Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

Rossi said:

Andrea Rossi

June 16th, 2015 at 7:31 PM

Paul:

Looking at the derivatives I would answer more like popcorns, looking at
the integral I would say piece of charcoal.

Warm Regards,

Sibilla Cumana


In this post, Rossi is speaking as the oracle Sibilla Cumana. The title of
Sibilla Cumana was held by the high priestess of the ' oracle of Apollo
(Greek sun god) and Hecate (ancient lunar goddess pre-Hellenic), located in
the city oraclemagnogreca of Cuma . She carried out its activities oracular
near Lake Averno , in a cave known as the '' The Sybil's Cave "where the
priestess, inspired by the gods, transcribed in hexameters his predictions
on leaves of palm which, at the end of prediction, were mixed by twenty
percent from the openings of the cave, making predictions "cryptic". Its
importance was in the Italic world equal to that of the famous oracle of
Apollo of Delphi in Greece

Rossi wants to be oh so cleaver in this post. He enjoys feeding tidbits to
the jumping fish. He likes to see them flapping and spinning in the air.

--

IMHO, “Looking at the derivatives” means that LENR occurs in the E Cat in
many powerful nanobursts. Each LENR nanobursts reaction is discrete. There
are many individual powerful bursts. When the reaction is looked at in
derivatives, many discrete events are seen. S the reaction increases, the
number of nanobursts increase. This is when control is in danger and the
blowout danger is great.

If the reactor survives, the reaction matures and a state of Bose
condensation is established. When the reaction gets to this state of
maturity, it is looked at as an integral, these many individual events
occur at a constant nanoburst rate and on the average produces a smooth
production of energy over a extended time frame that is at a maximum at the
start but fades over time.

When Bose condensation sets in, a state of super radiance is established.
Each nanoburst effects all the others so that blowout is no longer a
problem.

For example, Parknomov blowout many reactors, but just by luck one survived
the blowout phase. Once super radiance set in, blowout is no longer a
problem because the nanoburst moderate each other in a super-atom averaging
process...the nanobursts talk to each other through quantum mechanics. In
this super radiant stage the nanobursts essentially have the same energy
output based on quantum mechanical averaging.

What Rossi has done is make sure that the mouse survives the initial
nanoburst phase by keeping the COP of the mouse very low. The mouse will
always make it to the super radiant stage. The mouse transfers the quantum
mechanical super atom Bose condensate condition to one or more Cats. These
Cat do not face the danger of the nanoburst stage. All the Cats become
super radiant. The Cats become very productive in a state of global shared
Bose condensation.

.

When many individual reactors are controlled in a sequence where the
initial burst from the reaction drives the next reactor to produce a
quantum mechanically average global burst delayed in time and so on around
in a cycle of maximum to miniatum reaction intensity over many reactors, a
relatively constant amount of power can be produced.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Strong local magnetic fields may be established by SPP  entities at
> appropriate temperatures.  The combination of correct temperature (phonic
> lattice vibrations) and magnetic field may create the necessary resonances
> (NMR and lattice vibrations) to allow new coherent system configuration
> with lower net binding energy.
>
> As you suggest, knowing the correct resonances may the key for engineering
> a working fuel particle and driver electronics.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:36 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion
>
> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:54:43 -0700:
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes, that's basically what I had in mind. Note however that in order for
> net
> energy to be released a nuclear reaction of some kind has to occur. Perhaps
> Rossi's theoretician is correct, and Li needs to be stimulated to a higher
> energy level before the fusion reaction can take place. NMR might be the
> mechanism that does that. If so, then it should be possible to engineer a
> much
> improved device, by concentrating on the gyromagnetic ratio of Li7 and
> providing
> frequency and magnetic field strengths to match.
> However there is also the possibility that as the Li7 becomes excited, the
> gyromagnetic ratio will change (due to a change in structure of the
> nucleus).
> This could be another reason that the varying magnetic field is
> important:- it
> can "follow" the change and supply the correct field strength repeatedly.
>
>  Robin--
>>
>> I CONCUR WITH YOUR MRI (NMR) THOUGHT.
>>
>> It is my understanding that the resonance with magneti

[Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Bob Cook]

Strong local magnetic fields may be established by SPP  entities at 
appropriate temperatures.  The combination of correct temperature (phonic 
lattice vibrations) and magnetic field may create the necessary resonances 
(NMR and lattice vibrations) to allow new coherent system configuration with 
lower net binding energy.


As you suggest, knowing the correct resonances may the key for engineering a 
working fuel particle and driver electronics.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:54:43 -0700:
Hi,

Yes, that's basically what I had in mind. Note however that in order for net
energy to be released a nuclear reaction of some kind has to occur. Perhaps
Rossi's theoretician is correct, and Li needs to be stimulated to a higher
energy level before the fusion reaction can take place. NMR might be the
mechanism that does that. If so, then it should be possible to engineer a 
much
improved device, by concentrating on the gyromagnetic ratio of Li7 and 
providing

frequency and magnetic field strengths to match.
However there is also the possibility that as the Li7 becomes excited, the
gyromagnetic ratio will change (due to a change in structure of the 
nucleus).
This could be another reason that the varying magnetic field is important:- 
it

can "follow" the change and supply the correct field strength repeatedly.


Robin--

I CONCUR WITH YOUR MRI (NMR) THOUGHT.

It is my understanding that the resonance with magnetic dipoles of a 
nucleus

is with a RF signal that invokes a small energy shift in the subject
nucleus.  These resonances are modified by a magnetic field.  The energy
absorbed in a resonant transition reflects a differential spin quantum
number from the ground (unexcited) energy state of the subject nucleus. 
The
energy associated with a single spin quanta is small.  It may be possible 
to

excite nuclear magnetic dipoles by more than one quanta and reach a higher
excited energy state than one spin quanta above the base.   The resulting
"eximer" may not decay to the original base state, but to an entirely
different nucleus with a loss of mass (spin energy mass) distributed as
thermal energy to the rest of the coherent system to which it is coupled.

In the case of LiAlH bonded to a Ni nano particle, maybe with dissolved H 
in

the Ni lattice, all of  which is a coherent system.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:43:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/



Natural gas did not work. Its more than just heat.


That's interesting. It made me think of MRI where resonance occurs for a
specific combination of frequency and magnetic field strength. If a 
constant
frequency is available then resonance could be achieved by regularly 
varying

the
magnetic field strength as would occur with AC current.

Knowing your penchant for all things magnetic, I guess you have already
suggested this. :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Bob Cook]

Strong local magnetic fields may be established by SPP  entities at 
appropriate temperatures.  The combination of correct temperature (phonic 
lattice vibrations) and magnetic field may create the necessary resonances 
(NMR and lattice vibrations) to allow new coherent system configuration with 
lower net binding energy.


As you suggest, knowing the correct resonances may the key for engineering a 
working fuel particle and driver electronics.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:54:43 -0700:
Hi,

Yes, that's basically what I had in mind. Note however that in order for net
energy to be released a nuclear reaction of some kind has to occur. Perhaps
Rossi's theoretician is correct, and Li needs to be stimulated to a higher
energy level before the fusion reaction can take place. NMR might be the
mechanism that does that. If so, then it should be possible to engineer a 
much
improved device, by concentrating on the gyromagnetic ratio of Li7 and 
providing

frequency and magnetic field strengths to match.
However there is also the possibility that as the Li7 becomes excited, the
gyromagnetic ratio will change (due to a change in structure of the 
nucleus).
This could be another reason that the varying magnetic field is important:- 
it

can "follow" the change and supply the correct field strength repeatedly.


Robin--

I CONCUR WITH YOUR MRI (NMR) THOUGHT.

It is my understanding that the resonance with magnetic dipoles of a 
nucleus

is with a RF signal that invokes a small energy shift in the subject
nucleus.  These resonances are modified by a magnetic field.  The energy
absorbed in a resonant transition reflects a differential spin quantum
number from the ground (unexcited) energy state of the subject nucleus. 
The
energy associated with a single spin quanta is small.  It may be possible 
to

excite nuclear magnetic dipoles by more than one quanta and reach a higher
excited energy state than one spin quanta above the base.   The resulting
"eximer" may not decay to the original base state, but to an entirely
different nucleus with a loss of mass (spin energy mass) distributed as
thermal energy to the rest of the coherent system to which it is coupled.

In the case of LiAlH bonded to a Ni nano particle, maybe with dissolved H 
in

the Ni lattice, all of  which is a coherent system.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:43:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/



Natural gas did not work. Its more than just heat.


That's interesting. It made me think of MRI where resonance occurs for a
specific combination of frequency and magnetic field strength. If a 
constant
frequency is available then resonance could be achieved by regularly 
varying

the
magnetic field strength as would occur with AC current.

Knowing your penchant for all things magnetic, I guess you have already
suggested this. :)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Axil Axil]

The nice feature of an high performance infrared sensor with a fast
resolution time of a few microseconds is that you can see LENR explosive
bursts with good resolution.


On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> I think these thermal bursts that destroys some of the experiments should
> be analyzed with a priority.
>

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Bob Higgins]

The real disadvantage of the thermal imagers and spot sensors is that they
cannot "reach in" and see the temperature of the core or a spot related to
core temperature.  In the Parkhomov experiments, there is a measure of
insulation between the core and the visibly accessible outside of the
experiment.

I earlier made a case that the Parkhomov-like experiments should be run
with insulation on the outside to reduce the required heater power to reach
a high temperature.  Sure, that will up the chance of a run-away reaction,
but that will be a happy circumstance to deal with.  However, this will
even further reduce the ability of an optical sensor to measure a
temperature of value on the reactor.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> I think these thermal bursts that destroys some of the experiments should
> be analyzed with a priority.
>

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Daniel Rocha]

I think these thermal bursts that destroys some of the experiments should
be analyzed with a priority.

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

I recomended this high temperaure sensor for a LENR experiment.
>
>
> http://www.micro-epsilon.com/temperature-sensors/thermoMETER_CT_Video/thermoMETER_CT_VideoM3/index.html
>
> IMHO, its great.
>

That's an infrared sensor. I agree those things are nifty, but I think that
in addition to that it would good to use a direct contact thermocouple such
as the one Jones Beene recommended. Use both! Suspenders and a belt.

The infrared sensor is great because you can easily move it from one spot
to another to check for temperature homogeneity.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Axil Axil]

I recomended this high temperaure sensor for a LENR experiment.

http://www.micro-epsilon.com/temperature-sensors/thermoMETER_CT_Video/thermoMETER_CT_VideoM3/index.html

IMHO, its great.

See

http://www.micro-epsilon.com/download/products/cat--thermoMETER-Infrared--en-us.pdf



On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:45 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> Thought I’d ask the Collective if they could point me at any info on
> sensors for very high temperatures (over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit)… Thanks
> in Advance,
>
> -Mark Iverson
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Jones Beene]

http://www.omega.com/googlebase/product.html?pn=BARE-20-K-12
 &gclid=CICB3p-FncYCFQqFfgod4owAaA 

 

Omega is a good supplier. Not cheap but good.

 

 

 

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

 

Thought I'd ask the Collective if they could point me at any info on sensors
for very high temperatures (over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Thanks in
Advance,

-Mark Iverson

 

RE: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[Jones Beene]

One comment on: ... "For instance, Dennis Cravens did not use a changing
field in his sphere system which appears to work at very low temperatures.
Why is he able to demonstrate apparent LENR at less than 100 C when all of
the recent experiments require 1000 C and even then are difficult to prove?
"

OK - Dennis used samarium cobalt in his mix. This material is known for
permanent magnets. As for the "changing field" - things are not so simple -
remember that SmCo was use in powder form - and it is in a hot active
environment. 

There is every reason to suggest that the field was constantly changing at a
rapid rate, due to thermal fluctuations and the properties of
ferrimagnetism. Magnetized powder will always revert to the ferrimagnetic
state without an external field to enforce polarity. With ferrimagnetic
materials, the opposing moments are unequal - and a spontaneous but changing
magnetization remains.

http://coldfusionnow.org/cravens-demo-a-puzzle-for-onlookers/

Thus it is fair to conclude that the NI week demos employed a changing
magnetic field which was in a positive feedback loop with the thermal gain.

Re: [Vo]:"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> That works in large organizations. Solindra for example is of course poor
> allocating of funds.
>

You are missing the point. Yes, Solyndra was a poor allocation, but most of
the money invested by the DoE Loan Programs Office was in excellent
allocations. Overall, the fund made a good profit and it helped modernize
and advance U.S. energy. The results were as good as investments by any
bank or industrial corporation.



> However, in the end we have no means to get any better decisions by
> analyzing why and how.
>

That is completely wrong. We can easily analyze how and why this happened.
This is conventional technology and the results speak for themselves. We do
have a means to get better decisions. Vote for responsible members of
Congress and presidents. Obama has a far better track record than most
previous presidents in that regard.


Yes, somebody need something and someone else wanted something else and
> suddenly someone could collect and decided wrong. It was not a scientist or
> a person with understanding of research or anything of value to bring to
> the table.
>

That is completely wrong. All of the DoE decisions were made by top experts
from industry and government. That is why most the decisions worked out
well. You cannot expect any group of experts to achieve 100% success and
make a profit on every investment.

If the decisions had been made by people without understanding, or if the
decisions had been made on the basis of politics, you would end up with
deep losses in most investments. It would be like military spending, which
is highly corrupt.

The DoE spending on conventional technology works well. DoE spending on
basic research is not as good. Dept. of Defense spending is terrible.
Different Departments do better or worse. You should blame the
Representatives in charge of the committees, and the president for these
problems. You should also give them credit for programs that work. Most
government programs work. That is why we have highways, air traffic
control, very few cases of food poisoning, reasonably safe drugs, and so on.



> You say that it was better in old times. In a way you are right and it was
> less need to CYA as less of the economy was handled by the big government.
>

No, in the post-WWII period, a much larger fraction of the economy was
handled by the government. This was also the most prosperous time in U.S.
history. The government's role was especially large in basic R&D. All of
the major post-war technologies such as computers, integrated circuits, the
laser, jet aircraft, space-based technology such as weather forecasting and
the GPS, nuclear power and the Internet were either paid for by the
government or invented by government researchers. *All* of them.

We cannot turn back the clock and go back to the 1950s and 60s, nor should
we. But we should learn from history and implement some of the good
programs from that era.



> Otherwise I would say there are pros and cons as time goes by. My point is
> that the decisions must be relocated to risk willing individuals or small
> homogeneous teams.
>

That works for investments in the millions or up to a few billion dollars,
but you cannot replace all of the coal fired plants in the U.S. with
renewable energy without a major role by the government. That is on the
same scale as building a hundred major highways. Only the government can
organize such a thing. You cannot implement cold fusion without a huge role
by government, especially in performing basic physics research, and later
setting standards and ensuring safety.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I disagree with your conclusions.
I agree with your examples they are without any doubt correct and we could
show many more - small and big.
I do not think congress demands accountability. Like all people in the
frontline they only have one interest themselves. Therefore the going way
is the CTA policy.
That works in large organizations. Solindra for example is of course poor
allocating of funds. However, in the end we have no means to get any better
decisions by analyzing why and how. We already know why the thing evolved.
Yes, somebody need something and someone else wanted something else and
suddenly someone could collect and decided wrong. It was not a scientist or
a person with understanding of research or anything of value to bring to
the table. It was one of our elected representatives.
You say that it was better in old times. In a way you are right and it was
less need to CYA as less of the economy was handled by the big government.
Otherwise I would say there are pros and cons as time goes by. My point is
that the decisions must be relocated to risk willing individuals or small
homogeneous teams. The recipients will be held accountable. This can be
handled by tax incentives and publication of the result in an open forum. I
have no details for how but that is not the problem just now. Awareness of
which direction there is a future for the most developed parts of the world
is what we need.
Academic freedom does not come by providing tenure and only support the
establishment, I think academic freedom comes from being able to chose
interest, find partners, risk personal future incentives and live with the
consequences. IMHO freedom is the most important thing. I am not much of a
poet nor do I read much poetry. My favorite snip is from a Swedish Bishop
(I think about 1450 ) who wrote 'freedom is the best thing you can search
for all around the world'.
Here is  poem.
http://runeberg.org/vitaband/0128.html

Translate it with Google it contains a lot of wisdom:) 600 years old wisdom.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big
>> money was misused.
>> The government is providing grants as they see fit.
>> The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk.
>> Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules,
>> which are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto.
>>
>
> In the past, the government provided grant money more freely, without
> strings attached. For example, the Navy gave a grant to Townes, which he
> used to develop the maser and the laser. These things had no technical or
> commercial use at first.
>
> No doubt some money is misused, but I think the bigger problem is
> micro-management by people in Washington. And this problem, in turn, is
> caused by society-wide distrust of science. It is caused by the kinds of
> people who assume that scientists are lying about global warming, or that
> scientists live high off the hog and enjoy lavish salaries and they do not
> work hard.
>
> The policy makers who put in place all these rules are not trying to rule
> over scientists. They are not doing it to exercise power. They are doing it
> because the Congress demands "accountability." The bureaucrats and the
> Congress do this because they are afraid of the public. The policy makers
> are afraid to take risks because they will be fired if they make a mistake
> and support some young scientist who makes a big mistake. No one fires you
> for supporting "me too" research that breaks no new ground and contributes
> nothing to progress, as long as it get the right answer -- and the expected
> answer.
>
> Another expression of this problem is that a disproportionate share of the
> money goes to senior scientists instead of young ones. Young people are the
> ones who have new ideas. They are main source of progress.
>
> We cannot have things both ways. To encourage creativity we need fewer
> restrictions, which means less accountability, and more examples of money
> wasted.
>
>
>
>> It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic
>> ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should
>> utilize that strengths.
>> Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no
>> accountability.
>>
>
> On the contrary they have too much accountability. Not enough academic
> freedom.
>
> In any case, it is the taxpayer's money. It has to be spent by the rules
> set by the Congress, in government laboratories.
>
> Widespread, unfounded distrust of government is a major problem in
> science, and also in tec

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:54:43 -0700:
Hi,

Yes, that's basically what I had in mind. Note however that in order for net
energy to be released a nuclear reaction of some kind has to occur. Perhaps
Rossi's theoretician is correct, and Li needs to be stimulated to a higher
energy level before the fusion reaction can take place. NMR might be the
mechanism that does that. If so, then it should be possible to engineer a much
improved device, by concentrating on the gyromagnetic ratio of Li7 and providing
frequency and magnetic field strengths to match.
However there is also the possibility that as the Li7 becomes excited, the
gyromagnetic ratio will change (due to a change in structure of the nucleus).
This could be another reason that the varying magnetic field is important:- it
can "follow" the change and supply the correct field strength repeatedly.

>Robin--
>
>I CONCUR WITH YOUR MRI (NMR) THOUGHT.
>
>It is my understanding that the resonance with magnetic dipoles of a nucleus 
>is with a RF signal that invokes a small energy shift in the subject 
>nucleus.  These resonances are modified by a magnetic field.  The energy 
>absorbed in a resonant transition reflects a differential spin quantum 
>number from the ground (unexcited) energy state of the subject nucleus.  The 
>energy associated with a single spin quanta is small.  It may be possible to 
>excite nuclear magnetic dipoles by more than one quanta and reach a higher 
>excited energy state than one spin quanta above the base.   The resulting 
>"eximer" may not decay to the original base state, but to an entirely 
>different nucleus with a loss of mass (spin energy mass) distributed as 
>thermal energy to the rest of the coherent system to which it is coupled.
>
>In the case of LiAlH bonded to a Ni nano particle, maybe with dissolved H in 
>the Ni lattice, all of  which is a coherent system.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:13 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>
>In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:43:15 -0400:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/
>>
>>
>>
>>Natural gas did not work. Its more than just heat.
>
>That's interesting. It made me think of MRI where resonance occurs for a
>specific combination of frequency and magnetic field strength. If a constant
>frequency is available then resonance could be achieved by regularly varying 
>the
>magnetic field strength as would occur with AC current.
>
>Knowing your penchant for all things magnetic, I guess you have already
>suggested this. :)
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf

The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge
theory.

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

QCD in strong magnetic field

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>   Axil--
>
> Do you have a reference paper for the creation of mesons from the vacuum
> magnetic energy?
>
> If what you suggest is possible then it may also be possible to create
> mesons in a strong magnetic field such as that created in transient SPP
> entities.  I would agree that, if muons are formed, muon catalyzed fusion
> of D-D to He is possible, as well as Li-7 to Be-8 and who knows what else.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>  *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2015 11:32 AM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion
>
>  My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of
> magnetic energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay
> into muons (via the Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized
> fusion. There is a repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This
> could be due to the decay of muons into electrons.
>
> The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what
> will defined the fusion process that is going on.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Fran--
>>
>> The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think
>> it is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea
>> is another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass
>> is the source.
>>
>> Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to
>> energy besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or
>> photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation
>> of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other
>> anti-particles?
>>
>> What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is
>> conserved and entropy in a closed system increases.
>>
>> The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out
>> the consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed
>> this feature in my quick review of that paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that interesting link:
>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>>
>> I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
>> "Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes
>> Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave
>> cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have
>> seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders
>> that employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good
>> cavity with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation,
>> a very strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her
>> math for these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a
>> relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as
>> relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities
>> grow smaller from our perspective - through interactions between local and
>> global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can
>> segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that conflict with the macro
>> isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source or drive system in
>> itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles
>> passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block being employed
>> in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending
>> on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach
>> in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our
>> macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a
>> gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms
>> through a tapestry of different gravitational warps [negative
>> gravity/vacuum densities based on mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a
>> perpetual motion machine would be to make if you could turn off gravity for
>> a half cycle while lifting a weight. I am not saying that we are getting
>> something for nothing but rather that nano geometry can harness HUP to move
>> the atom between different zones [no need for a spatial bias like
>> Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random motion]then it is left to us
>> to somehow exploit this motion.. force an asymmetry between zones that
>> generates heat but here everyone has their own pet theories.
>> Fran
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf

The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge
theory.

http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf

QCD in strong magnetic field

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>   Axil--
>
> Do you have a reference paper for the creation of mesons from the vacuum
> magnetic energy?
>
> If what you suggest is possible then it may also be possible to create
> mesons in a strong magnetic field such as that created in transient SPP
> entities.  I would agree that, if muons are formed, muon catalyzed fusion
> of D-D to He is possible, as well as Li-7 to Be-8 and who knows what else.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>  *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2015 11:32 AM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion
>
>  My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of
> magnetic energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay
> into muons (via the Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized
> fusion. There is a repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This
> could be due to the decay of muons into electrons.
>
> The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what
> will defined the fusion process that is going on.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Fran--
>>
>> The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think
>> it is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea
>> is another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass
>> is the source.
>>
>> Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to
>> energy besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or
>> photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation
>> of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other
>> anti-particles?
>>
>> What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is
>> conserved and entropy in a closed system increases.
>>
>> The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out
>> the consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed
>> this feature in my quick review of that paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that interesting link:
>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>>
>> I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
>> "Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes
>> Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave
>> cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have
>> seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders
>> that employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good
>> cavity with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation,
>> a very strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her
>> math for these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a
>> relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as
>> relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities
>> grow smaller from our perspective - through interactions between local and
>> global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can
>> segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that conflict with the macro
>> isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source or drive system in
>> itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles
>> passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block being employed
>> in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending
>> on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach
>> in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our
>> macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a
>> gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms
>> through a tapestry of different gravitational warps [negative
>> gravity/vacuum densities based on mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a
>> perpetual motion machine would be to make if you could turn off gravity for
>> a half cycle while lifting a weight. I am not saying that we are getting
>> something for nothing but rather that nano geometry can harness HUP to move
>> the atom between different zones [no need for a spatial bias like
>> Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random motion]then it is left to us
>> to somehow exploit this motion.. force an asymmetry between zones that
>> generates heat but here everyone has their own pet theories.
>> Fran
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big
> money was misused.
> The government is providing grants as they see fit.
> The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk.
> Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which
> are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto.
>

In the past, the government provided grant money more freely, without
strings attached. For example, the Navy gave a grant to Townes, which he
used to develop the maser and the laser. These things had no technical or
commercial use at first.

No doubt some money is misused, but I think the bigger problem is
micro-management by people in Washington. And this problem, in turn, is
caused by society-wide distrust of science. It is caused by the kinds of
people who assume that scientists are lying about global warming, or that
scientists live high off the hog and enjoy lavish salaries and they do not
work hard.

The policy makers who put in place all these rules are not trying to rule
over scientists. They are not doing it to exercise power. They are doing it
because the Congress demands "accountability." The bureaucrats and the
Congress do this because they are afraid of the public. The policy makers
are afraid to take risks because they will be fired if they make a mistake
and support some young scientist who makes a big mistake. No one fires you
for supporting "me too" research that breaks no new ground and contributes
nothing to progress, as long as it get the right answer -- and the expected
answer.

Another expression of this problem is that a disproportionate share of the
money goes to senior scientists instead of young ones. Young people are the
ones who have new ideas. They are main source of progress.

We cannot have things both ways. To encourage creativity we need fewer
restrictions, which means less accountability, and more examples of money
wasted.



> It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic
> ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should
> utilize that strengths.
> Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no
> accountability.
>

On the contrary they have too much accountability. Not enough academic
freedom.

In any case, it is the taxpayer's money. It has to be spent by the rules
set by the Congress, in government laboratories.

Widespread, unfounded distrust of government is a major problem in science,
and also in technology. For example, the DoE Loan Programs Office was raked
over the coals for losses by Solyndra Corp. What has been overlooked in
this so-called scandal is the fact that overall the Office has loaned $30
billion and not only has it made a very good profit, it has produced a huge
improvement in conventional energy systems ranging from nuclear fission to
wind energy:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/06/peter_davidson_steps_down_from_energy_department_his_loan_program_was_responsible.html

This is exactly what the government should be doing. This is what it has
done successfully since the 18th century in support of virtually every
major technology, from canals to telegraphs, railroads, aviation, to the
Internet. The government has always played an essential role in technology,
which must continue.

Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion
since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were
funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other
military sources. Capitalist industry has contributed nothing, so far. We
will need industry to make cold fusion a reality, but as usually happens,
industry will come in after the discovery is made practical. The government
and the public will pay for the development, and take the risks, while
industry stands aside and later comes in to reap the profits. That is what
happened with most previous technology such as computers and the Internet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:03:32 -0400:
Hi,

In the past there have been some LENR experiments that implied that movement of
gas through the metal was important. Such movement could be driven by
temperature shifts. Another possibility is that shifting magnetic domains are
important. Reasons for this might be creation of magnetic gradients (see
Horace's papers), or some sort of pumping action (see Jones' many attempts to
convince us. :)


>This post does imply that some extra difficulties are present when attempting 
>a gas powered ECAT.  I forgot this one small posting among many others that 
>are of a positive nature.  If we want to get to the facts, someone needs to 
>ask Rossi on his blog whether or not he has made progress with the gas powered 
>device.   It is a stretch to conclude that the changing AC magnetic field is 
>the key ingredient with just this one post as evidence.
>
>I have long thought that the magnetic field is important but it is too early 
>to draw a firm conclusion with such weak evidence.  For instance, Dennis 
>Cravens did not use a changing field in his sphere system which appears to 
>work at very low temperatures.  Why is he able to demonstrate apparent LENR at 
>less than 100 C when all of the recent experiments require 1000 C and even 
>then are difficult to prove?  Something is missing in the recent 
>experimentation and no one with solid answers is coming forward.
>
>We can continue to speculate but if wise will keep as many options available 
>as possible.
>
>Dave
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Axil Axil 
>To: vortex-l 
>Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2015 2:02 am
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>
>
> 
>  
>   
>
> 
>  
> 
>
>
>
> 
>  
> 
>
>
>   
>  
>  
>   
>
> 
>  
> 
>
>
>   
>  
>  
>   
>
> 
>Rossi: Natural Gas Powered E-Cat Not a Matter of Simple Heat
> 
>Posted on February 27, 2015 by   Frank Acland •   52 Comments 
> 
>  
>   
>  
>  
>Andrea Rossi has frequently mentioned that ‘driving’ the E-Cat with a natural 
>gas source, rather than electricity, is a goal that Industrial Heat is working 
>towards, because in many cases it would make the E-Cat more economical 
>(natural gas being much less expensive than electricity in many parts of the 
>world).
>  
>If it were simply a matter of replacing one source of heat (a gas flame for an 
>electric heating element) one might think that this was a relatively simple 
>task to perform — but a comment from Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of 
>Nuclear Physics indicates that things are not this simple.
>  
>Steven Karels asked Rossi:
>  
>   
>Can you discuss what some of the challenges are in going to a gas-fueled eCat 
>compared to an electricity heated eCat?
>   
>
>For example:
>
>1. The difference in time constant between the application and removal of heat 
>between electric heating and flame?
>2. The difference in heat transfer for gas-fired versus direct electric 
>windings?
>3. The difficulty in providing adequate ventilation for gas-fired system 
>(incoming air)?
>4. The difficulty in exhausting the exhaust products?
>5. The energy efficiency of gas-fired (how much energy goes up the chimney)?
>   
>  
>  
>Rossi responded:
>  
>   
>None of them.
>The problem is deeper and has its roots in the core of the know how. It is not 
>a problem of heat exchange or of heat conservation. Otherwise, it could have 
>been already resolved.
>  
> 
>
>   
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
>On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote: 
>  
>   
>Rossi never stated that gas powered ECATs do not work.   Where did anyone 
> get that idea?
> 
> Dave
>  
>  
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
>-Original Message-
> From: mixent 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 11:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
> 
> 
>  
>In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:43:15
>-0400:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/
>>
>>
>>
>>Natural
>gas did not work. Its more than just heat.
>
>That's interesting. It made me
>think of MRI where resonance occurs for a
>specific combination of frequency and
>magnetic field strength. If a constant
>frequency is available then resonance
>could be achieved by regularly varying the
>magnetic field strength as would
>occur with AC current.
>
>Knowing your penchant for all things magnetic, I guess
>you have already
>suggested this. :)
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van
>Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
> 
>
>   
> 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://r

Re: [Vo]:"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed I think this is true and that is good.
The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big
money was misused.
The government is providing grants as they see fit.
The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk.
Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which
are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto.
Then we can be very sure we will see no giant steps forward. Progress will
be reduced to evolution.
In itself evolution is good but now and then one need to embrace the
unknown.
I think I have said it before; that requires small independent
organizations given maximum freedom to act,
It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic
ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should
utilize that strengths.
Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no
accountability.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Here are some papers about mistakes in medical research:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196486/
>
> This may make you feel better about all the mistakes in cold fusion, and
> all the crummy papers. Mistakes are endemic in science. They always have
> been. It is nature of groundbreaking research. No one knows how to do it,
> because it has never been done before.
>
> A large fraction of commercial R&D also goes nowhere and has to be
> abandoned. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Do you have a reference paper for the creation of mesons from the vacuum 
magnetic energy?  

If what you suggest is possible then it may also be possible to create mesons 
in a strong magnetic field such as that created in transient SPP entities.  I 
would agree that, if muons are formed, muon catalyzed fusion of D-D to He is 
possible, as well as Li-7 to Be-8 and who knows what else.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of magnetic 
energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay into muons 
(via the Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized fusion. There is a 
repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This could be due to the decay 
of muons into electrons. 

The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what will 
defined the fusion process that is going on.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

  Fran--

  The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think it is 
small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea is 
another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass is the 
source.

  Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to energy 
besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or photons. I 
am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation of quarks and 
the disposition of gluons or reactions of other anti-particles?

  What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is conserved 
and entropy in a closed system increases.

  The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out the 
consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed this 
feature in my quick review of that paper.



  Thanks for that interesting link: 
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf

  Bob Cook

  -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
  Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

  I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on 
"Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper 
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes 
Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave cavity 
suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have seen Japanese 
patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders that employ this 
principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good cavity with dimensions 
of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation, a very strong enhancement 
of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her math for these effects include 
Lorentzian formulations that underscore a relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 
2005 paper on the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms 
entering nano scale cavities grow smaller from our perspective - through 
interactions between local and global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano 
mirror boundaries can segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that 
conflict with the macro isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source 
or drive system in itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of 
waves or particles passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block 
being employed in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator 
depending on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the 
breach in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at 
our macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a 
gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms through 
a tapestry of different gravitational warps [negative gravity/vacuum densities 
based on mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a perpetual motion machine would 
be to make if you could turn off gravity for a half cycle while lifting a 
weight. I am not saying that we are getting something for nothing but rather 
that nano geometry can harness HUP to move the atom between different zones [no 
need for a spatial bias like Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random 
motion]then it is left to us to somehow exploit this motion.. force an 
asymmetry between zones that generates heat but here everyone has their own pet 
theories.
  Fran

[Vo]:"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

[Jed Rothwell]

Here are some papers about mistakes in medical research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196486/

This may make you feel better about all the mistakes in cold fusion, and
all the crummy papers. Mistakes are endemic in science. They always have
been. It is nature of groundbreaking research. No one knows how to do it,
because it has never been done before.

A large fraction of commercial R&D also goes nowhere and has to be
abandoned. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

There is a huge amount of EMF amplification involved in nanoparticle
aggregation. The amplification is proportional to the size difference
between a 10 micron particle and a 1 nanometer space between nanoparticles,
That is a gain of 10,000. the microparticle act as a dipole antenna that
receives heat energy from a wide volume that surrounds it.

Fusion is the result of huge energy concentration where the energy gathered
by the microparticle is concentrated into a sub nanometer spot. In
addition, this EMF is frequency converted from heat into x-rays and XUV
range which is another means for EMF power amplification. The wave length
of the XUV EMF (10 nanometers) is the "black light" that Mills sees in his
early LENR experiments and is the circumference of the SPP soliton that
stores the light that produces the reaction. By the way, Mills' company is
called Blacklight Power.

There may be other amplification processes involving global Bose
condensation that might add another 10 billion to the total EMF gain. This
is called super-radiance.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> By the way, the magnetic energy to muon conversion process does not
> violate any conservation laws. The production of electrons by the particle
> condinsation process is a drag on the COP of the reactor.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/07/rossi-on-electrostatic-force-from-the-e-cat/
>>
>> Rossi on ‘Electrostatic’ Force from the E-Cat
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of
>>> magnetic energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay
>>> into muons (via the  Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized
>>> fusion. There is a repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This
>>> could be due to the decay of muons into electrons.
>>>
>>> The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what
>>> will defined the fusion process that is going on.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Fran--

 The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think
 it is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea
 is another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass
 is the source.

 Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to
 energy besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or
 photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation
 of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other
 anti-particles?

 What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is
 conserved and entropy in a closed system increases.

 The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave
 out the consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I
 missed this feature in my quick review of that paper.



 Thanks for that interesting link:
 http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf

 Bob Cook

 -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
 Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

 I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
 "Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
 http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she
 describes Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of
 microwave cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published
 we have seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano
 powders that employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In
 a good cavity with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted
 radiation, a very strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible
 [/snip] Her math for these effects include Lorentzian formulations that
 underscore a relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the
 hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale
 cavities grow smaller from our perspective - through interactions between
 local and global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries
 can segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that conflict with the
 macro isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source or drive
 system in itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of waves or
 particles passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block
 being employed in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a
 generator depending on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I
 suspect the breach in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we
 would never s

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

By the way, the magnetic energy to muon conversion process does not violate
any conservation laws. The production of electrons by the particle
condinsation process is a drag on the COP of the reactor.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/07/rossi-on-electrostatic-force-from-the-e-cat/
>
> Rossi on ‘Electrostatic’ Force from the E-Cat
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of
>> magnetic energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay
>> into muons (via the  Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized
>> fusion. There is a repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This
>> could be due to the decay of muons into electrons.
>>
>> The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what
>> will defined the fusion process that is going on.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fran--
>>>
>>> The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think
>>> it is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea
>>> is another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass
>>> is the source.
>>>
>>> Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to
>>> energy besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or
>>> photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation
>>> of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other
>>> anti-particles?
>>>
>>> What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is
>>> conserved and entropy in a closed system increases.
>>>
>>> The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out
>>> the consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed
>>> this feature in my quick review of that paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for that interesting link:
>>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf
>>>
>>> Bob Cook
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
>>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>>>
>>> I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
>>> "Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
>>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she
>>> describes Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of
>>> microwave cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published
>>> we have seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano
>>> powders that employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In
>>> a good cavity with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted
>>> radiation, a very strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible
>>> [/snip] Her math for these effects include Lorentzian formulations that
>>> underscore a relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the
>>> hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale
>>> cavities grow smaller from our perspective - through interactions between
>>> local and global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries
>>> can segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that conflict with the
>>> macro isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source or drive
>>> system in itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of waves or
>>> particles passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block
>>> being employed in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a
>>> generator depending on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I
>>> suspect the breach in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we
>>> would never see at our macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro
>>> object into and out of a gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP
>>> to migrate gas atoms through a tapestry of different gravitational warps
>>> [negative gravity/vacuum densities based on mirror separation]. Imagine how
>>> easy a perpetual motion machine would be to make if you could turn off
>>> gravity for a half cycle while lifting a weight. I am not saying that we
>>> are getting something for nothing but rather that nano geometry can harness
>>> HUP to move the atom between different zones [no need for a spatial bias
>>> like Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random motion]then it is left
>>> to us to somehow exploit this motion.. force an asymmetry between zones
>>> that generates heat but here everyone has their own pet theories.
>>> Fran
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/07/rossi-on-electrostatic-force-from-the-e-cat/

Rossi on ‘Electrostatic’ Force from the E-Cat

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of
> magnetic energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay
> into muons (via the  Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized
> fusion. There is a repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This
> could be due to the decay of muons into electrons.
>
> The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what
> will defined the fusion process that is going on.
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Fran--
>>
>> The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think
>> it is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea
>> is another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass
>> is the source.
>>
>> Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to
>> energy besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or
>> photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation
>> of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other
>> anti-particles?
>>
>> What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is
>> conserved and entropy in a closed system increases.
>>
>> The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out
>> the consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed
>> this feature in my quick review of that paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that interesting link:
>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>>
>> I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
>> "Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
>> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes
>> Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave
>> cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have
>> seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders
>> that employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good
>> cavity with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation,
>> a very strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her
>> math for these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a
>> relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as
>> relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities
>> grow smaller from our perspective - through interactions between local and
>> global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can
>> segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that conflict with the macro
>> isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source or drive system in
>> itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles
>> passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block being employed
>> in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending
>> on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach
>> in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our
>> macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a
>> gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms
>> through a tapestry of different gravitational warps [negative
>> gravity/vacuum densities based on mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a
>> perpetual motion machine would be to make if you could turn off gravity for
>> a half cycle while lifting a weight. I am not saying that we are getting
>> something for nothing but rather that nano geometry can harness HUP to move
>> the atom between different zones [no need for a spatial bias like
>> Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random motion]then it is left to us
>> to somehow exploit this motion.. force an asymmetry between zones that
>> generates heat but here everyone has their own pet theories.
>> Fran
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Axil Axil]

My theory posits the production of mesons through the convertion of
magnetic energy from the vacume into sub atomic particles. The mesons decay
into muons (via the  Schwinger limit) and the fusion is muon catalized
fusion. There is a repodt of electrostatic fields around the Cat. This
could be due to the decay of muons into electrons.

The E Cat might be producing loads of anti muon neutrinos. That is what
will defined the fusion process that is going on.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Fran--
>
> The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think it
> is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea is
> another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass is
> the source.
>
> Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to
> energy besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or
> photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation
> of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other
> anti-particles?
>
> What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is
> conserved and entropy in a closed system increases.
>
> The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out
> the consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed
> this feature in my quick review of that paper.
>
>
>
> Thanks for that interesting link:
> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf
>
> Bob Cook
>
> -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
>
> I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
> "Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
> http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes
> Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave
> cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have
> seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders
> that employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good
> cavity with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation,
> a very strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her
> math for these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a
> relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as
> relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities
> grow smaller from our perspective - through interactions between local and
> global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can
> segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that conflict with the macro
> isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source or drive system in
> itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles
> passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block being employed
> in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending
> on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach
> in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our
> macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a
> gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms
> through a tapestry of different gravitational warps [negative
> gravity/vacuum densities based on mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a
> perpetual motion machine would be to make if you could turn off gravity for
> a half cycle while lifting a weight. I am not saying that we are getting
> something for nothing but rather that nano geometry can harness HUP to move
> the atom between different zones [no need for a spatial bias like
> Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random motion]then it is left to us
> to somehow exploit this motion.. force an asymmetry between zones that
> generates heat but here everyone has their own pet theories.
> Fran
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[Bob Cook]

Fran--

The new science currently at bay is the source of energy IMHO.  I think it 
is small losses of mass to heat.  Exchange of energy with the  Dirac sea is 
another possibility.  The evidence seems to me to indicate loss of mass is 
the source.


Are there any theories that include an exchange mechanism of mass to energy 
besides the change of electron and positron mass to EM radiations or 
photons. I am not sure what is excepted for the mechanism of the separation 
of quarks and the disposition of gluons or reactions of other 
anti-particles?


What's your best guess about the energy source--assuming energy is conserved 
and entropy in a closed system increases.


The referenced paper discusses spin of electrons but seems  to leave out the 
consideration of angular momentum and its conservation.  Maybe I missed this 
feature in my quick review of that paper.




Thanks for that interesting link: 
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Roarty, Francis X

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on 
"Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper 
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes 
Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave 
cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have 
seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders that 
employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good cavity 
with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation, a very 
strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her math for 
these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a relativistic 
perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] 
where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities grow smaller from our 
perspective - through interactions between local and global energy scales in 
opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can segregate vacuum wavelengths in 
tiny cavities that conflict with the macro isotropy..not that this 
represents an an energy source or drive system in itself as it will react 
symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles passing through the 
cavity but it is the common engine block being employed in all these 
anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending on how we 
employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach in isotropy 
also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our macro scale 
where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a gravity well 
but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms through a tapestry 
of different gravitational warps [negative gravity/vacuum densities based on 
mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a perpetual motion machine would be to 
make if you could turn off gravity for a half cycle while lifting a weight. 
I am not saying that we are getting something for nothing but rather that 
nano geometry can harness HUP to move the atom between different zones [no 
need for a spatial bias like Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random 
motion]then it is left to us to somehow exploit this motion.. force an 
asymmetry between zones that generates heat but here everyone has their own 
pet theories.

Fran

[Vo]:comments and news for June 19, 2015

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends,

Believe me, I have tried but reality is stubborn stuff:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/06/trying-to-discover-good-lenr-news-for.html

Peter



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

See:
http://www.lakeshore.com/products/Cryogenic-Temperature-Controllers/Model-335/Pages/Sensor-Temperature-Range.aspx

Kind regards,

Rob

MarkI-ZeroPoint schreef op 19-6-2015 om 16:45:


Thought I’d ask the Collective if they could point me at any info 
onsensors for very high temperatures (over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit)… 
Thanks in Advance,


-Mark Iverson

[Vo]:Request: info on very high (2000F) temp sensors

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Thought I'd ask the Collective if they could point me at any info on sensors
for very high temperatures (over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Thanks in
Advance,

-Mark Iverson

 

RE: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones, I was painting with a wide brush to underscore a common basis between 
even these distantly related anomalies. You are certainly correct that the 
microwaves are NOT an efficient linkage to the active geometries used for the 
E-cat generator but the EM drive works in reverse and we don't care about 
efficiency when an "almost" inertialess drive is the prize.. I say "almost" 
because if waves or particles are being directed in a "relativistic" direction 
that they will locally  still perceive their reactions as being equal and 
opposite. It is this relativistic balance using microwaves that I believe is 
responsible for the nano newtons of thrust being claimed for EM drive. In the 
E-cat I can't speak to the frequency but IR sounds fine -my only intent was to 
suggest that the energy being coupled between cat and mouse has the same 
isotopy breaking mechanism at it's heart as the EM drive and that COE can be 
broken when the square law is violated in the same way we could make a 
perpetual mobile if we could switch gravity on and off. In the EM drive we are 
paying with rf energy to saturate the interior of a trapezoidal waveguide and 
establish a tiny relativistic bias but with nano powders and skeletal catalysts 
used by Rossi and Mills this sort of environment is established via natural 
segregation due to geometry when gas atoms are present. In the case of 
radioactive gas atoms the Japanese have claimed radioactive remediation / 
accelerating the half life. IMHO half lives never change from the local 
perspective of radioactive atoms inside these environments but rather time 
dilation occurs where these atoms are experiencing hours of time while only 
seconds elapse from our macro perspective]
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

Fran,

Cavity QED is worth pursuing, but you may be saddling the wrong horse. There
is almost no chance that the E-Cat is powered by microwaves, given how easy
they would be to observe if present.

If Cavity QED is involved with the E-Cat, as it probably is - the
wavelengths being suppressed are in the IR range - thousands of times
shorter than microwaves.

The paper (slide show) worth citing for this is that of Prevenslik 

http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/flowrev.ppt
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/flow1.pdf

"flow electrification" is much closer to LENR than is the EM drive, IMHO.


-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 

I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
"Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes
Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave
cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have
seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders that
employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good cavity
with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation, a very
strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her math for
these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a relativistic
perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen]
where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities grow smaller from our
perspective - through interactions between local and global energy scales in
opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can segregate vacuum wavelengths in
tiny cavities that conflict with the macro isotropy..not that this
represents an an energy source or drive system in itself as it will react
symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles passing through the
cavity but it is the common engine block being employed in all these
anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending on how we
employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach in isotropy
also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our macro scale
where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a gravity well
but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms through a tapestry
of different gravitational warps [negative gravity/vacuum densities based on
mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a perpetual motion machine would be to
make if you could turn off gravity for a half cycle while lifting a weight.
I am not saying that we are getting something for nothing but rather that
nano geometry can harness HUP to move the atom between different zones [no
need for a spatial bias like Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random
motion]then it is left to us to somehow exploit this motion.. force an
asymmetry between zones that generates heat but here everyone has their own
pet theories.
Fran

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion

[David Roberson]

Bob, I see a direct connection between the temperature of the inner nickel 
holder and the LENR activity in that test.  When I follow the falling nickel 
box temperature I see that the LENR has the appearance of a relaxation 
oscillator that can not quite operate on its own bias.  It also makes a few 
'strikes' as the nickel holder temperature falls.  And, once the power is 
reversed during the narrow pulse the temperature of the holder begins to rise 
until approximately the same magnitude is reached when the oscillator restarts 
and the temperature rapidly heads up due to LENR activity.  Notice that when 
input heater power is again reduced the temperature begins to fall rapidly as 
in the first case.  Saturation of the TC hides exactly what is happening.

There may be another interaction associated with magnetic coupling in the 
Chinese test, but it is not that obvious to me.  Many details need to be 
uncovered before we can get to the bottom of this complex system.

 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2015 2:07 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Cat stimultion


  
   

The recent Chinese test illustrated the rapid response to transient power 
changes—much faster than can be justified by the thermal increases or decreases 
of bulk materials.  It seems evident that either electric fields or  magnetic 
fields or both are the stimulating input that allows the energy releases 
associated with rapid temperature increases. 



Bob Cook   



  
  
   
   From:Bob Higgins   
   
   Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:37 PM  
   
   To:vortex-l@eskimo.com   
   
   Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion  
 

 
 
   
 
  
Note that in Rossi's HotCat, the fuel chamber is much longer than in the 
Parkhomov experiment.  It is possible [speculation] that Rossi simply divides 
the heater into 2 or more segments (from left to right in a horizontal HotCat 
reactor).  For example, lets say that there are 3 segments to the heater.  
Perhaps the outer heater segments are the mouse and the inner heater segment is 
the cat.  Initially, all heaters are driven to bring the HotCat to operating 
temperature.  Then the center segment is turned OFF and operates in SSM while 
the 2 outer segments remain heated.  When the SSM begins to wane in the center, 
the center heater is turned ON and the outer heaters are turned OFF so that the 
outer segments operate in SSM.  With the H2 and the liquid metal transferring 
heat, perhaps each segment helps support the one adjacent to it in such a 
configuration.  This seems a little "cat and mouse -ish" to me.  
 
  
  
  
I think the cat & mouse are probably much less exotic than what has been 
proposed in this thread. 
  
  
  
Bob Higgins 
  
   
   
   
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:17 PM, wrote:   

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:19:04 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The Hot cat reactor has an alumina shell that is transparent to infrared   
> 
>light in the LENR reactive range. Could the Mouse be producing light that  
>  
>gets through the alumina shell of the Cat to stimulate the Cat?
>
I was assuming that the cat and mouse were together in the same tube. Is this   
 
assumption wrong?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

   
  
   
   
 

 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[David Roberson]

This post does imply that some extra difficulties are present when attempting a 
gas powered ECAT.  I forgot this one small posting among many others that are 
of a positive nature.  If we want to get to the facts, someone needs to ask 
Rossi on his blog whether or not he has made progress with the gas powered 
device.   It is a stretch to conclude that the changing AC magnetic field is 
the key ingredient with just this one post as evidence.

I have long thought that the magnetic field is important but it is too early to 
draw a firm conclusion with such weak evidence.  For instance, Dennis Cravens 
did not use a changing field in his sphere system which appears to work at very 
low temperatures.  Why is he able to demonstrate apparent LENR at less than 100 
C when all of the recent experiments require 1000 C and even then are difficult 
to prove?  Something is missing in the recent experimentation and no one with 
solid answers is coming forward.

We can continue to speculate but if wise will keep as many options available as 
possible.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Jun 19, 2015 2:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion


 
  
   

 
  
 



 
  
 


   
  
  
   

 
  
 


   
  
  
   

 
Rossi: Natural Gas Powered E-Cat Not a Matter of Simple Heat
 
Posted on February 27, 2015 by   Frank Acland •   52 Comments 
 
  
   
  
  
Andrea Rossi has frequently mentioned that ‘driving’ the E-Cat with a natural 
gas source, rather than electricity, is a goal that Industrial Heat is working 
towards, because in many cases it would make the E-Cat more economical (natural 
gas being much less expensive than electricity in many parts of the world).
  
If it were simply a matter of replacing one source of heat (a gas flame for an 
electric heating element) one might think that this was a relatively simple 
task to perform — but a comment from Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of 
Nuclear Physics indicates that things are not this simple.
  
Steven Karels asked Rossi:
  
   
Can you discuss what some of the challenges are in going to a gas-fueled eCat 
compared to an electricity heated eCat?
   

For example:

1. The difference in time constant between the application and removal of heat 
between electric heating and flame?
2. The difference in heat transfer for gas-fired versus direct electric 
windings?
3. The difficulty in providing adequate ventilation for gas-fired system 
(incoming air)?
4. The difficulty in exhausting the exhaust products?
5. The energy efficiency of gas-fired (how much energy goes up the chimney)?
   
  
  
Rossi responded:
  
   
None of them.
The problem is deeper and has its roots in the core of the know how. It is not 
a problem of heat exchange or of heat conservation. Otherwise, it could have 
been already resolved.
  
 

   
  
 
 
  
  
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:13 AM, David Roberson wrote:  
 
   
Rossi never stated that gas powered ECATs do not work.   Where did anyone 
get that idea?
 
 Dave
  
  

 


 


 


-Original Message-
 From: mixent 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 11:13 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion
 
 
  
In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:43:15
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/27/rossi-natural-gas-powered-e-cat-not-a-matter-of-simple-heat/
>
>
>
>Natural
gas did not work. Its more than just heat.

That's interesting. It made me
think of MRI where resonance occurs for a
specific combination of frequency and
magnetic field strength. If a constant
frequency is available then resonance
could be achieved by regularly varying the
magnetic field strength as would
occur with AC current.

Knowing your penchant for all things magnetic, I guess
you have already
suggested this. :)

Regards,

Robin van
Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


 

   
 
   
  
  
 
 

RE: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[Jones Beene]

Fran,

Cavity QED is worth pursuing, but you may be saddling the wrong horse. There
is almost no chance that the E-Cat is powered by microwaves, given how easy
they would be to observe if present.

If Cavity QED is involved with the E-Cat, as it probably is - the
wavelengths being suppressed are in the IR range - thousands of times
shorter than microwaves.

The paper (slide show) worth citing for this is that of Prevenslik 

http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/flowrev.ppt
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/flow1.pdf

"flow electrification" is much closer to LENR than is the EM drive, IMHO.


-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 

I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on
"Cavity QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes
Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave
cavity suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have
seen Japanese patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders that
employ this principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good cavity
with dimensions of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation, a very
strong enhancement of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her math for
these effects include Lorentzian formulations that underscore a relativistic
perspective [Jan Naudt's 2005 paper on the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen]
where hydrogen atoms entering nano scale cavities grow smaller from our
perspective - through interactions between local and global energy scales in
opposition. IOW  nano mirror boundaries can segregate vacuum wavelengths in
tiny cavities that conflict with the macro isotropy..not that this
represents an an energy source or drive system in itself as it will react
symmetrically to propagation of waves or particles passing through the
cavity but it is the common engine block being employed in all these
anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator depending on how we
employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the breach in isotropy
also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at our macro scale
where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a gravity well
but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms through a tapestry
of different gravitational warps [negative gravity/vacuum densities based on
mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a perpetual motion machine would be to
make if you could turn off gravity for a half cycle while lifting a weight.
I am not saying that we are getting something for nothing but rather that
nano geometry can harness HUP to move the atom between different zones [no
need for a spatial bias like Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random
motion]then it is left to us to somehow exploit this motion.. force an
asymmetry between zones that generates heat but here everyone has their own
pet theories.
Fran

RE: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[Jones Beene]

For the record…

 

This statement from Rossi confirms Dave’s original observation that AR never 
said that natural gas power does not work for triggering … quite the contrary.

 

In fact the implication is that gas heat works but requires another input in 
addition to thermal… which is probably magnetic. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 


Rossi: Natural Gas Powered E-Cat Not a Matter of Simple Heat


Andrea Rossi has frequently mentioned that ‘driving’ the E-Cat with a natural 
gas source, rather than electricity, is a goal that Industrial Heat is working 
towards, because in many cases it would make the E-Cat more economical (natural 
gas being much less expensive than electricity in many parts of the world).


If it were simply a matter of replacing one source of heat (a gas flame for an 
electric heating element) one might think that this was a relatively simple 
task to perform — but a comment from Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of 
Nuclear Physics indicates that things are not this simple.

Steven Karels asked Rossi:

Can you discuss what some of the challenges are in going to a gas-fueled eCat 
compared to an electricity heated eCat?

For example:

1. The difference in time constant between the application and removal of heat 
between electric heating and flame?
2. The difference in heat transfer for gas-fired versus direct electric 
windings?
3. The difficulty in providing adequate ventilation for gas-fired system 
(incoming air)?
4. The difficulty in exhausting the exhaust products?
5. The energy efficiency of gas-fired (how much energy goes up the chimney)?

Rossi  
 
responded:

None of them.
The problem is deeper and has its roots in the core of the know how. It is not 
a problem of heat exchange or of heat conservation. Otherwise, it could have 
been already resolved.

 

David Roberson wrote:

 

Rossi never stated that gas powered ECATs do not work.   Where did anyone get 
that idea?

Dave

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Cat stimultion

[Roarty, Francis X]

I maintain that Rossi's E- Cat and Shawyer's EM drive are both based on "Cavity 
QED". In Zofia Birula 1996 paper  
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/_old/vol27/pdf/v27p2409.pdf  she describes 
Rydberg atoms with modified spontaneous emissions by virtue of microwave cavity 
suppression. In the interim since her paper was published we have seen Japanese 
patents for radioactive remediation based on nano powders that employ this 
principle. WRT shawyer her paper states [snip] In a good cavity with dimensions 
of the order of the wavelength of emitted radiation, a very strong enhancement 
of spontaneous emissions is possible [/snip] Her math for these effects include 
Lorentzian formulations that underscore a relativistic perspective [Jan Naudt's 
2005 paper on the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen] where hydrogen atoms 
entering nano scale cavities grow smaller from our perspective - through 
interactions between local and global energy scales in opposition. IOW  nano 
mirror boundaries can segregate vacuum wavelengths in tiny cavities that 
conflict with the macro isotropy..not that this represents an an energy source 
or drive system in itself as it will react symmetrically to propagation of 
waves or particles passing through the cavity but it is the common engine block 
being employed in all these anomalous claims.. it can be a motor or a generator 
depending on how we employ it. In the case of the cat and mouse I suspect the 
breach in isotropy also allows for a breach in COE that we would never see at 
our macro scale where we have to "pay" to move a macro object into and out of a 
gravity well but at the nano scale we harness HUP to migrate gas atoms through 
a tapestry of different gravitational warps [negative gravity/vacuum densities 
based on mirror separation]. Imagine how easy a perpetual motion machine would 
be to make if you could turn off gravity for a half cycle while lifting a 
weight. I am not saying that we are getting something for nothing but rather 
that nano geometry can harness HUP to move the atom between different zones [no 
need for a spatial bias like Maxwellian demon only criteria becomes random 
motion]then it is left to us to somehow exploit this motion.. force an 
asymmetry between zones that generates heat but here everyone has their own pet 
theories.
Fran