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

[H LV]

On Jun 7, 2017 10:06 AM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> That was a different experiment. I was referring to one in which he wound
a spring inside a calorimeter.
>
> - Jed
>

The passage you cite mentions that Joule is concerned that when a spring is
wound it does not produce heat. If a gas behaved like a spring in addition
to heating up when compressed then it would be incorrect to infer the  heat
energy of the gas from its temperature.

Harry

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

[Adrian Ashfield]

I don't think the Penon report proves it didn't work.  We will find out in 
court.  Why do you think it does?
What about the QuarkX?
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Wed, Jun 7, 2017 2:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new thread --- apres Rossi era looming




Adrian Ashfield  wrote:

 


Brian Ahern insists on proof for LENR experiments but somehow doesn't require 
proof to proclaim the E-Cat, the SunCell  & Brillouin don't work.




The Penon report proves that the E-Cat does not work. I do not know about the 
other two. The Penon report is here:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

As Harry pointed out, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and they have not 
produced much evidence for SunCell and Brillouin.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Adrian Ashfield  wrote:


> Brian Ahern insists on proof for LENR experiments but somehow doesn't
>> require proof to proclaim the E-Cat, the SunCell  & Brillouin don't work.
>
>
The Penon report proves that the E-Cat does not work. I do not know about
the other two. The Penon report is here:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

As Harry pointed out, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and they have
not produced much evidence for SunCell and Brillouin.

- Jed

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

[H LV]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Harry

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield 
wrote:

> Brian Ahern insists on proof for LENR experiments but somehow doesn't
> require proof to proclaim the E-Cat, the SunCell  & Brillouin don't work.
> The fact is, nobody outside those groups really knows yet.
> AA
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 10:41 pm
> 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 ...
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Top Ten Viewed Quora Writers List on Time Dilation.

[Harvey Norris]

The site says the ten most viewed answers in the last 30 days. Yesterday I was 
tenth at 220 views. Today I see someone replaced me with 223 views. But my new 
standing is now 19th at 110 views. I don't understand how they count things 
here if the views can just change to half their former value. Actually I see 
what must be happening here. My three cited answers all have the word "time 
dilation" in their title. Some kind of search engine must pick up on this. But 
looking at the three answers I had in my category there was ~200, 500 and 300 
views which was over 1000. The new replacement in the top ten also had over a 
thousand views from his cited seven answers, but evidently in quora's 
measurement system, once they put you in the top ten; you get a double credit 
from the amount of actual views being recorded. What probably happened is that 
some one in the academic world said we can't have HDN in the top ten so twist 
some screws and pull some levers and make him magically disappear from the top 
ten list. Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 

On Monday, June 5, 2017 12:01 PM, Harvey Norris  wrote:
 

  Just made it to the bottom of the list.Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - 
Quora
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - Quora
   |   |

  |

  |

 
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

   

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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.
>

That was a different experiment. I was referring to one in which he wound a
spring inside a calorimeter.

- Jed

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

[Adrian Ashfield]

Brian Ahern insists on proof for LENR experiments but somehow doesn't require 
proof to proclaim the E-Cat, the SunCell  & Brillouin don't work.  The fact is, 
nobody outside those groups really knows yet.
AA

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 10:41 pm
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]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

I think I found the reference to the endothermic process,  Y E Kim was
using it in some discussions. ...
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg65963.html

Endothermic Alpha Capture

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> 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]

It could also mean that one way to get LENR reactions started is with the
endothermic alpha capture process.

On Monday, June 5, 2017, Axil Axil  wrote:

> MORE...
>
> In this Focardi
> 
>  experiment,
> when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated. This leads to
> the observation that the Polariton BEC is the mechanism that transforms the
> nuclear energy produced in the LENR reaction into heat.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:
>
>> Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs
>> involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma
>> radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a
>> Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma
>> radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-Eviden
>> ceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene > > wrote:
>>
>>> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be
>>> operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
>>> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
>>> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
>>> charged.
>>>
>>> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of
>>> cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be
>>> more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
>>> involves "one less miracle."
>>>
>>> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood
>>> properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both)
>>> arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in
>>> palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released
>>> later.
>>>
>>> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come
>>> from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after
>>> months of "hypercharging" ;-)
>>>
>>> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on
>>> our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known
>>> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
>>> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
>>> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.
>>>
>>> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
>>> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
>>> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
>>> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
>>> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
>>>  H LV wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Jones Beene wrote:

 The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than 
> a
> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
> did not point the way to a useful device.


 "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
 heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
 test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
 before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
 airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
 in line to take off.

 There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know
 there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot
 store that much energy.

 - Jed


>>>
>>> "​You cannot store that much energy"​ is working hypothesis.
>>> ​That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
>>> Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the
>>> nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating
>>> how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism?
>>> Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally
>>> driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind
>>> the clock up.
>>>
>>> Harry​
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

[Kevin O'Malley]

Even Ed Storms admitted there was SOME radiation in LENR cells, just a
thousand or million times too little.

On Monday, June 5, 2017,  wrote:

> In reply to  Kevin O'Malley's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:01:26 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Yes it can.   When 2 d's fuse and emit a gamma ray, that energy is
> absorbed
> >by the lattice.   Such energy absorption sometimes generates fission
> >products.I do not know the nuclear equation, but it would be gamma +
> Ni
> >---> decay products + heat
>
> If the energy of the original reaction is distributed to the lattice, then
> there
> are no gammas. If there are gammas, then you can't count on all of them
> being
> absorbed by nuclei. Ordinary radioactive isotopes prove that.
> In short, if there were gammas they would be detectable externally with
> ordinary
> detectors.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>