Re: [Vo]:PdD vs NiH (both hot), and daily issue of EGO OUT

[Kevin O'Malley]

[Vo]:Cold fusion/Theory/Quantum Transition State BECNF - Wikiversity
fznidarsic Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:36:43 -0700

https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory/Quantum_Transition_State_BECNF


Sent from my iPad


--
***This theory sounds like my V1DLLBEC theory


Re: [Vo]:Resonant photons for CNT ring current

Kevin O'Malley Tue, 04 Mar 2014 09:37:59 -0800

Sure sounds like a Luttinger Liquid to me. But in this case, rather than
the liquid forming out of gas state, it is a solid forming out of liquid
state. Either way, it points to a large, localized, single-file effect of
lower-than-anticipated temperature. Such a state favors the formation of a
BEC. What I call the Vibrating 1Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose-Einstein
Condensate , the V1DLLBEC.

One big problem with any BEC theory is that "One experimental fact is that
the observed reaction rate generally increases with temperature."
http://en.wikiversity.org/w...

So maybe the BEC formation is just the initiator of some 2nd stage, more
coherent LENR reaction. Evidence for this would be: When Celani measured
Gamma rays at Rossi's demo, it only occurred during the startup phase.
Also, the same thing seems to be happening at MFMP, it seems to only happen
during startup. My proposal for how this happens is that H1 monoatomic gas
is adsorbed into the lattice and recombines into H2 gas, and this is an
endothermic reaction. That is what sets up temperatures cold enough for
the formation of a BEC or V1DLLBEC.

My instinct tells me that the 2nd stage LENR reaction is Reversible Proton
Fusion (RPF) because it is by far the most abundantly occurring fusion in
nature. Basically, we set up the conditions where fusion occurred with a
BEC, and then once the physical system sees fusion occurring, Nature wants
to see RPF taking place.




On 4/20/17, Peter Gluck  wrote:
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/rom-vitalii-
> kirkinskii-abouti-pdd.html
>
> and
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-20-2017-lenr-
> techno-calumnies.html
>
> peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

[Vo]:Cold fusion/Theory/Quantum Transition State BECNF - Wikiversity

[fznidarsic]

https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Theory/Quantum_Transition_State_BECNF


Sent from my iPad

[Vo]:PdD vs NiH (both hot), and daily issue of EGO OUT

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/rom-vitalii-
kirkinskii-abouti-pdd.html

and

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-20-2017-lenr-
techno-calumnies.html

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

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jones Beene]

One reason for the post below concerns the apparent evolution of Gupta's 
research, in which a superior lithium ion battery is the result.


http://electrovaya.com/

The company is Ectrovaya - which is Canadian... and their battery 
recently won a competition with other advanced batteries... yup, they 
are apparently superior to the new battery offering of Tesla.


Not sure if there is a contribution from LENR or not. But batteries 
could be the backdoor for commercialization ... All those lithium 
battery meltdowns were indeed- a message.




Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow 
overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"


The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March 
23, 1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about 
the competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another 
more specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over 
a competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in, 
going all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal 
lattice experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as 
coauthor) in the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.


On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the 
following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA, 
and it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored 
today, even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually 
mentions "dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was 
not commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium. 
It is now in the public domain.


"Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a 
matrix" US 4986887


https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887

That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the 
Patent Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.


There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence 
of a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did 
not agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could 
have based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes 
months to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to 
USPTO by mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.


We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was 
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws 
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.


There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.

[Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jones Beene]

Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow 
overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"


The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March 23, 
1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about the 
competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another more 
specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over a 
competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in, going 
all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal lattice 
experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as coauthor) in 
the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.


On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the 
following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA, and 
it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored today, 
even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually mentions 
"dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was not 
commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium. It is 
now in the public domain.


"Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a matrix" 
US 4986887


https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887

That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the Patent 
Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.


There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence of 
a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did not 
agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could have 
based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes months 
to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to USPTO by 
mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.


We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was 
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws 
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.


There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

[Nigel Dyer]

I think that Cosmac has provided my answer, and yes there will be a 
shadow.   Monnshadow looks for the shadow cast by the moon for the 
higher energy cosmically originated neutrinos, and the same physics will 
apply to solar neutrinos.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327789/are-neutrinos-diffused-or-defracted-by-the-moon/327892#327892

Nigel


On 20/04/2017 05:20, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nigel Dyer > wrote:


No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems
not unreasonable


This is an interesting line of speculation.  It might be worth 
raising it at PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com 
. I would be interested in knowing 
what mainstream physicists think of it.


This line of speculation is related to my thinking on how the EM 
Drive might produce "propellantless" thrust.  If enough beta decays 
and electron captures were being induced in the device, and the 
neutrinos were emitted anisotropically, i.e., preferentially in one 
direction, that might produce measurable thrust.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Kamen's New Segue

[Brian Ahern]

I agree that a flying car is the worst of both worlds. A bad car and a bad 
plane.  Still, I would like one.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:57 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kamen's New Segue

Another flying car! Not going to happen. Economically, it makes no sense. It is 
cheaper by far to buy (or rent) an ordinary car, drive to the airport, and fly 
an ordinary airplane. A machine that does both will do neither well.

With self-driving taxis, it will be even less of a problem getting to a 
regional airport. You will not have to return a rental car. It will drive off 
and return itself.

Still, this is the nicest looking flying car I have seen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Kamen's New Segue

[Jed Rothwell]

Another flying car! Not going to happen. Economically, it makes no sense.
It is cheaper by far to buy (or rent) an ordinary car, drive to the
airport, and fly an ordinary airplane. A machine that does both will do
neither well.

With self-driving taxis, it will be even less of a problem getting to a
regional airport. You will not have to return a rental car. It will drive
off and return itself.

Still, this is the nicest looking flying car I have seen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Solar neutrino scattering by the moon

[Nigel Dyer]

The question has been asked

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/327789/are-neutrinos-diffused-or-defracted-by-the-moon

I will cross post any interesting answers

Nigel


On 20/04/2017 05:20, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Nigel Dyer > wrote:


No one seems to have considered this possibility, but it seems not
unreasonable


This is an interesting line of speculation.  It might be worth raising 
it at PhysicsForums or physics.stackexchange.com 
. I would be interested in knowing 
what mainstream physicists think of it.


This line of speculation is related to my thinking on how the EM Drive 
might produce "propellantless" thrust.  If enough beta decays and 
electron captures were being induced in the device, and the neutrinos 
were emitted anisotropically, i.e., preferentially in one direction, 
that might produce measurable thrust.


Eric