[Vo]:LENR-Canr citation Ukraine
Greetings Vortex-L, Not earth-shattering but an interesting website. Taras...and the Ukraine: I hope LENR solves the Putin Problem. http://tarasrybak.com/2014/04/cold-fusion-another-clean-energy-breakthrough-change-world/ Ad Astra, Ron Kita, Chiraelx
RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
I did wonder about power gain, given that thermonic emission isn't very efficient. I spoke with a very competent BSEE field engineer some years ago and he said he and a fellow engineer wondered about efficiency figures in klystron transmitters - to the effect that they often seemed too high, once all the heat losses were considered. From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance I was not familiar with Nelson's invention. I am now. Its an interesting patent. However the discussion is ambiguous as to whether on not it creates usable energy over and above the energy needed to power the magnetic field and the electron gun used to create a cloud of electrons- - parts of the invention. It avoids the issue of whether the COP is greater than 1 or if there is COE in the operation of the device. It does point out an apparent attraction of electrons in the cloud of electrons that formed by the cathode (elect Bob - Original Message - From: Chris Zellmailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2001/0040434.html I assume you are familiar with Lawrence Nelson's patents in regard to screened electrons. From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance Axil-- The Nature abstract, which I quoted, states that the that...the formation of composite fermions resulting in a weak attractive interaction. Why didn't the authors make this screening clear? From what you say the anyons are not composite Fermions but quasiholes. I can understand that and even suggested that as a possible screening effect. Why doesn't the abstract say this. That's the reason I thought it was merely hand waving. Universal acceptance is pretty absolute. I doubt your inference is accurate. It sounded to me that the authors did not accept Cooper pairing mechanism as a possibility. I wonder if it is referenced in the full article? If you have the full article at hand, maybe you could answer this question. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axilmailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-lmailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance Bob said: The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a lot of hand waving to me. Axil says: From what I can tell, this theory of how the fractional quantum hall effect(FQHE) works is universally accepted in science and is one of the backbone theories of how cooper pairs of electrons form in a superconductor, Bob said: In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is overscreened in the = 5/2 state by the formation of composite fermions, resulting in a weak, attractive interaction. Overscreened by what? Axil says: A magnetic field will produce a pair of vortexes of magnetic flux that connects themselves to the electron. As the magnetic field increases, addition pairs of vortexes are created in quantum steps. These are Anyons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon In physics, an anyon is a type of particle that occurs only in two-dimensional systems, with properties much less restricted than fermions and bosons; the operation of exchanging two identical particles may cause a global phase shift but cannot affect observables. Anyons are generally classified as abelian or non-abelian, as explained below. These vortexes are also called quasiholes. They have fractional positive charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect Laughlin states and fractionally-charged quasiparticles: this theory, proposed by Laughlin, is based on accurate trial wave functions for the ground state at fraction as well as its quasiparticle and quasihole excitations. The excitations have fractional charge of magnitude e=c/q. Bob asks: A positive Coulomb charge? Axil answers: Yes, a fractional positive charge. Bob asks: Or maybe holes in the electron sea that seem a little positive with respect to the rest of the sea? Axil answers: Yes. These are quasiholes that form in a two dimensional system in the vacuum by a magnetic field and connect themselves to the electron. GOOGLE quasiholes to see the theory behind the concept and observe how much work has gone into this theory. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.commailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil and Dave-- The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a lot of hand waving to me. In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is
Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
You mention thermonic emission as being fairly inefficient. That made me wonder how effeicient it would be if the emitting surface were well insulated from the outside world. What if the radiation loss, the convection loss and conduction losses could be essentially eliminated by good design practices? Would that ensure that mainly electrons would carry away the heat energy? I have zero experience in this area of technology but am curious about how the energy would escape the system if every avenue were plugged except for one. Dave -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 4, 2014 10:18 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance I did wonder about power gain, given that thermonic emission isn't very efficient. I spoke with a very competent BSEE field engineer some years ago and he said he and a fellow engineer wondered about efficiency figures in klystron transmitters - to the effect that they often seemed too high, once all the heat losses were considered. From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance I was not familiar with Nelson's invention. I am now. Its an interesting patent. However the discussion is ambiguous as to whether on not it creates usable energy over and above the energy needed to power the magnetic field and the electron gun used to create a cloud of electrons- - parts of the invention. It avoids the issue of whether the COP is greater than 1 or if there is COE in the operation of the device. It does point out an apparent attraction of electrons in the cloud of electrons that formed by the cathode (elect Bob - Original Message - From:Chris Zell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:19 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2001/0040434.html I assume you are familiar with Lawrence Nelson's patents in regard to screened electrons. From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance Axil-- The Nature abstract, which I quoted, states that the that...the formation of composite fermions resulting in a weak attractive interaction. Why didn't the authors make this screening clear? From what you say the anyons are not composite Fermions but quasiholes. I can understand that and even suggested that as a possible screening effect. Why doesn't the abstract say this. That's the reason I thought it was merely hand waving. Universal acceptance is pretty absolute. I doubt your inference is accurate. It sounded to me that the authors did not accept Cooper pairing mechanism as a possibility. I wonder if it is referenced in the full article? If you have the full article at hand, maybe you could answer this question. Bob - Original Message - From:Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance Bob said: The following quote from the abstract cited below from Nature seems like a lot of hand waving to me. Axil says: From what I can tell, this theory of how the fractional quantum hall effect(FQHE) works is universally accepted in science and is one of the backbone theories of how cooper pairs of electrons form in a superconductor, Bob said: In effect, the repulsive Coulomb interaction between electrons is overscreened in the = 5/2 state by the formation of composite fermions, resulting in a weak, attractive interaction. Overscreened by what? Axil says: A magnetic field will produce a pair of vortexes of magnetic flux that connects themselves to the electron. As the magnetic field increases, addition pairs of vortexes are created in quantum steps. These are Anyons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon “In physics, an anyon is a type of particle that occurs only in two-dimensional systems, with properties much less restricted than fermions and bosons; the operation of exchanging two identical particles may cause a global phase shift but cannot affect observables. Anyons are generally classified as abelian or non-abelian, as explained below.” These vortexes are also called quasiholes. They have fractional positive charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect “Laughlin states and fractionally-charged quasiparticles: this theory, proposed by Laughlin, is based on accurate trial wave functions for the ground state at fraction as well as its quasiparticle and quasihole excitations. The excitations have fractional charge of magnitude e=c/q.” Bob asks: A positive Coulomb charge? Axil answers: Yes, a fractional positive charge. Bob asks: Or maybe holes in the electron sea that seem a little positive with respect to the rest of the sea?
RE: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
From: David Roberson You mention thermonic emission as being fairly inefficient. That made me wonder how effeicient it would be if the emitting surface were well insulated from the outside world. What if the radiation loss, the convection loss and conduction losses could be essentially eliminated by good design practices? Would that ensure that mainly electrons would carry away the heat energy? The problem with that suggestion is that if you superimpose the electron emission curve (for the Edison effect) over the blackbody curve, most of the thermal heat spectrum of combustion is not very useful (steep enough), even if all heat was completely retained. The threshold for thermionic emission is high, and thermal distribution curve was never adequate to begin with (for chemical reactions). To be useful, the rejected heat must not only be retained, but upshifted. Another problem is that if the heat is from combustion, then removal of exhaust will necessarily carry away heat. However, if the heat source is nuclear, then things are different since the origin of the thermal spectrum is extremely high, MeV level - and one needs only to prevent rapid downshifting before electron emission. A case in point (and a huge missed opportunity for the USA) was the Topaz reactor fiasco. We may have missed a great opportunity for civilian use, had we joined forces with the Russians on this – since we had part of the answer (computer controls) and they had the main part (high temp hardware). Instead, petty jealousies kept everyone from benefiting (assuming that it would have evolved into a civilian reactor). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Nuclear_Reactor This design can be made to work with low enriched fuel - and also in a subcritical regime where a “desktop accelerator” provides both makeup neutrons, positive flux control, and a voltage gradient to accelerate electron “boil-off”. That kind of synergy is what would push it into civilian use. The thermal spectrum for thermionics is essentially the same with low enrichment as high. Now that we have seen the possibility of driving small electron accelerators with solid state lasers, the possibility of un-enriched thermionic reactors makes the Topaz fiasco seem even more short-sighted in the big picture perspective. (for everyone except the coal and natural gas purveyors).
Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2001/0040434.html I assume you are familiar with Lawrence Nelson's patents in regard to screened electrons. Here is a copy of the patent with less moving images: http://www.google.com/patents/US20010040434 From glancing over the patent, I understand that Nelson is claiming to have an overunity device and that the mechanism somehow relates to thermionic emission. Did anyone catch Nelson's own understanding of how thermionic emission leads to overunity gain? Does he put the mechanism in the chemical bucket, the nuclear bucket, or another bucket? Or does he leave an explanation out of the patent? (I didn't see one, but I didn't read the patent too closely.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Electron Repulsion Versus Distance
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: One observation that appears valid is that electrons certainly occur in pairs around nuclei. This is an interesting thought. But note that the electrons in shells around a nucleus are probably not in pairs due to some kind of mutual attraction; they're strongly attracted to the positively charged protons in the nucleus and settle into pairs because with opposite spins they don't cancel each other out. Or so my understanding would lead me to believe. Eric
