RE: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
I sat next to Steve Jones at one of the ICCF18 sessions. He was carrying a cylinder with a couple of toggle switches at one end and a couple of multi-pin connectors at the other end. It looked vaguely like a sinctillator cell but longer. He wouldn't tell me what it was, just said "current work, watch for news". With a gleam in his eye, like maybe I was missing the joke, but who knowsAlanG Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Date: Tue, September 23, 2014 4:14 pm To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" vortex-l@eskimo.com And who has been paying him? From wikipedia: Muon-catalyzed fusion[edit] In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in aScientific American article (the process is currently known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept proposed by Pons and Fleischman). Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest during the 1980s as a potential energy source; however, its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (because of alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that, in 1986, achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[15] Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or PF) commenced their work at approximately the same time. Jones became aware of their work when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy (DOE), after which the DOE forwarded their proposal to Jones for peer review. When Jones realized that their work was similar, he and PF agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day (March 24, 1989). However, PF announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[16] A New York Times article says that although peer reviewers were harshly critical of PF's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones' significantly more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that Jones's results were probably caused by experimental error,[17] the majority of the reviewing physicists claimed that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments have supported Jones' metallic "cold fusion" reports.[18]
RE: [Vo]:Who is Steve Jones
From: a...@magicsound.us I sat next to Steve Jones at one of the ICCF18 sessions. He was carrying a cylinder with a couple of toggle switches at one end and a couple of multi-pin connectors at the other end. It looked vaguely like a sinctillator cell but longer. He wouldn't tell me what it was, just said current work, watch for news. With a gleam in his eye, like maybe I was missing the joke, but who knows AlanG He could have been testing for DDL radiation, who knows :-) During this time frame, according to posts I was reading on another forum, SJ was doing very low power LED experiments based on a blocking oscillator design called “Joule thief”. It is remotely possible that he believed that he had “closed the loop” in the same sense of Mills Suncell, where light emission from the LED into an acitive gas medium - exceeded the current generated in photocells inside of a mirrored tube filled with that gas, due to photon amplification of the emitted light - but… most likely what you saw was indeed a scintillator tube modified to detect a type of radiation which he thought could be there from LENR or from someone faking LENR. … which… err, is about the same thing by definition. If Peter Mobberly has tuned into Vortex, he has suggested Ar-K as being another place (besides Co-Ni) where a mass inversion is seen in the periodic table. Hydrogen/deuterium could operate in either case to (not necessarily) accomplish a nuclear conversion, since the energy release is too large, but instead to bury into the deep orbitals as a “substitute electron” and stay there… with several consequences. If a net-neutral particle like the DDL, with a strong negative near-field, can disguise as an electron in the k-shell, the result is that the “light nucleus” (like Ni-58 which has a neutron deficit) is “less-stressed”, so to speak, by the normal negative charge that it feels from its normal electron shell. Back to SJ, he has gone silent on in the internet in the past few months, which to my thinking indicates he may have made a breakthrough. If this were to be a race - between SJ and RM, my money is on the oldster (he is about 7-8 years older than Mills) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox
The Paradigm Energy website is now empty (although you can still download the papers at the links given on the MFMP page). In the comments section Ryan Hunt explains why: That website has since been taken down. :( They decided not to do their research openly in the interest of being able to secure private funding and guarding against getting patented out of the game by onlookers is what I heard. Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The authors have set up an open source organisation to develop the _epicatalysis_ phenomena which they believe is producing the heat. http://jointheparadigm.com/what-is-epicatalysis/ Harry On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:47 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Research (published in the peer reviewed journals Physical Review E and Foundations of Physics) mentioned on the MFMP site argues that the second law of thermodynamics is not a law but only a rule of thumb. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/old-experiments/follow-2/412-2nd-rule-of-thumb-of-thermodynamics Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. Harry On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:35:34 -0400: Hi, Nuclear energies are 6 orders of magnitude larger than chemical energies, which I would expect to reduce the chances to the point where it's not even worth considering. However, that said, it should be noted that the same is not always true for reactions where D is converted into T. e.g. the following reaction is exothermic:- 9Be+2H = 4He + 4He + 3H + 4.684 MeV On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:37 -0400: Hi, [snip] If hydrinos and deuterinos are both present, perhaps it is possible for the neutron stripping to work in two directions such that a deuterino can give up a neutron to a heavy nucleus and a heavy nucleus can give up a neutron to hydrino. ( I am thinking of a nuclear version of epicatalysis.) Harry A heavy nucleus won't give up a neutron to a Hydrino, because in doing so it would lose about 5-10 MeV, but only gain 2.2 MeV from the formation of the deuteron. ?That means it is an endothermic reaction, but that doesn't mean it is impossible?. I am not implying that neutron stripping should be discarded ?if the reverse reaction is possible. ? I ? ? mentioned epicatalysis because ?theoretical research on? ?the subject ?was recently ? published in Physical Review E. Along with some empirical evidence the research suggests that deviations ?of practical significance ? from the 2nd law of law thermodynamics are possible ?with epicatalysis ?:? https://www.facebook.com/ParadigmEnergy/posts/249600938581128 Now the theory of epicatalysis is based on chemical activity, but I don't see why the theory could not be broadened to include nuclear activity or other unconventional high energy activity if a given heat anomaly is too large to explain by just chemical activity. A tacit assumption of CF/LENR research is that an anomalous thermal signal will have practical significance if it results from the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy in a one way process. The assumption holds whether the source of energy is nuclear or chemical or some other. Consequently, measured temperature anomalies are suspect until they are supported by additional calorimetry which yields a global temperature rise. If this global temperature rise (excess heat signal) is not found, and measurement error is ruled out, then the temperature anomaly will be classified as a local fluctuation with no practical significance. This interpretation of temperature signals is motivated by the demands of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, if a process like epicatalysis is creating the temperature anomalies then the methods used to measure an excess heat signal need to be reconsidered. Detecting an excess heat signal ordinarily means looking for a global temperature rise which requires that the source of an anomaly be placed in a thermally closed environment since it is assumed the temperature rise is based on the creation of kinetic energy from inside the system. In contradistinction epicatalysis transfers energy from a lower temperature region to a higher temperature region. If the purpose of the enclosure is to detect a global temperature rise none will be found. Harry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:46:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. Harry Endothermic reactions only happen when ingoing particles have enough kinetic energy to make the reaction happen. IOW they are not really endothermic when all energy sources are taken into account. However most nuclear reactions where a neutron transfers to an external proton to create deuterium would be genuinely endothermic, and thus would not occur, unless of course the proton had high kinetic energy to start with. Of course it's possible that this happens, but the reactions going the other way are going to outnumber them by many thousands to 1, because very few of the energetic protons created are immediately going to encounter another heavy nucleus before losing some energy to ionization, and of those that do immediately encounter another heavy nucleus, only a small percentage are going to produce D. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:46:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. Harry Endothermic reactions only happen when ingoing particles have enough kinetic energy to make the reaction happen. IOW they are not really endothermic when all energy sources are taken into account. However most nuclear reactions where a neutron transfers to an external proton to create deuterium would be genuinely endothermic, and thus would not occur, unless of course the proton had high kinetic energy to start with. Of course it's possible that this happens, but the reactions going the other way are going to outnumber them by many thousands to 1, because very few of the energetic protons created are immediately going to encounter another heavy nucleus before losing some energy to ionization, and of those that do immediately encounter another heavy nucleus, only a small percentage are going to produce D. Ok now lets return to condensed matter systems. All the nuclear reactions offer ed for reports of excess heat in such systems are suppose to be theoretically impossible. Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno, Rossi copper transmutation
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:59 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to H Veeder's message of Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:46:11 -0400: Hi, [snip] I suspect both endothermic and exothermic reactions occur even inside the tokamak, but on balance more exothermic reactions occur. Harry Endothermic reactions only happen when ingoing particles have enough kinetic energy to make the reaction happen. IOW they are not really endothermic when all energy sources are taken into account. However most nuclear reactions where a neutron transfers to an external proton to create deuterium would be genuinely endothermic, and thus would not occur, unless of course the proton had high kinetic energy to start with. Of course it's possible that this happens, but the reactions going the other way are going to outnumber them by many thousands to 1, because very few of the energetic protons created are immediately going to encounter another heavy nucleus before losing some energy to ionization, and of those that do immediately encounter another heavy nucleus, only a small percentage are going to produce D. Ok now lets return to condensed matter systems. All the nuclear reactions offer ed for reports of excess heat in such systems are suppose to be theoretically impossible. Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. Harry That should read: Ok now lets return to condensed matter systems. All the nuclear _explanations_ offered for reports of excess heat in such systems are supose to theoretically impossible. Since we are dealing in impossibilities from the outset, it seems like false logic to argue that the probability of endothermic reactions is improbable. Harry
[Vo]:Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist
Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not exist http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/ (Chapel Hill, N.C. – Sept. 23, 2014) Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist. By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe. “I’m still not over the shock,” said Mersini-Houghton. “We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about.” For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It’s the point where a black hole’s gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it. T he reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox. In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe’s black holes. But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole. Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole. The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem. Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive. Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened. “Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony,” said Mersini-Houghton. “And that’s a big deal.” -Carolina- Mersini-Houghton’s ArXiv papers: Approximate solutions: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525 Exact solutions: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837 ... Harry
