Re: [Vo]:Goodnight from the MIT colloquium
>From data I have , and from the news of Celani about his Angel, I think that it is the end of an Era. It is sad to see that this colloquium seems so gray haired, but this is a fact that young researcher are slave of the funding, and that tenure and indifference to impact factor if a luxury of older scientists. Maybe the "memorial" format of the colloquium amplify that effect. However I think that angel cavalry will attack soon. Time to business. Chemistry have proven LENR reality. Nuclear Physics have proven Groupthink reality. Business will prove Schumpeter creative-destruction, and Adam Smith animal spirit. Time to panic, positively. I have element that it won't be easy for the social fabric to swallow that revolution in less than 5 years, as it is required, while it should take 20. LENR revolution in 20 years is like soft landing for real-estate or ordered bankruptcy. A day-dream. I agree that the technology will take 20 years to get mature, but it will take 3-5 years to carpet-bomb all markets. This is why scientists and engineers should prepare to compress 20 years into 5, or prepare for huge social troubles in Western World. the problem with new technology is not the new, but that the old die faster than the new can replace it (hope kills past faster than hand build the future). We should not try to slow the progress in the hope to slow destruction (impossible), but we should accelerate adaptation to the new world. time to prepare the airports for Angel landing. They will be in a hurry. 2014-03-24 1:52 GMT+01:00 Steve High : > 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 >
Re: [Vo]:Stimulate embrittlement--ideas for production
Absolutely. That is indeed the likely reason. SiO2 has both pyro- and thermalelectrical capabilities. On nano scale this could be sufficient to split the local hydrogen. Op zondag 23 maart 2014 heeft Eric Walker het volgende geschreven: > 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]:Stimulate embrittlement--ideas for production
Absolutely. That is indeed the likely reason. SiO2 has both pyro- and thermalelectrical capabilities. On nano scale this could be sufficient to split the local hydrogen. Op zondag 23 maart 2014 heeft Eric Walker het volgende geschreven: > 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]:More on the Mizuno presentation
great news that Mizuno found an angel. Time to learn Gospel. 2014-03-24 3:31 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene : > 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]:Deseret News : F&P consensus parroting...
just for those desiring to correct facts http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865599345/25-years-ago-a-dream-caught-fire-2-and-died.html
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d > 4H (fast decay) > 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p > 3H (slow decay) > 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p > 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p > 4H > 4He + e t+e+d > 5H > 4H + n > 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High wrote: > Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of > clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation > that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the > reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas > in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run > they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the > run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred > (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly > Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose > during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic > deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why > that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity > the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) > The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing > masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an > enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get > behind Mizuno's innovation > Steve High > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jones Beene wrote: > Apparently Mr Igari presented for Mizuno. He was said to be very impressive > and informed about the details. > That was Mr. Yoshino. Mizuno also presented via Skype. I heard from Mizuno this morning. I asked him to send me the slides, but he has not got around to it. If he sends them I will upload them. If there are some in Japanese I will translate them. He says he will send me a new paper "soon." (In professor-speak, "soon" indicates a time-value ranging from a week to ten years.) Note that in addition to the ICCF18 paper, there as a poster which was mostly written by me, which may be more understandable. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf He and I went over the poster several times so I am pretty sure it is accurate. Apparently they have made great progress since then. One aspect of this technique which has not been discussed lately is that the particles remain stuck to the wire they are carved out from, so they cannot stick together. In other nanoparticle systems, they tend to stick together, then merge or fuse together, reducing surface area. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Steve High Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. Steve, First let me thank you for this thorough reporting. This may go down as a very important event and you witnessed it first-hand. Second, let me say that the gas at the intermediate stage could have been Trihydrogen as a third option. This would support a version of Fisher's theory if the deuterium was giving up neutrons to the "polyneutron" species. According to that theory 2 or 3 neutrons are unbound, but more neutron - possibly favoring four to six, can exist as a bound species. What they do later is only predictable in retrospect. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Most interesting. Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) You suggestion of molecular H2 as the most likely end product is not out of the question. Problem is determining the energetics which do not look promising. Like any good detective, we should look at all the possibilities. Thus 2 molecules of D2 go to 2 molecules of H2 and a n4 polyneutron. The polyneutron decays to hydrogen so in the end we have 2 D2 --> 4 H2. However, this is not energetic without something else - such as a mass transfer from the nickel matrix. Mass of H2 is 2.0158 amu, mass of deuterium 2.0141amu so that the net reaction appears endothermic without mass transfer from the host metal or some other energy input. Thanks again - this deserves more thought. The polyneutron itself would be the key - does it gain mass from the zero point field? This would be a worthy question to Puthoff or Haisch.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
One further note. According to Steve's report, the device placed in the reactor allowed them to determine the changing composition of the reactant gas over time. Thus, it was probably either some kind of spectrometer and they were looking at emission lines - and even a mass spectrometer, if there was a magnetic field. In fact, it had to be the later since they did not know if mass 3 was tritium or 3He. Thus this implies that a magnetic field had been added ! Thus, unbeknownst to even Mizuno, the addition of a magnetic field (and a laser for the spectroscopy) could have been contributory to the better results over the prior experiments a few months ago. Think about the good fortune! Wow. We need to pin down the details of the mass spectrometer which they added to the device. Did it have a magnetic field and a laser? If so, they were inadvertently adding SPP into the experiment ! The question then - for Fisher's theory (and it may be coincidental that he was present) is why did the device not indicate that an amu of 6 or more was present in the ongoing reaction? Simple, Watson . a mass spectrometer require gas ionization and polyneutrons have no electrons, so they cannot ionize and thus would avoid detection, and no one knows the emission lines of a polyneutron anyway - if that is what they were looking for. Plus polyneutrons would be dense - not gaseous (think: neutron star). In conclusion, although it could be coincidental that Fisher was there, this is a good time to take a closer look at an expanded version of polyneutron theory being relevant to the improved Mizuno experiment which could have added SPP under the guise of mass detection. From: Steve High Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. Steve, First let me thank you for this thorough reporting. This may go down as a very important event and you witnessed it first-hand. Second, let me say that the gas at the intermediate stage could have been Trihydrogen as a third option. This would support a version of Fisher's theory if the deuterium was giving up neutrons to the "polyneutron" species. According to that theory 2 or 3 neutrons are unbound, but more neutron - possibly favoring four to six, can exist as a bound species. What they do later is only predictable in retrospect. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Most interesting. Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) You suggestion of molecular H2 as the most likely end product is not out of the question. Problem is determining the energetics which do not look promising. Like any good detective, we should look at all the possibilities. Thus 2 molecules of D2 go to 2 molecules of H2 and a n4 polyneutron. The polyneutron decays to hydrogen so in the end we have 2 D2 --> 4 H2. However, this is not energetic without something else - such as a mass transfer from the nickel matrix. Mass of H2 is 2.0158 amu, mass of deuterium 2.0141amu so that the net reaction appears endothermic without mass transfer from the host metal or some other energy input. Thanks again - this deserves more thought. The polyneutron itself would be the key - does it gain mass from the zero point field? This would be a worthy question to Puthoff or Haisch.
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
I should have read Jed's post first, and the writeup, which has some nice images Apparently the mass spec and quadrupole are outside the experiment, and could not have been contributory. Apologies for that. However, this does not rule out polyneutrons. But since the reaction works with either deuterium or hydrogen, then we probably cannot be placing much emphasis on a hypothesis which is only relevant to deuterium, and that does seem to partially rule out a polyneutron explanation. From: Jones Beene One further note. According to Steve's report, the device placed in the reactor allowed them to determine the changing composition of the reactant gas over time. Thus, it was probably either some kind of spectrometer and they were looking at emission lines - and even a mass spectrometer, if there was a magnetic field. In fact, it had to be the later since they did not know if mass 3 was tritium or 3He. Thus this implies that a magnetic field had been added ! Thus, unbeknownst to even Mizuno, the addition of a magnetic field (and a laser for the spectroscopy) could have been contributory to the better results over the prior experiments a few months ago. Think about the good fortune! Wow. We need to pin down the details of the mass spectrometer which they added to the device. Did it have a magnetic field and a laser? If so, they were inadvertently adding SPP into the experiment ! The question then - for Fisher's theory (and it may be coincidental that he was present) is why did the device not indicate that an amu of 6 or more was present in the ongoing reaction? Simple, Watson . a mass spectrometer require gas ionization and polyneutrons have no electrons, so they cannot ionize and thus would avoid detection, and no one knows the emission lines of a polyneutron anyway - if that is what they were looking for. Plus polyneutrons would be dense - not gaseous (think: neutron star). In conclusion, although it could be coincidental that Fisher was there, this is a good time to take a closer look at an expanded version of polyneutron theory being relevant to the improved Mizuno experiment which could have added SPP under the guise of mass detection. From: Steve High Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. Steve, First let me thank you for this thorough reporting. This may go down as a very important event and you witnessed it first-hand. Second, let me say that the gas at the intermediate stage could have been Trihydrogen as a third option. This would support a version of Fisher's theory if the deuterium was giving up neutrons to the "polyneutron" species. According to that theory 2 or 3 neutrons are unbound, but more neutron - possibly favoring four to six, can exist as a bound species. What they do later is only predictable in retrospect. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Most interesting. Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) You suggestion of molecular H2 as the most likely end product is not out of the question. Problem is determining the energetics which do not look promising. Like any good detective, we should look at all the possibilities. Thus 2 molecules of D2 go to 2 molecules of H2 and a n4 polyneutron. The polyneutron decays to hydrogen so in the end we have 2 D2 --> 4 H2. However, this is not energetic without something else - such as a mass transfer from the nickel matrix. Mass of H2 is 2.0158 amu, mass of deuterium 2.0141amu so that the net reaction appears endothermic without mass transfer from the host metal or some other energy input. Thanks again - this deserves more thought. The polyneutron itself would be the key - does it gain mass from the zero point field? This would be a worthy question to Puthoff or Haisch.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
it seems Mizuno measurement show the inverse reaction pep reactions seems to make atomic number grows H.H.H.H->H.D.H->HT->4H~>4He D.D.D.D->D.4H.D~>D.4He.D Mizuno results seems opposite, or maybe an illusion of mass spectrography It seems a good way to understand what happen, but we should differentiate DD/ He4, and HH/D,, and T/DH/He3 2014-03-24 15:04 GMT+01:00 Teslaalset : > Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the > attention by Alain via LinkedIn): > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf > > He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of > Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): > > d+e+d > 4H (fast decay) > 4He + e Q=~23 MeV > d+e+p > 3H (slow decay) > 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] > p+e+p > 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV > t+e+p > 4H > 4He + e > t+e+d > 5H > 4H + n > 4He + e > The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. > > Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup > (skipping the 1H to 2H step). > > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High wrote: > >> Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of >> clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation >> that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the >> reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas >> in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run >> they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the >> run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred >> (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly >> Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively >> rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic >> deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why >> that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity >> the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) >> The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing >> masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an >> enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get >> behind Mizuno's innovation >> Steve High >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Yes, Mizuno's work, according to the recent MIT presentation, is shaping up as a reaction which implies fission of the deuteron, not fusion to higher mass. This is called "neutron stripping." It was discovered many years ago and is relatively low energy. We have discussed it many times in the past on vortex, before Ni-H became so important. In short - the only known quantum reaction to take deuterium to hydrogen without thermodynamic splitting (2.2 MeV) is called the Oppenheimer-Philips reaction. Wiki has a poor writeup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process The problem is - what is happening to all those lost neutrons, even with a polyneutron species? And why does Mizuno's experiment work well with H2 and/or D2 since H2 cannot be stripped? From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com it seems Mizuno measurement show the inverse reaction pep reactions seems to make atomic number grows H.H.H.H->H.D.H->HT->4H~>4He D.D.D.D->D.4H.D~>D.4He.D Mizuno results seems opposite, or maybe an illusion of mass spectrography It seems a good way to understand what happen, but we should differentiate DD/ He4, and HH/D,, and T/DH/He3 Teslaalset: Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d > 4H (fast decay) > 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p > 3H (slow decay) > 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p > 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p > 4H > 4He + e t+e+d > 5H > 4H + n > 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High wrote: Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From:Axil DGT is also a validation of Rossi, don't you think? Possibly, but no oneknows. They have presented interesting claims, especially the magnetic claim - butthe scientific data is basically limited to one joint paper in which Kim sayshe 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, noreplications, dwindling support among experts and no respected scientist tospeak for them without Kim – who seems to be less than enthusiastic thesedays. They were a no-show at MIT. The web site is pitiable. Their presence inCanada is reportedly reduced to an answering machine and shared office with no fulltime staff. Essentially they seem to be broke. Worst of all - the mainfeature of their reactor – the electrical discharge into hydrogen loaded powder- is covered in Ahern’s prior patent application. Their main claim tofame may be having “borrowed” Rossi’s secret recipe, but thebottom line seems to be lack of funds, probably stemming from a crazy businessplan based on extraordinarily high up-front fees. No one signed up, apparently. Don’t hold yourbreath until they deliver. It’s too bad, since they probably have seengain. Perhaps they can snatchvictory for the jaws of defeat. If they can just demonstrate the incrediblemagnetic field to a potential investor, that would seem to be enough. It couldhave other uses. Note – Rossi has been focusing on jet engine substitutionrecently- and the DGT design could be better suited for that.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
I would have said that Storms process would have seen an increase in atomic 4 mass in the form of 4He. NRL indicated that there was a production of He in their Pd experiments consistent with Storms proposed process. Storms has long said on this blog that his theory was reflects the data. I would say the Mizuno tests, if the conclusion on the decrease of atomic mass 4 is correct, contradicts Storms theory. Bob - Original Message - From: Teslaalset To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 7:04 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Steve, have a look at a paper of Edmund Storms (recently brought under the attention by Alain via LinkedIn): http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf He proposes following processes happening in the reactors of Rossi/Defkalion (using light Hydrogen): d+e+d > 4H (fast decay) > 4He + e Q=~23 MeV d+e+p > 3H (slow decay) > 3He + e Q=~4.9 MeV [22, 23] p+e+p > 2H (stable) Q=~1.4 MeV t+e+p > 4H > 4He + e t+e+d > 5H > 4H + n > 4He + e The Q values give an estimated overall energy release. Something very similar could be the case in Mizuno's latest setup (skipping the 1H to 2H step). On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Steve High wrote: Having been at the meeting I would be pleased to add an item of clarification. The input gas was in fact molecular deuterium. An innovation that they made a big deal of at the meeting was a device placed inside the reactor that allowed them to monitor the composition of the circulating gas in real time, in terms of atomic number. Thus at the beginning of the run they were registering atomic number 4 (molecular deuterium) and during the run there was a progressive decline in 4. A transient rise in 3 occurred (they didn't know if it was tritium or possibly Helium 3) then that level declined again. The item that progressively rose during the run was atomic number 2(they didn't know if that was atomic deuterium or molecular hydrogen). Any speculation from the group as to why that might happen? As an matter of coincidence or god forbid synchronicity the output of Fisher's polyneutron theory was molecular hydrogen (IIRC) The opening slide was an image of Japanese gradeschoolers wearing masks for protection from Fukushimas monstrous effluent. Underscore an enhanced willingness on the part of Japanese government and industry to get behind Mizuno's innovation Steve High
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Bob Cook I would have said that Storms process would have seen an increase in atomic 4 mass in the form of 4He. NRL indicated that there was a production of He in their Pd experiments consistent with Storms proposed process. Storms has long said on this blog that his theory was reflects the data. I would say the Mizuno tests, if the conclusion on the decrease of atomic mass 4 is correct, contradicts Storms theory. IMHO, this experiment does not contradict - so much as it adds another route to gain. Storms theory is applicable to some experiments more than others, but this one is not one of them, since amu of the reactant gas is going down instead of up. In fact, in earlier work, Mizuno says that he believes that deuterium fuses to helium, but that cannot be the case here, since they is not increase in amu=4 and in fact it is going the other way. This only reinforces the notion that LENR is a mélange of many energetic reactions, some of which are more favored than others but the same experiment can have several routes operating at once. Because this experiment is so well done and so impressive in its thoroughness, it looks to be the best thing to happen in the LENR field for many years (including Rossi, which was grossly deficient and substandard in the details although curiously, this work validates AR, in ways that his own work cannot)
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: 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
The decrease of the observed atomic mass of hydrogen by half may simply be the dissociation of molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen over time. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Bob Cook wrote: > Dave-- > > I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal > fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being > considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of > their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is > added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the > reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of > incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under > normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. > > Bob > > - Original Message - > *From:* David Roberson > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation > > I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine > generator and not an actual aviation application. > > Dave > -Original Message- > From: Jones Beene > To: vortex-l > Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am > Subject: 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
Jones-- I do not think you give Ross AND Focardi enough credit for doing good research. They just did not talk about it. Rossi's reaction did not just happen by luck in my estimation. Nevertheless, I agree that the Mizuno work seems to look at dynamic parameters in attempting to understand the reactions that are occurring. The details of the method they used to determine the mass of the circulating gas species would be nice to know in detail--did it in fact entail the addition of magnetic fields. And if the reactor is not sealed, how did they account for the mass balance (and mass ratios) of gases coming out (and going in) if there was an addition with time. Rossi may not have done dynamic monitoring of his reaction products, but I believe he destructively examined the hundreds of runs he claims to have made in perfecting his reactor with good up-to-date technology that Focardi was familiar with and apparently had access to. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:54 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Bob Cook I would have said that Storms process would have seen an increase in atomic 4 mass in the form of 4He. NRL indicated that there was a production of He in their Pd experiments consistent with Storms proposed process. Storms has long said on this blog that his theory was reflects the data. I would say the Mizuno tests, if the conclusion on the decrease of atomic mass 4 is correct, contradicts Storms theory. IMHO, this experiment does not contradict - so much as it adds another route to gain. Storm's theory is applicable to some experiments more than others, but this one is not one of them, since amu of the reactant gas is going down instead of up. In fact, in earlier work, Mizuno says that he believes that deuterium fuses to helium, but that cannot be the case here, since they is not increase in amu=4 and in fact it is going the other way. This only reinforces the notion that LENR is a mélange of many energetic reactions, some of which are more favored than others but the same experiment can have several routes operating at once. Because this experiment is so well done - and so impressive in its thoroughness, it looks to be the best thing to happen in the LENR field for many years (including Rossi, which was grossly deficient and substandard in the details. although curiously, this work validates AR, in ways that his own work cannot)
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jones Beene wrote: > Apparently the mass spec and quadrupole are outside the experiment, and > could not have been contributory. > When they took those photos I think the mass spec & quadrupole were sitting there, not hooked into the experiment yet. I saw the quadrupole gadget years ago when I was there. Months ago, they did the experiment by doing glow discharge with rarefied gas, then filling the cell with a lot more gas. The gas would stay there for the entire test. I think after the test they would sometimes run a sample through a mass spectrometer. They occasionally saw some anomalous heat during the initial glow discharge phase, presumably when some nanoparticles were already formed. I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. Mizuno did not send me slides, I suppose because Yoshino has them. I guess he just got home. It takes a long time. If I get slides I will upload them toot sweet as they (don't) say in Gay Paree. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Jed They would have to had a magnetic shield around the mass spec to keep the magnetic field out of the reactor. Keep in mind that the Mass Spectrometer uses a small sample of a gas and ionized it to create a charged atom that is captured in the process and is eliminated from the gas inventory. If the process is continuous, a significant amount of gas may be lost in this process over time. A mass accounting is warranted. What is the "quadrupole" outside the experiment that you refer to. Is it part of the mass spectrometer? Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Jones Beene wrote: Apparently the mass spec and quadrupole are outside the experiment, and could not have been contributory. When they took those photos I think the mass spec & quadrupole were sitting there, not hooked into the experiment yet. I saw the quadrupole gadget years ago when I was there. Months ago, they did the experiment by doing glow discharge with rarefied gas, then filling the cell with a lot more gas. The gas would stay there for the entire test. I think after the test they would sometimes run a sample through a mass spectrometer. They occasionally saw some anomalous heat during the initial glow discharge phase, presumably when some nanoparticles were already formed. I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. Mizuno did not send me slides, I suppose because Yoshino has them. I guess he just got home. It takes a long time. If I get slides I will upload them toot sweet as they (don't) say in Gay Paree. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob Cook wrote: > > What is the "quadrupole" outside the experiment that you refer to. Is it > part of the mass spectrometer? > Look at the schematic on p. 7 and the photos on p. 8 here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTposterform.pdf The schematic shows that you can take a sample of gas from the cell any time during the run. But I do not think you could do continuous sampling with this arrangement. A quadrupole is a quadrupole mass spectrometer. It is a gadget with four polls inside it, just as you might expect. Mizuno purchased it years ago. I think there was another kind of mass spectrometer there now, shown some other photos, but I may be mistaken. Figure 12 shows the quadrupole gadget is a good distance away from the cell. I don't suppose magnetic fields from it reach the cell with much strength. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
From: Jed Rothwell I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. The main reason that knowing (or appreciating) that the mass spectrometer was close to the device or built into the device now, as opposed to earlier - was because the operating results have been also greatly improved in the past few months . thus, we are thinking that there was the possibility of an added magnetic field being responsible or partly contributory to the bigger gain. The magnetic field seems to fit well into many recent offshoots of a Letts/Cravens effect where a small added field makes a large boost in LENR output. We cannot be sure that this is relevant to Mizuno without learning more details. However, in the MIT presentation - where they were using 300 meters of thin nickel wire, wrapped around a mandrel with many turns - instead of the much thicker and fewer turns of wire in other past experiments - that too could be where an added magnetic field originates - in the mandrel itself. However, this coil is ostensibly unpowered in the experiment IIRC. Not only that but the wire is uncoated, so an amp-turn equivalent situation is hard to imagine due to shorting. The question then would be something like this: could a small magnetic field of 500-800 gauss be created during operation of the Mizuno device by induction from the heating coil to the mandrel, or else by positive ion contact with the mandrel coil?
Re: [Vo]:Goodnight from the MIT colloquium
There is a new generation of LENR researchers gaining their sea legs and building on the work of those who have gone before. I am speaking about the H Cat experimenters. They are taking a different path to experimentation, a cooperative path, an open source path, where all knowledge and experimental experience is shared among them to the mutual benefit of the whole group. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaHI--DZ7hA Here is a little narrative for the folks that don't really know what they are looking at in this video. What you have is a typical brute force plate cell, generating Hydroxy and pushing it through a bubbler then a flashback suppressor. This is the same thing used in a HHO torch set. There's nothing fancy there. In fact, you can get all that stuff at HHO Connection. What isn't so obvious is that the Hydroxy is being pumped into a reaction chamber. And you don't have to ignite the gas to generate any heat, it will do that all by itself. In the video the experimenter keeps the reaction chamber cool with a forced air blower. This is necessary to keep the catalyst from melting. If you don't cool the reactor chamber it will climb in temperature until it destroys itself. If you have a good enough reactor, you could certainly melt lead or even aluminum with it. For safety sake, I would be a little cautious at taking the temperature that high as you would be asking for a gas combustion flashback at some point. You might also notice he uses a simple condenser tube of copper to collect the pure water in a closed loop. What I would really like is to see as the next step is the generation of calorimeter data in BTUs compared with the wattage needed to drive the cell. A simple temperature gauge with a very rough flow meter reading doesn't quite cut it with me. What would be far better is to cool the reactor with water, pumped into a large vessel of known capacity and plot a temperature rise curve over time. All of this should be well insulated and a baseline established. Even better would be to a have a replica dummy reactor without the catalyst but with a flame combustor of the HHO gas heating the water coolant and then compare the two plots. Doing this kind of lab work and fully documenting everything would be a no-brainer to bring this experiment to the forefront. . On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Steve High wrote: > 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 >
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Quadrupole stimulation of nuclei is a long know way to excite nuclei. Is the quadrupole device part of the experiment?.. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation From: Jed Rothwell I have not seen new slides and I was not there for the lecture, but my impression is they have now set up the mass spectrometer in a loop, where the gas passes through the spectrometer into the cell, out again and around and around. The main reason that knowing (or appreciating) that the mass spectrometer was close to the device or built into the device now, as opposed to earlier - was because the operating results have been also greatly improved in the past few months . thus, we are thinking that there was the possibility of an added magnetic field being responsible or partly contributory to the bigger gain. The magnetic field seems to fit well into many recent offshoots of a Letts/Cravens effect where a small added field makes a large boost in LENR output. We cannot be sure that this is relevant to Mizuno without learning more details. However, in the MIT presentation - where they were using 300 meters of thin nickel wire, wrapped around a mandrel with many turns - instead of the much thicker and fewer turns of wire in other past experiments - that too could be where an added magnetic field originates - in the mandrel itself. However, this coil is ostensibly unpowered in the experiment IIRC. Not only that but the wire is uncoated, so an amp-turn equivalent situation is hard to imagine due to shorting. The question then would be something like this: could a small magnetic field of 500-800 gauss be created during operation of the Mizuno device by induction from the heating coil to the mandrel, or else by positive ion contact with the mandrel coil?
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob Cook wrote: Quadrupole stimulation of nuclei is a long know way to excite nuclei. Is > the quadrupole device part of the experiment?.. > Look at the photos please. It is a box sitting off to the side, connected to the cell with a pipe. (I assume it is a thin pipe, not a tube.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My current views on the 'Rossi's process'
In reply to Bob Cook's message of Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:19:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] >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. AFAIK annihilation usually only happens after the positron has slowed down. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor
The balls display an excellent example of gyroscopic motion. Rotation about the axis connecting the balls results in a vector of angular momentum along that axis. Movement of that axis by rotation of the balls upon the surface causes a torque to be exerted which raises the connecting axis to an angle above the horizontal. You can see a similar effect in the way a top behaves as it become vertical when spun up. The total interaction among the several rotation axis and the friction on the surface is quite complex. It would be interesting to obtain a complete analysis of this system. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 1:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hurricane balls, RAR and high-Q factor 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 u
[Vo]:MIT Sunday Morning
Here are a few of my thoughts after attending all three days of 2014 CF/LENR meeting at MIT. For Jed; you know I have been following Mizuno's work since ICCF14 and the results are now possibly the most significant of the conference from a practical point of view. You would not have had to worry about gaining weight at this meeting. Sandwiches, chips, cookies and soda in the hall outside the new and very comfortable lecture hall with no food allowed inside. No ICCF, this was a low overhead operation. >From a technical viewpoint I found Peter Hagelstein's four talks extremely Interesting. They were essentially all aimed at showing that coherent energy transfer is necessary to explain transmutation results. The initial talk described work with Fran Tanzella in which a thin copper disk vibrated by an electric field at IIRC 15 MHz produced about 1.5 Kev xrays only after being coated with a thin film of mercury. The explanation is too complex for my two finger typing speed, but it involves an attempt to understand a Karabut gas discharge experiment which created collimated xrays from metal disks. This experiment is about inverse fractionation, the reverse of the fractionation that must occur if cold fusion reactions are to avoid creating high energy gamma radiation. The existing long life excited state in the mercury at the emission energy/frequency is required. I started to try repeating Peter's geophysical arguments about transmutation In the earth's crust but it gets very long and requires much evidence to gain any plausibility. You will have to wait for the video at Cold Fusion Now. As usual much of the most interesting information was shared in conversations between 2 to 6 people in the halls and during meals. Pam Mosier-Boss and Larry Forsley made a point that I had not fully appreciated before. The wide variation in CF neutron counts between various experimental groups is probably due to the type of counters used. Many counters are designed to deliberately reject large numbers of coincident counts to avoid counting charged particles and gammas. The radiation they found is not inconsistent with normal fusion branching ratios but the amount is so small that it is not telling us much about the main heat producing reaction. My MIT degree was over 50 years ago in EE and I have worked with low energy plasmas and optics for many years but my nuclear physics is limited and out of date. I may have misunderstood much of what I heard at the colloquium. George Holz Varitronics Systems geo...@varisys.com
[Vo]:Cold fusion continues 25 years after announcement
Cold fusion continues 25 years after announcement By Ed Yeates SALT LAKE CITY -- Twenty five years later, despite the skeptics, cold fusion lingers. Instead of what critics say was a premature, unsubstantiated, even arrogant announcement from the University of Utah in 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann themselves would have preferred to let their research unfold slowly and cautiously. And that's what some scientists continue doing, tinkering with experiments that are backed by several funding agencies. What happened more than two decades ago has long since taken flight from the U., but now other researchers have picked up the tattered wings of that original experiment, believing what Pons and Fleischmann had is still worth pursuing... Link to video and and rest of article http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1012&sid=29181949 Harry
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob, I agree that he could consider doing exactly what you describe and perhaps one day that will happen. My response was due to what I read on his blog when he was answering a question from one of his audience. Unless I misunderstood him, he appeared to use the term jet engine as a replacement for turbine. Of course a jet engine is often built with turbine compressors, etc. Do you read his journal? I have found that it contains useful information on occasions. Recently, the good tidbits of knowledge have been limited as compared to before his company was purchased this year. I suspect they have placed a chain around his neck to prevent helping competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: 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]:MIT Sunday Morning
George Holz wrote: > You would not have had to worry about > gaining weight at this meeting. Sandwiches, chips, cookies and soda in the > hall > outside the new and very comfortable lecture hall with no food allowed > inside. > As Frankenstein's monster explained: Smoke -- good. Fire -- good. Excess heat -- goo-o-o-od. Gain weight -- baa-a-a-d. - Jed
[Vo]:Hunt for an 'unidentified electron objects'
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-unidentified-electron.html *Hunt for an 'unidentified electron objects'* This article holes promise to reveal some of the detailed quantum mechanical underpinnings of LENR in the NiH reactor. There is a direct connection between ultra-low super-fluidic behavior of atomic based BEC and quasiparticle based BEC that comes about through pumped super cooling. Bose-Einstein condensation of quasi-particles such as excitons, polaritons, 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 that keep the quasiparticle excited. Such pumping can create remarkably high effective temperatures in a narrow spectral region of the lowest energy states in a quasiparticle gas, resulting in strikingly unexpected transitional dynamics of Bose-Einstein quasiparticle condensates. The density of the quasiparticle condensate increases immediately after the external pumping is switched off and initially decreases if it is switched on again. In the Rossi reactor, such pumping is produced by the "Mouse" as it feeds the "Cat" with both polaritons and nano-particles. When the Mouse is switched off, and the pumping is stopped, the population of surface plasmon polaritons (SPP) increases dramatically in the Cat. This behavior finds explanation in a nonlinear 'evaporative super cooling' mechanism that couples the low-energy polariton overheated by pumping with all the other thermal polaritons, removing the excess heat, and allowing for Bose-Einstein polariton condensate formation. Drawing a parallel between atomic condensation and quasiparticle condensation, it is likely that the motions in both flavors of superfluids - low temperature fluids and the quasiparticle superfluid both exhibit the same classical as well as quantum behavior. The quantum nature of superfluids manifests itself in the form of quantized vortices, tiny twisters of electrons and photons, with the core sizes of the order of an Angstrom (0.1nm - approximately the diameter of an atom) that move through fluid severing and coalescing, forming bundles and tangles. To make these processes even more intricate and distinct from motions in usual classical fluids, these tiny twisters live on a background consisting of a mixture of viscous and inviscid fluid components that constitute the superfluid. The electrons and photons immersed in this polariton superfluid are useful experimental probes. As they move through superfluid they form soft bubbles of about 2 nm in diameter that get trapped by quantized vortices quite similar to how houses and cars become trapped and transported by a tornado. As pressure decreases below the criticality level, the bubble expands and explodes, reaching micron sizes, with the bubble trapped by a vortex exploding at a pressure larger than that for the free bubble. Another class of object that existed at very intense super cooling explodes at even larger pressures. They termed these "unidentified electron objects". In research of this quantum behavior, experimenters discovered a novel mechanism of vortex multiplication: the vortex core expands and then contracts, forming a dense array of new vortex rings during the contraction stage. The conjecture is that it becomes quite likely that the electron bubble becomes trapped by more than one vortex line, furthermore reducing the pressure change needed for consequent explosions. They have also shown that the mechanism of vortex multiplication is suppressed at lower super cooling; explaining why such vortex objects were to be expected experimentally only when pumping by the mouse is first suspended. Could this behavior rooted in super fluidity explain the exploding magnetic vortexes reported by DGT in their ICCF-18 paper?
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Dave-- I read his log about 2x per week. Over the years I have found Rossi to be sincere and honest. I suspect he has been in contact with Boeing and the jet engine manufacturers. I hope it comes to pass with his Hot Cat. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Bob, I agree that he could consider doing exactly what you describe and perhaps one day that will happen. My response was due to what I read on his blog when he was answering a question from one of his audience. Unless I misunderstood him, he appeared to use the term jet engine as a replacement for turbine. Of course a jet engine is often built with turbine compressors, etc. Do you read his journal? I have found that it contains useful information on occasions. Recently, the good tidbits of knowledge have been limited as compared to before his company was purchased this year. I suspect they have placed a chain around his neck to prevent helping competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor. Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: 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.
[Vo]:Who has the best Stirling Engine?
There are a few efforts that look like they might break out in 2015, whether it's Rossi or Brullion or Defkalion or whomever. All of them would need to convert heat to electricity. That means a Stirling engine, unless you believe the guys at Deuo Dynamics who have a direct thermoelectric conversion in their LENR diode. Which Stirling Engine is the best? Cyclone Power? They have Dr. Kim Infinia? bankrupt, sold Stirling stuff to qenergy.com Dean Kamen? The Segway inventor went silent on his Stirling patent www.stirlingengine.com/*kamen/dean*_*kamen*_patent.html Any others worth looking at? When LENR hits big, stirling cycle engines will have their day in the sun.
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
Bob, Apparently you are correct about the jet engine effort. I just read the latest journal entries by Mr. Rossi and must admit that his words suggest what you believe. Earlier I read posts which seemed to imply what I understood. It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their approach? Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I read his log about 2x per week. Over the years I have found Rossi to be sincere and honest. I suspect he has been in contact with Boeing and the jet engine manufacturers. I hope it comes to pass with his Hot Cat. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Bob, I agree that he could consider doing exactly what you describe and perhaps one day that will happen. My response was due to what I read on his blog when he was answering a question from one of his audience.Unless I misunderstood him, he appeared to use the term jet engine as a replacement for turbine. Of course a jet engine is often built with turbine compressors, etc. Do you read his journal? I have found that it contains useful information on occasions. Recently, the good tidbits of knowledge have been limited as compared to before his company was purchased this year.I suspect they have placed a chain around his neck to prevent helping competitors. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation Dave-- I assumed Rossi was refering to a LENR reactor that preheated the normal fuel of a jet engine, similar to what NASA engineers were saying was being considere by someone and similar to the design of the 1950's GE design of their J-47 jet engine/nuclear reactor.Depending upon how much energy is added to the fuel, more or less fuel is required for combustion to get the reaction started and the engine running. Given enough tubro compression of incoming air, the fuel usage may decrease to very little or none under normal conditions of operation and energy release from the LENR reaction. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation I interpret Rossi's discussion of the jet engine as referring to a turbine generator and not an actual aviation application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 12:33 am Subject: 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 t
Re: [Vo]:More on the Mizuno presentation
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:31 PM, David Roberson wrote: It seems odd that they would work toward enhancing a jet engine instead of > producing the power plant directly. Why carry the jet fuel along if you > can make sufficient power to keep the air craft in the sky for an > indefinite amount of time using LENR? Do you see an advantage to their > approach? > It is interesting to consider the following -- get LENR going in nickel and ramp the reaction up to a high temperature. Now blow hydrogen and oxygen over it. Perhaps the resulting hydrogen torch will provide some thrust. In addition, some of the hydrogen might go to feed back into the LENR reaction, and perhaps you'll also get thrust from the resulting H2O vapor. Eric
