Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today

[Kevin O'Malley]

So it's all just another dud.  MFMP is working up quite a record of finding
duds.

On Monday, May 29, 2017, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> Has the testing concluded? It is now 3 PM in  Czech.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Jed Rothwell  >
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:37 PM
> *To:* Vortex
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
>
> I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine.
> I have not been following the discussion. However, if it *does* take
> time, he should have told that to the people from MFMP. Or, if the machine
> is unreliable and does not work some days, he should have said so. He
> should have said, "be prepared to stay for a week."
>
> For their part, the MFMP people should have figured 4 days might not be
> long enough. Frankly, I could have told them that. There are always missing
> cables and last minute glitches.
>
> I hope they can arrange to have one or two of team stay longer. I hope
> me346 will allow that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

You are not alone.

Cynics love company.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

Brian Ahern wrote:

 > After 28 years nobody has succeeded in generating 100 watts excess in
a repeatable process. In fact there is no qualified system that can
achieve 10 watts excess and a COP > 1.5

... and Bob Cook says I'm too cynical ...

RE: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

he are a number of ways that nuclear reactions can release potential energy.  
Kinetic energy in the for of high velocity neutral and charged particles, 
electromagnetic radiation and  kinetic energy in the form of angular momentum 
or spin energy.

Rossi and N. Cook claim that some of their Ni-H=Li system changed Li-7 with 
accretion of Pto Be-8. .
They suggest:

 “The double alpha lattice  structure (C) can then break into independent 
 two alpha particles (D), which are released with   MeV of angular 
 momentum, but without gamma radiation.”

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

I point out  they do not seem to believe the alpha particles left the reaction 
with high velocity.  EM radiation normally associated with slowing-down of 
charged particles was not reported.   (  I assume it did not happen.)

Bob Cook




From: Axil Axil
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 7:57 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

As observed in the Holmlid experiments, LENR energy could be formated into the 
form of subatomic particles that are hard to detect.

These hard to detect subatomic particles could be carrying off any remaining 
residual LENR based kinetic energy  from the reaction site. There may be a 
method that can be engineered that can capture this energy so that this LENR 
energy can be localized to the site of the reaction and converted to heat.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Brian Ahern wrote:

> After 28 years nobody has succeeded in generating 100 watts excess in a 
> repeatable process. In fact there is no qualified system that can achieve 10 
> watts excess and a COP > 1.5

... and Bob Cook says I'm too cynical ...

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jones,  isn't there an endothermic reaction with d-d that releases a gamma
ray?

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>  I suppose the cathode might have been storing and releasing heat at the
> same time, but how could you tell with a calorimeter?
>
>
> One expected effect of an experiment which is both storing and releasing
> excess heat at the same time would be a period of so-called
> heat-after-death following shut-down.
>
> Aside from that kind of direct proof, no one understands the mechanism for
> storage of nuclear changes but a good candidate would be a mechanism which
> results in "dense hydrogen".  (technically this is not nuclear, but it is
> closer to nuclear than to chemistry)
>
> If we had a rock-solid experiment which was clearly able to show
> heat-after-death, then perhaps efforts could be made to collect and
> characterize dense hydrogen.
>
> The problem of course is that there is no rock solid experiment capable of
> showing heat-after-death.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jones,  isn't "stored nuclear energy " a new concept?  If you fission/split
an atom, are you releasing its stored energy? And hence, aren't all the
modes of storing nuke energy known?


On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Jones Beene  wrote:

> No, your conclusion is both wrong and short-sighted - and apparently you
> forgot to actually look at the data and go on memory.
>
> The data in the last Table shows that in run 2, 5.5 MJ of input was
> unaccounted for and could have been stored. You clearly missed that, but it
> is the tip of the  iceberg.
>
> The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could have
> reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain - therefore in
> all seven runs, there could have been both exotherm and endotherm taking
> place in the same electrode, such that stored nuclear changes were
> absorbing some of the gain which was occurring with a delay from prior
> stored changes.
>
> I assume you had read this report years ago but please try reread the
> papers again before making unjustified conclusions. But you main error is
> the assumption that the entire electrode is either in an endothermic phase
> or exothermic, when it is much more complicated and both phases can take
> place simultaneously, with only the net effect being recorded.
>
> Jones
>
> On 6/6/2017 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic reaction of X
>> watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts equally well.
>>
>> Energy storage is ruled out.
>>
>>
>> Not really ruled out. Let's be exact: energy storage by the conventional
>> chemical redox reaction is and always has been ruled out - OK - we can go
>> that far.
>>
>
> You are missing the point. Energy storage is ruled out because *the data
> shows that no energy was stored*. The balance was zero. There was no
> endothermic phase. There would have to be such a phase if energy was
> stored. It would have to show up in the calorimeter data. The negative
> signal would be stronger than the positive signal that followed during the
> exothermic phase, because the endothermic phase would be shorter.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

animation explaining Joule's apparatus and his calculations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yOhSIAIPRE

Harry

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:43 PM, H LV  wrote:
>
>
> Joule's apparatus used a spindle with paddles which was turned by a
> falling weight outside the calorimeter. The motion of the falling weight
> did not result in the generation of potential energy. It only resulted in
> the warming of the water inside calorimeter. However, if the falling of the
> weight were to wind up a spring in addition to turning of the paddle then
> the same energy input - in the form gravitational potential energy (i.e.
> the weight time the height through which the weight falls) would warm the
> water AND store energy in the spring. According to Joule the amount of heat
> generated is only a function of how far the weight falls. It is not a
> function of how quickly it falls, so even if the spring slows the descent
> of the weight the calorimeter will read the same rise in temperature with
> or without the spring attached.
> ​
> This thought experiment demonstrates how two systems can have the same
> energy input and generate the same temperatures but one can store energy
> and the other can't.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[Axil Axil]

As observed in the Holmlid experiments, LENR energy could be formated into
the form of subatomic particles that are hard to detect.

These hard to detect subatomic particles could be carrying off any
remaining residual LENR based kinetic energy  from the reaction site. There
may be a method that can be engineered that can capture this energy so that
this LENR energy can be localized to the site of the reaction and converted
to heat.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Brian Ahern wrote:
>
> > After 28 years nobody has succeeded in generating 100 watts excess in a
> repeatable process. In fact there is no qualified system that can achieve
> 10 watts excess and a COP > 1.5
>
> ... and Bob Cook says I'm too cynical ...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> No ! You seem to be confusing chemistry with nuclear reactions. Heat is
>> not being stored but altered reactants are.
>>
>
> Incorrect. Any method of storing energy -- chemical, mechanical,
> electrical or nuclear -- must result in a heat deficit. All energy converts
> to heat. Whether the heat sources is chemical or nuclear, all of the energy
> in the end converts to heat, and only heat leaves the calorimeter.
>
> Obviously, the heat itself is not stored. I did not say that, and I did
> not mean it.
>
> When you load a hydride, chemical energy is stored -- not heat itself.
> More energy goes in than comes out. There is an energy deficit, and when
> the hydride is inside calorimeter, that shows up as a heat deficit.
>
> When you charge a battery, electricity is stored as a chemical change.
> Tota energy leaving the cell is less than energy going in. Because heat is
> the only form of energy a calorimeter can detect, and because all sources
> and all forms of energy must eventually degrade into heat, the calorimeter
> sees a deficit. Other instruments will show the stored energy in other
> forms. An electric power meter attached to the battery will show the stored
> energy as increased potential electricity (voltage or specific gravity),
> but a calorimeter can only measure it as a heat deficit while the battery
> is charged.
>
> Mechanically winding up a spring inside a calorimeter will show a complete
> heat deficit. That is to say, you put work into the spring, but no heat is
> produced. This was a classic 19th century experiment performed by J. P.
> Joule. This would violate the First Law if the energy were not stored in
> the spring, by changing the internal structure of the spring.
>
>

Joule's apparatus used a spindle with paddles which was turned by a falling
weight outside the calorimeter. The motion of the falling weight did not
result in the generation of potential energy. It only resulted in the
warming of the water inside calorimeter. However, if the falling of the
weight were to wind up a spring in addition to turning of the paddle then
the same energy input - in the form gravitational potential energy (i.e.
the weight time the height through which the weight falls) would warm the
water AND store energy in the spring. According to Joule the amount of heat
generated is only a function of how far the weight falls. It is not a
function of how quickly it falls, so even if the spring slows the descent
of the weight the calorimeter will read the same rise in temperature with
or without the spring attached.
​
This thought experiment demonstrates how two systems can have the same
energy input and generate the same temperatures but one can store energy
and the other can't.

Harry




> https://books.google.com/books?id=oxQ2i23IiMsC&pg=PT67&;
> lpg=PT67&dq=winding+up+a+spring+in+a+calorimeter&
> source=bl&ots=LkyLjbUQbX&sig=sAFyzKgdgWBLUFo-jKXTQy_TQGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=
> 0ahUKEwjhg5uCy6rUAhVG4SYKHWysARMQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=
> winding%20up%20a%20spring%20in%20a%20calorimeter&f=false
>
> What you are describing would be a violation of the First Law. You cannot
> store energy into a system and not reduce the amount of energy that comes
> out of the system.
>
>
>
>> The dense deuterium which is created and stored using some of the heat of
>> the ongoing reaction can and does react after power is cut.
>>
>
> If dense deuterium is created, and this stores energy, less energy
> degrades into heat, and there is a heat deficit. This does not happen.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[Jones Beene]

Brian Ahern wrote:

> After 28 years nobody has succeeded in generating 100 watts excess in 
a repeatable process. In fact there is no qualified system that can 
achieve 10 watts excess and a COP > 1.5


... and Bob Cook says I'm too cynical ...

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> You are intentionally obfuscating. When hydrogen or deuterium are
> densified by giving up angular momentum of the electron orbital - heat is
> released. That heat shows up in the excess heat of the reaction along with
> nuclear heat, if there is any.
>

If that is true, it is not energy storage. It has nothing to do with energy
storage. Like all forms of energy, it decreases the mass of the hydrogen or
deuterium. If it were energy storage, it would increase the mass.

You said earlier that the energy is stored: "This dynamic only happens when
the stored energy is nuclear, not chemical."

If the reactants are altered to have higher potential energy, then energy
is being stored. Mass is increased (which is too small to measure), and
there has to be an energy deficit in the system (which is easily measured).
If the system is a calorimeter, this has to show up as a heat deficit. It
makes no difference whether the higher potential energy is in atoms
(nuclear energy) or molecules (chemical energy) or the internal structure
of a spring (mechanical energy). Every joule of stored energy will produce
exactly the same heat deficit, and will increase the mass exactly the same
amount in all three system.

If the atoms are being altered to release energy, like atoms that fission
or molecules that burn, that's not energy storage. That's a material being
altered in a way that releases energy.

- Jed

[Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming

[Brian Ahern]

Jones has identified the lack of significant excess heat fro PdD and NiH 
systems.


After 28 years nobody has succeeded in generating 100 watts excess in a 
repeatable process. In fact there is no qualified system that can achieve 10 
watts excess and a COP > 1.5


Perhaps we are trapped in the wrong metaphor. CF requires two miracles:


  1.  D-D fusion
  2.  No radiation

Perhaps a magnetic origin interacting with the vacuum requires less on the 
miracle front.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 9:44 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

No ! You seem to be confusing chemistry with nuclear reactions. Heat is not 
being stored but altered reactants are.

Incorrect. Any method of storing energy -- chemical, mechanical, electrical or 
nuclear -- must result in a heat deficit. All energy converts to heat. Whether 
the heat sources is chemical or nuclear, all of the energy in the end converts 
to heat, and only heat leaves the calorimeter.

Obviously, the heat itself is not stored. I did not say that, and I did not 
mean it.

When you load a hydride, chemical energy is stored -- not heat itself. More 
energy goes in than comes out. There is an energy deficit, and when the hydride 
is inside calorimeter, that shows up as a heat deficit.

When you charge a battery, electricity is stored as a chemical change. Total 
energy leaving the cell is less than energy going in. Because heat is the only 
form of energy a calorimeter can detect, and because all sources and all forms 
of energy must eventually degrade into heat, the calorimeter sees a deficit. 
Other instruments will show the stored energy in other forms. An electric power 
meter attached to the battery will show the stored energy as increased 
potential electricity (voltage or specific gravity), but a calorimeter can only 
measure it as a heat deficit while the battery is charged.

Mechanically winding up a spring inside a calorimeter will show a complete heat 
deficit. That is to say, you put work into the spring, but no heat is produced. 
This was a classic 19th century experiment performed by J. P. Joule. This would 
violate the First Law if the energy were not stored in the spring, by changing 
the internal structure of the spring.

https://books.google.com/books?id=oxQ2i23IiMsC&pg=PT67&lpg=PT67&dq=winding+up+a+spring+in+a+calorimeter&source=bl&ots=LkyLjbUQbX&sig=sAFyzKgdgWBLUFo-jKXTQy_TQGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhg5uCy6rUAhVG4SYKHWysARMQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=winding%20up%20a%20spring%20in%20a%20calorimeter&f=false

What you are describing would be a violation of the First Law. You cannot store 
energy into a system and not reduce the amount of energy that comes out of the 
system.


The dense deuterium which is created and stored using some of the heat of the 
ongoing reaction can and does react after power is cut.

If dense deuterium is created, and this stores energy, less energy degrades 
into heat, and there is a heat deficit. This does not happen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

 Jed Rothwell wrote:



No ! You seem to be confusing chemistry with nuclear reactions.
Heat is not being stored but altered reactants are.


Incorrect. Any method of storing energy -- chemical, mechanical, 
electrical or nuclear -- must result in a heat deficit.


You are intentionally obfuscating. When hydrogen or deuterium are 
densified by giving up angular momentum of the electron orbital - heat 
is released. That heat shows up in the excess heat of the reaction along 
with nuclear heat, if there is any.


This is NOT a deficit. The dense hydrogen actually becomes easier to 
fuse than before so it is win-win and not a balancing act as with 
chemical reactions.


It appears you are trying to cover up the fact that you do not 
understand or accept the dynamics of dense hydrogen.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

No ! You seem to be confusing chemistry with nuclear reactions. Heat is not
> being stored but altered reactants are.
>

Incorrect. Any method of storing energy -- chemical, mechanical, electrical
or nuclear -- must result in a heat deficit. All energy converts to heat.
Whether the heat sources is chemical or nuclear, all of the energy in the
end converts to heat, and only heat leaves the calorimeter.

Obviously, the heat itself is not stored. I did not say that, and I did not
mean it.

When you load a hydride, chemical energy is stored -- not heat itself. More
energy goes in than comes out. There is an energy deficit, and when the
hydride is inside calorimeter, that shows up as a heat deficit.

When you charge a battery, electricity is stored as a chemical change.
Total energy leaving the cell is less than energy going in. Because heat is
the only form of energy a calorimeter can detect, and because all sources
and all forms of energy must eventually degrade into heat, the calorimeter
sees a deficit. Other instruments will show the stored energy in other
forms. An electric power meter attached to the battery will show the stored
energy as increased potential electricity (voltage or specific gravity),
but a calorimeter can only measure it as a heat deficit while the battery
is charged.

Mechanically winding up a spring inside a calorimeter will show a complete
heat deficit. That is to say, you put work into the spring, but no heat is
produced. This was a classic 19th century experiment performed by J. P.
Joule. This would violate the First Law if the energy were not stored in
the spring, by changing the internal structure of the spring.

https://books.google.com/books?id=oxQ2i23IiMsC&pg=PT67&lpg=PT67&dq=winding+up+a+spring+in+a+calorimeter&source=bl&ots=LkyLjbUQbX&sig=sAFyzKgdgWBLUFo-jKXTQy_TQGs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhg5uCy6rUAhVG4SYKHWysARMQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=winding%20up%20a%20spring%20in%20a%20calorimeter&f=false

What you are describing would be a violation of the First Law. You cannot
store energy into a system and not reduce the amount of energy that comes
out of the system.



> The dense deuterium which is created and stored using some of the heat of
> the ongoing reaction can and does react after power is cut.
>

If dense deuterium is created, and this stores energy, less energy degrades
into heat, and there is a heat deficit. This does not happen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Jed Rothwell wrote:


One expected effect of an experiment which is both storing and
releasing excess heat at the same time would be a period of
so-called heat-after-death following shut-down.


That would only be true if the experiment stored more heat than it 
releases. That never happens.


No ! You seem to be confusing chemistry with nuclear reactions. Heat is 
not being stored but altered reactants are. The dense deuterium which is 
created and stored using some of the heat of the ongoing reaction can 
and does react after power is cut. Holmlid has proved this. He has shown 
us how heat-after-death operates.


This is not speculation. If you do not accept Holmlid's results, and 
cannot see the obvious connection to other types of LENR then that is 
your problem, no mine.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid needs to pump energy into the ultra dense hydrogen for weeks 
before mesons begin to be detected. But after that energy was loaded, 
exposure to lab lights were enough to feed meson production.


Now that you mention it - there is a good chance that Holmlid could 
almost single-highhandedly rescue LENR from the doldrums. A few changes 
in his present setup should suffice.


He is using a catalyst which does not store deuterium the way that 
palladium can. And he is not getting much fusion - mostly muons.


If Holmlid were to integrate palladium into his system for increased 
storage, it is possible that he could could achieve the robust on-demand 
type of gain which has long eluded others.


The path Holmlid is on now seems to based on the Shell catalyst because 
it works as an efficient spillover catalyst and is ferromagnetic and 
inexpensive. The Letts/Cravens effect indicates that laser irradiation 
works far better in a magnetic field.


If palladium could be added into the mix, then much more UDD could be 
stored than in his present setup. Palladium in not ferromagnetic, so 
consequently he would need both catalysts. As of now, Holmlid sees some 
fusion but far more muons -- and muons are not easily converted into 
heat. His results would arguably be much better in terms of excess heat 
if he could alter his setup to see more deuterium fusion and fewer 
muons. An easy way to do that seems to be to mix palladium powder with 
the Shell 105.


This would not be hard to pull off ... and the upside is significant.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> One expected effect of an experiment which is both storing and releasing
> excess heat at the same time would be a period of so-called
> heat-after-death following shut-down.
>

That would only be true if the experiment stored more heat than it
releases. That never happens. There is not a single experiment in the
literature in which as significant amount of heat was stored, at any phase
in the experiment. Not at the beginning, or the middle or the end. It NEVER
HAPPENS.



> Aside from that kind of direct proof . . .
>

That direct proof does not exist, as I said. If it did exist, you would
have point, but it does not.



> , no one understands the mechanism for storage of nuclear changes but a
> good candidate would be a mechanism which results in "dense hydrogen".
>

Why are you speculating about a mechanism for an event that has never
occurred?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

I seem to remember Jones remarking how difficult that replicating Holmlid's
experiment was because Holmlid needs to pump energy into the ultra dense
hydrogen for weeks before mesons begin to be detected. But after that
energy was loaded, exposure to lab lights were enough to feed meson
production.

Is my memory true regarding the requirement for  large scale energy storage
in ultra dense hydrogen activation?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> No, your conclusion is both wrong and short-sighted - and apparently you
> forgot to actually look at the data and go on memory.
>
> The data in the last Table shows that in run 2, 5.5 MJ of input was
> unaccounted for and could have been stored. You clearly missed that, but it
> is the tip of the  iceberg.
>
> The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could have
> reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain - therefore in
> all seven runs, there could have been both exotherm and endotherm taking
> place in the same electrode, such that stored nuclear changes were
> absorbing some of the gain which was occurring with a delay from prior
> stored changes.
>
> I assume you had read this report years ago but please try reread the
> papers again before making unjustified conclusions. But you main error is
> the assumption that the entire electrode is either in an endothermic phase
> or exothermic, when it is much more complicated and both phases can take
> place simultaneously, with only the net effect being recorded.
>
> Jones
>
> On 6/6/2017 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic reaction of X
>> watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts equally well.
>>
>> Energy storage is ruled out.
>>
>>
>> Not really ruled out. Let's be exact: energy storage by the conventional
>> chemical redox reaction is and always has been ruled out - OK - we can go
>> that far.
>>
>
> You are missing the point. Energy storage is ruled out because *the data
> shows that no energy was stored*. The balance was zero. There was no
> endothermic phase. There would have to be such a phase if energy was
> stored. It would have to show up in the calorimeter data. The negative
> signal would be stronger than the positive signal that followed during the
> exothermic phase, because the endothermic phase would be shorter.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Jed Rothwell wrote:

 I suppose the cathode might have been storing and releasing heat at 
the same time, but how could you tell with a calorimeter?


One expected effect of an experiment which is both storing and releasing 
excess heat at the same time would be a period of so-called 
heat-after-death following shut-down.


Aside from that kind of direct proof, no one understands the mechanism 
for storage of nuclear changes but a good candidate would be a mechanism 
which results in "dense hydrogen".  (technically this is not nuclear, 
but it is closer to nuclear than to chemistry)


If we had a rock-solid experiment which was clearly able to show 
heat-after-death, then perhaps efforts could be made to collect and 
characterize dense hydrogen.


The problem of course is that there is no rock solid experiment capable 
of showing heat-after-death.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Yes... but you still do not get the logical error you are making.
>
> In any run where there is net gain, there can be regions of heat deficit
> which are masked by the overall gain. You cannot assume a homogeneous
> electrode.
>

If there were regions of deficit that exceeded the gain, the balance would
be negative. There was no significant negative balance in any experiment.
There was no net energy storage. Not in regions of the cathode, and not
over time either.

Again, looking at the time dimension, successful experiments produced heat
longer than they showed a zero balance. So, the negative heat deficit
(negative power) would have to be larger than the positive power. Assuming
they took place at different times. If they took place at the same time but
in different locations in the cathode -- as you suggest here -- then the
net effect must have been zero, as I said. A heat balance. I suppose the
cathode might have been storing and releasing heat at the same time, but
how could you tell with a calorimeter? This would look exactly the same as
a cathode that is doing nothing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Jed Rothwell wrote:


The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could
have reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain . . .

Any nuclear or chemical change must result in a heat deficit. There is 
no significant heat deficit.


Yes... but you still do not get the logical error you are making.

In any run where there is net gain, there can be regions of heat deficit 
which are masked by the overall gain. You cannot assume a homogeneous 
electrode.


The real gain of ~300 MJ could have been higher than reported. This 
dynamic only happens when the stored energy is nuclear, not chemical. If 
it were only chemical energy that we are concerned with, then yes, 
storage would result in deficit but with nuclear there can be both gain 
and storage happening at the same time.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

No, your conclusion is both wrong and short-sighted - and apparently you
> forgot to actually look at the data and go on memory.
>
> The data in the last Table shows that in run 2, 5.5 MJ of input was
> unaccounted for and could have been stored. You clearly missed that, but it
> is the tip of the  iceberg.
>
I did not miss it. It is in the margin of error. More to the point, a 5.5
MJ deficit in one experiment cannot explain a 294 MJ excess in one
experiment, and a 102 MJ excess in another. 5.5 is much smaller than
294+102. This is also impossible because they used a different cathode in
each test. Even if 5.5 MJ were stored in one cathode, it would not transfer
to the other two.

The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could have
> reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain . . .
>
Any nuclear or chemical change must result in a heat deficit. There is no
significant heat deficit.

- therefore in all seven runs, there could have been both exotherm and
> endotherm taking place in the same electrode . . .
>
Different electrodes. In any case the total unaccounted-for negative energy
is far less than the excess, as I said.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

No, your conclusion is both wrong and short-sighted - and apparently you 
forgot to actually look at the data and go on memory.


The data in the last Table shows that in run 2, 5.5 MJ of input was 
unaccounted for and could have been stored. You clearly missed that, but 
it is the tip of the  iceberg.


The data says nothing about ongoing nuclear changes which could have 
reduced the apparent gain in those runs with apparent gain - therefore 
in all seven runs, there could have been both exotherm and endotherm 
taking place in the same electrode, such that stored nuclear changes 
were absorbing some of the gain which was occurring with a delay from 
prior stored changes.


I assume you had read this report years ago but please try reread the 
papers again before making unjustified conclusions. But you main error 
is the assumption that the entire electrode is either in an endothermic 
phase or exothermic, when it is much more complicated and both phases 
can take place simultaneously, with only the net effect being recorded.


Jones


On 6/6/2017 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beenewrote:


Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic reaction
of X watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts
equally well.

Energy storage is ruled out.


Not really ruled out. Let's be exact: energy storage by the
conventional chemical redox reaction is and always has been ruled
out - OK - we can go that far.


You are missing the point. Energy storage is ruled out because _the 
data shows that no energy was stored_. The balance was zero. There was 
no endothermic phase. There would have to be such a phase if energy 
was stored. It would have to show up in the calorimeter data. The 
negative signal would be stronger than the positive signal that 
followed during the exothermic phase, because the endothermic phase 
would be shorter.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Energy storage is ruled out because *the data shows that no energy was
> stored*. The balance was zero. There was no endothermic phase. There
> would have to be such a phase if energy was stored.
>

You see this with any kind of energy storage, because all energy converts
to heat. For example, Scott Little once showed data from a rechargable
battery placed in a calorimeter. While the battery charged up, there was a
heat deficit. The battery was then connected to resistance heater inside
the calorimeter. The total energy from heat it produced was very close to
the deficit during the endothermic phase.

Even if there was some exotic storage mechanism, "based on nuclear
boosting/storage of some kind - such as weak force hypercharge pumping" or
what-have-you, it would show up as a heat deficit. Because all energy
always ends up as heat.

The only other situation (not an exception, per se) would be a heat deficit
caused by particles escaping undetected from the calorimeter. That would be
dangerous! It would not result in energy storage.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic reaction of X watts
> can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts equally well.
>
> Energy storage is ruled out.
>
>
> Not really ruled out. Let's be exact: energy storage by the conventional
> chemical redox reaction is and always has been ruled out - OK - we can go
> that far.
>

You are missing the point. Energy storage is ruled out because *the data
shows that no energy was stored*. The balance was zero. There was no
endothermic phase. There would have to be such a phase if energy was
stored. It would have to show up in the calorimeter data. The negative
signal would be stronger than the positive signal that followed during the
exothermic phase, because the endothermic phase would be shorter.

- Jed