigantic sim in which the programmer or "player" is always the
same old dude :-) If that characterization sounds disrespectful then, it is
further proof that religion should be divorced from science - for this and
almost every other reason. 
However, the sim-meme discussion, and the distinct possibility that some or
us (or all of us) can be living in a "special" or computer generated reality
(or alternatively a natural kind of information-processed reality)... in
which individualized happenstance is based to varying extents on nonrandom
input and even whim ... that discussion always breaks down to religion in
the end- and to identifying the source of whim, karma or capriciousness in
the behind-the-scene players (assuming the players are less than divine).
Anyway, despite the possibility of one kind of natural sim being the only
relevant reality, religion is not science, anti-science or anything in
between - it is more the result of a human biological genetic trait, which
goes back in prehistory to a "pack mentality." It is based on a survival
imperatives from an earlier time where the pack (tribe, clan, or whatever)
had to identify with leadership skills of the alpha male (as politically
incorrect as that fact may sound to you in 2014).
There is no fact or experiment - in all of science which cannot be
rationalized either way - for or against the reality of God. Get over it.
Darwinian evolution is fully compatible with Divinity, perhaps even better
adaptable than the silly biblical pronouncement. Evolution represents the
strategy of a God who simply chose this modality as a better way to created
sentient beings than by fiat. He knows a thing or two about cars as well
(Latin: "Let there be" as in Fiat Lux, "Let there be light" in Genesis).
In the end, each human is either spiritual or not - and science cannot help
much to alter that, nor can it hinder the basic orientation. The spiritual
scientist has no problem at all with Darwinian evolution, nor even with an
"evolved Divinity" in the sense of the Buddhist/Jainist notion of the sum of
all souls. In this view, God evolves just as the sum of souls increases. Yet
this is a state which is always "perfection" of a sort, at any single point
in time.
As a matter of coincidence, yesterday Mark Iverson sent me this video, which
has a bit of deeper meaning over and above the obvious. It relates to one of
the judge's comments (that this 9 year old girl is an "old soul"). It is
just an aria, but it brings many non-opera aficionados to tears.  
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZWpLfncliwU?rel=0
Can this kind of prodigy happen in anyone's personal reality-frame without
some notion of the primordial "natural sim" (the one called karma, fate or
reincarnation) which is espoused more in Buddhism, but which many Christians
incorporate into their own spirit-package ... and in which the present life
is somehow merged with a progression of former lives?




 

<>

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Steve High  wrote:


> Just got a text telling me my sons wife is apparently pregnant. What a
> morning!
>

Mazel Tov!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Steve High  wrote:

Hagelstein: puzzling over Carpintieri  granite fracture experiments seeing
> neutrons, excess aluminum and deficient iron. Conjectures lattice
> vibrations (induced by megahertz acoustic signal at moment of fracture)
> causing coherent LENR associated fission . . .

Conjecture: instrument noise caused by all that banging and vibration. I
have heard those detectors are finicky.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia cold fusion under edition

That is hilarious. Those people at Wikipedia live in a cloud cuckoo land of
their own imagination.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning

Larry Forsley: an asset to LENR because he comes from hot fusion world. He is 
not afraid of neutrons and saw quite a lot of them when he placed CR39 detector 
in close proximity to codeposition produced palladium LENR reactor. Just got a 
text telling me my sons wife is apparently pregnant. What a morning!

Steve High

On Mar 23, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Steve High  wrote:

> Hagelstein: puzzling over Carpintieri  granite fracture experiments seeing 
> neutrons, excess aluminum and deficient iron. Conjectures lattice vibrations 
> (induced by megahertz acoustic signal at moment of fracture) causing coherent 
> LENR associated fission driven by inverse fractionation. "Fractionation" is 
> his term for quantum explanation for thermalization of LENR associated 
> energetic particles and gammas
> 
> Steve High

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

Eric, on the little info I could find in public domain, I understand that
ß+ decay happens within the nucleus.
Are you saying that there are quite some exceptions?



On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Teslaalset 
> wrote:
>
>
>>1. The ß+ decay energy of Cu(x) > Ni(x) + e+ + ve (2 -4 MeV) of each
>>decay step in the chain, causing the Ni/Cu powder to heat up.
>>
>> I think the electron-positron annihilation photons from the radioactive
> decay of certain isotopes of nickel would escape the system.  Since the
> mean free path of these photons is long, they would be unlikely to
> thermalize, unless some sort of 100 percent efficiency gamma thermalization
> mechanism is at play.  (Only handfuls of gammas are typically seen.)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'

I lost that data in my memory indeed. Thanks for refreshing it.
Do you have a public reference on fusion of odd count nuleons not fusing?
I respect your knowledge but like to understand this a bit better.

It looks like there are many variaties possible.
Looks like much is depending on what type/size of NAE occurs locally.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> You should take a look at the table 2 and table 3 element list from the
> DGT ICCF-17 document.
>
>
> http://cdn.coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2012-08-13-ICCF-17__Paper_DGTGx.pdf
>
> The is a large increase in very light elements and not much nickel to
> copper transmutation.
>
> This means that Cluster fusion of many nuclei including many protons and a
> heavy metal nucleus is occurring per fusion event.
>
> In the Rossi ash, iron was 10% of the element assay.
>
> *1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron.*
>
> Fusion cannot happen if the nucleon count is odd, e.g. Ni61. This
> indicates photofusion.
>
> Gamma Radiation is converted to huge magnetic fields and will result in
> EUV radiation from the eventual destruction of the EMF soliton that will be
> thermalized by election capture.
>
>
>

[Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning