Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the mechanism does not matter. Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if significant C13 were made. Ed Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have proven the entire LENR field to be bunk. Ahem ... I believe the argument here is not that no such reaction could have taken place, which is what you seem to be responding to. The argument is, rather, that if the enormous number of transmutations which are being claimed actually took place, then the aggregate energy released would have been far too large for the observed effects. I realize this, and I think there is good evidence this assertion is not true, and not only that, typically not true. It is not typical of heavy nucleus LENR that significant energy is produced. This argument does *not* apply to (most?) cold fusion experiments. I think it does. I don't think the observable energy produced necessarily or even typically exactly corresponds to the mass loss, either on a small scale or a large one. This especially applies to heavy LENR experiments where heavy nuclei are transmuted. Keep in mind, in a typical CF experiment the amount of material which is transmuted is microscopic, and is an insignificant fraction of the material present in the experiment. The amount of mass is irrelevant if no enthalpy is produced at all, i.e. if the mass loss involved in even a tiny amount would vaporize the material and produce massive amounts of high energy particles. I don't know of any heavy transmutation experiments (other than maybe this one if C13 production is confirmed, and no He production is found) where significant energy production or signature particles that could not be from light element fusion were noted. If heavy transmutation occurs without energy production then you can transmute a ton of the stuff and still get no excess energy. Various forms of biological transmutation has been suggested (but also not adequately confirmed) including Ca formation by chickens. This is transmutation on a similarly massive scale - without vaporizing the host, except maybe in the case of spontaneous human combustion. I think heavy transmutation in cathodes observed even from the first days of Bockris' team at TAMU was surprising due to the lack of high energy signatures or corresponding excess heat. Note that I am not saying heavy transmutation, especially biological, is confirmed. I am only saying the lack of a mass energy balance is not a reason to deny its possibility. In this case the amount supposedly transmuted was a major fraction of the input material mass, if I've properly understood the discussion up to this point. That's a gross difference, and is in fact the whole point being argued by Ed and Jones: Either there is a mechanism with allows the transmutations to take place with (almost) no energy imbalance, or the number of transmutations can't be as large as claimed because there was insufficient observed excess heat. Actually it appears Ed is applying exactly the opposite argument above. He is saying a mass balance must occur, as in typical high energy reactions. What balances with mass? Energy. The suggested number of transmutations *can* occur if there exists an energy sink, such as vacuum transactions, or neutrino production, to eliminate observable energy. I think it is also possible to tap an energy source via nuclear - lepton interaction. The balance can go either way. The issue is not how the excess heat made it from the reaction site to the calorim
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:25:06 -0500: Hi, [snip] >oops i mean if He4 splits into D + D wouldn't that be endothermic if the >reverse >process is exothermic? Yes, but given the energy requirement, that's one of the biggest "if"s I've ever seen. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation > > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:35 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal > situation > > > In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:04:33 - > > 0700:Hi, > > [snip] > > >Apparently all spontaneous nuclear reactions are exothermic. > This > > is > > >required because a nuclear process cannot obtain the required > > large > > >amount of energy from the local environment fast enough. In > > contrast, > > >a chemical reaction is much slower and is satisfied with energy > > that > > >can be stolen from a few surrounding atoms. > > > > > >Ed > > This is fine, but not a complete answer. The question that Jed > asks is > > legitimate, and is also an option that I suggested in slightly > > different words > > some days back. > > > > Though individual endothermic reactions don't occur, a "compound" > > reaction might > > occur. Such a reaction would actually only be a single reaction, > > but could be > > thought of (or viewed) as a combination of exothermic and > > endothermic reactions. > > The sort of reaction I'm talking about is e.g. where two or more > > nucleitemporarily fuse, then fission into different fragments > than > > they started out > > as. Reactions of this sort *could* end up being only very > slightly > > exothermic,and could be classed as almost pure transmutation > > reactions. > > In fact conventional fission is an example of this. Two "nuclei" > > fuse, i.e. a > > U235 nucleus and a single neutron, which is followed by fission > > into a variety > > of fragments. However in this case the energy release is > considerable.> > > Regards, > > > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > If He4 splits into D2+D2 wouldn't that be endothermic if the reverse > process is exothermic? > > Harry > oops i mean if He4 splits into D + D wouldn't that be endothermic if the reverse process is exothermic? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 6:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: [snip] How can anyone, especially those that haunt this particular forum, where the emphasis is on LENR or many types which are seen in the literature - possibly expect this unique Mizuno reaction to resemble prior hot fusion in any specific way? ... or for that matter, their own version of cold fusion? Hey, that is why we give this niche its own general name - LENR! and it is not limited to D+D-->He anymore than hot fusion is limited to a specific reaction ! Hope that helps ... Jones While I agree the above and the snipped material may all or partially be true, but it may also be important to keep in mind that the assumed C13 presence may be a mistake of some kind, and thus much of the discussion in this thread moot. If so, the excess energy and gammas may indeed simply be from D+D-> He4 or p+D-> He3. I can readily, even before breakfast, assume 13 impossible things exist, including the production of C13 without the appropriate particle signatures and excess enthalpy. However, it may also be the excess enthalpy and gammas are caused by ordinary deuterium fusion, or even LENR with the metal lattice used in the catalyst or the walls of the pressure vessels. We should not forget that helium appears to play a role in the experiment. As I posted earlier: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Something that may be of general interest is that helium implantation on the surface of SUS316L may increase its absorbtion of hydrogen. See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998NIMPB.136..483O "We have studied the effects of helium incorporation on trap-sites of hydrogen in high-purity stainless steel SUS316L. We implanted 10 and 30keV He ions into high-purity SUS316L samples with several doses ranging from 3x10^15 to 1x10^17/cm2 and then 30keV hydrogen ions with a dose of 1x10^17/cm2 at a temperature of 300K, and then observed depth profiles and thermal behavior of hydrogen in the samples by means of the elastic recoil detection (ERD) method. It was found that hydrogen implanted into the high-purity SUS316L is chemically absorbed in helium cavities." Helium implantation, by either ion implantation, thermal implantation, or electrochemical implantation plus fusion, may provide a nuclear active surface zone? See also: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2722217 for data regarding thermal implantation of helium vs hydrogen in various materials, including Inconel 625. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AFAIK, the subject experiments by Mizuno are the first LENR experiments using high temperature Fe materials with pressurized hydrogen and He. I expect similar or better experiments using Mo or Mo-Fe-C alloys at high temperatures an pressures. I would expect the best allow for the pressure vessel would not be the best alloy for supporting the reaction. It is interesting the resulting material was black. Perhaps some of the hydrogen taken made He, and other hydrogen was involved in higher molecular weight organics, leaving a deposit consisting mostly of carbon. (Of course if it is *all* carbon a molecular weight of 13 must indeed be C13.) In any case, I think keeping an open mind about all these issues is important until the facts are in, if that is possible given Mizuno's present situation. It is clearly also important to follow up on the old (creosote or coal hydrogenation?) excess enthalpy information from scratch. It would be good to have details on that, which might only be possible through Jed or another translation source. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation > In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:04:33 - > 0700:Hi, > [snip] > >Apparently all spontaneous nuclear reactions are exothermic. This > is > >required because a nuclear process cannot obtain the required > large > >amount of energy from the local environment fast enough. In > contrast, > >a chemical reaction is much slower and is satisfied with energy > that > >can be stolen from a few surrounding atoms. > > > >Ed > This is fine, but not a complete answer. The question that Jed asks is > legitimate, and is also an option that I suggested in slightly > different words > some days back. > > Though individual endothermic reactions don't occur, a "compound" > reaction might > occur. Such a reaction would actually only be a single reaction, > but could be > thought of (or viewed) as a combination of exothermic and > endothermic reactions. > The sort of reaction I'm talking about is e.g. where two or more > nucleitemporarily fuse, then fission into different fragments than > they started out > as. Reactions of this sort *could* end up being only very slightly > exothermic,and could be classed as almost pure transmutation > reactions. > In fact conventional fission is an example of this. Two "nuclei" > fuse, i.e. a > U235 nucleus and a single neutron, which is followed by fission > into a variety > of fragments. However in this case the energy release is considerable. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If He4 splits into D2+D2 wouldn't that be endothermic if the reverse process is exothermic? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the mechanism does not matter. Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if significant C13 were made. Ed Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have proven the entire LENR field to be bunk. Actually, most people expect the energy to be carried off in an ordinary way, i.e. by radiation or particle emission. However, the kind of radiation and the energy of the particles is not as expected. Nevertheless, the energy ends up as heat, which is measured. Normally the amount of fusion or transmutation is small. If the amount of transmutation claimed by Mizuno occurred, his apparatus should be a melted glob. That's the problem. Ed Did you notice the phrase "or even concurrent excess heat" above? Yes, but I don't know what this means in this context. Ed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the mechanism does not matter. Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if significant C13 were made. Ed Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have proven the entire LENR field to be bunk. Actually, most people expect the energy to be carried off in an ordinary way, i.e. by radiation or particle emission. However, the kind of radiation and the energy of the particles is not as expected. Nevertheless, the energy ends up as heat, which is measured. Normally the amount of fusion or transmutation is small. If the amount of transmutation claimed by Mizuno occurred, his apparatus should be a melted glob. That's the problem. Ed Did you notice the phrase "or even concurrent excess heat" above? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Apparently all spontaneous nuclear reactions are exothermic. This is required because a nuclear process cannot obtain the required large amount of energy from the local environment fast enough. Well, my understanding is extremely limited, but I gather that nuclear processes occur so quickly and they are so energetic that according to conventional theory there is no way to transfer energy to a lattice, so cold fusion is ruled out. Yet cold fusion does occur, and it appears to be nuclear, with energy transferred as heat. So perhaps by one of these mechanisms such as Chubbs' the energy can "slow down" enough to break apart elements lighter than iron, which takes more energy than it produces. The process of moving the energy from the site of the nuclear reaction is normally done by easily detected radiation. In the case of cold fusion, this radiation signature is different from the expected radiation and not easy to detect because most does not leave the apparatus. However, as people look more closely using the right detectors, the expected radiation is seen. The transmutation reactions all are exothermic and do not result in the nucleus being broken down. Transmutation results from d or p entering the nucleus, which generates energy. This would produce other anomalous elements in the cell. I do not know whether they have been found, or even looked for. By the way, Mizuno confirmed that my English summary of his comments, posted here yesterday, is accurate. He confirms that he was referring to transient events during mass spectroscopy. As I said, he thinks there is no way to break down an organic molecule to get CH. I wouldn't know about it, but I did confirm that is what he meant. The CH exists only as a positive ion, which is clearly seen in a MS spectrum. I asked Mizuno for more information about the mass spectroscopy, including who did it and what that person thinks. In plain English, I asked him whether the fellow who operates the mass spec gadget agrees you can't make CH in his gadget by whacking creosote. (Plain Japanese, actually.) In contrast, a chemical reaction is much slower and is satisfied with energy that can be stolen from a few surrounding atoms. My point is that something appears to be slowing down nuclear reactions in metal lattices. Or spreading them out over a large area, the Chubbs would say. I don't think the Chubbs claim that the duration of the reaction is slowed, only that it dumps its energy as small packets into the lattice. The reaction has already occurred and is only trying to get rid of the extra energy. In addition, not every one agrees with this mechanism. As the existence of radiation is confirmed, this mechanism looks less likely. Of course the heat is also breaking chemical bonds -- cooking the creosote -- which does reduce the heat release slightly, but not enough to explain the apparent excess of nuclear products. The speed of the nuclear process is well known and is very much faster than chemical or physical processes. Consequently, energy from chemical sources simply can't keep up with the process. The experiment does cook the creosote, which may be one of the reasons the university wants to throw Mizuno out this month rather than April. When he and I were in the New York subway not long ago, we went up a stairway past an area where the weather comes in from the street, which was heavily coated in creosote. He said, "this place smells like my lab after a run." (Naturally, this does not prove it is anomalous heat: the electric heater supplies more than enough heat to volatilize the stuff.) Too true. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:04:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Apparently all spontaneous nuclear reactions are exothermic. This is >required because a nuclear process cannot obtain the required large >amount of energy from the local environment fast enough. In contrast, >a chemical reaction is much slower and is satisfied with energy that >can be stolen from a few surrounding atoms. > >Ed This is fine, but not a complete answer. The question that Jed asks is legitimate, and is also an option that I suggested in slightly different words some days back. Though individual endothermic reactions don't occur, a "compound" reaction might occur. Such a reaction would actually only be a single reaction, but could be thought of (or viewed) as a combination of exothermic and endothermic reactions. The sort of reaction I'm talking about is e.g. where two or more nuclei temporarily fuse, then fission into different fragments than they started out as. Reactions of this sort *could* end up being only very slightly exothermic, and could be classed as almost pure transmutation reactions. In fact conventional fission is an example of this. Two "nuclei" fuse, i.e. a U235 nucleus and a single neutron, which is followed by fission into a variety of fragments. However in this case the energy release is considerable. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Edmund Storms wrote: Apparently all spontaneous nuclear reactions are exothermic. This is required because a nuclear process cannot obtain the required large amount of energy from the local environment fast enough. Well, my understanding is extremely limited, but I gather that nuclear processes occur so quickly and they are so energetic that according to conventional theory there is no way to transfer energy to a lattice, so cold fusion is ruled out. Yet cold fusion does occur, and it appears to be nuclear, with energy transferred as heat. So perhaps by one of these mechanisms such as Chubbs' the energy can "slow down" enough to break apart elements lighter than iron, which takes more energy than it produces. This would produce other anomalous elements in the cell. I do not know whether they have been found, or even looked for. By the way, Mizuno confirmed that my English summary of his comments, posted here yesterday, is accurate. He confirms that he was referring to transient events during mass spectroscopy. As I said, he thinks there is no way to break down an organic molecule to get CH. I wouldn't know about it, but I did confirm that is what he meant. I asked Mizuno for more information about the mass spectroscopy, including who did it and what that person thinks. In plain English, I asked him whether the fellow who operates the mass spec gadget agrees you can't make CH in his gadget by whacking creosote. (Plain Japanese, actually.) In contrast, a chemical reaction is much slower and is satisfied with energy that can be stolen from a few surrounding atoms. My point is that something appears to be slowing down nuclear reactions in metal lattices. Or spreading them out over a large area, the Chubbs would say. Of course the heat is also breaking chemical bonds -- cooking the creosote -- which does reduce the heat release slightly, but not enough to explain the apparent excess of nuclear products. The experiment does cook the creosote, which may be one of the reasons the university wants to throw Mizuno out this month rather than April. When he and I were in the New York subway not long ago, we went up a stairway past an area where the weather comes in from the street, which was heavily coated in creosote. He said, "this place smells like my lab after a run." (Naturally, this does not prove it is anomalous heat: the electric heater supplies more than enough heat to volatilize the stuff.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Apparently all spontaneous nuclear reactions are exothermic. This is required because a nuclear process cannot obtain the required large amount of energy from the local environment fast enough. In contrast, a chemical reaction is much slower and is satisfied with energy that can be stolen from a few surrounding atoms. Ed On Dec 9, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: If the amount of transmutation claimed by Mizuno occurred, his apparatus should be a melted glob. That's the problem. Suppose there is some combination of endothermic and exothermic nuclear reactions occurring? Some of the energy comes out as heat, and some of it is used up causing other transmutations. This would be analogous to the chemical heat of forming palladium hydride during electrolysis. That overall process is endothermic even though the formation of a palladium hydride is exothermic. It takes more energy to decompose the water than you get from Pd-H formation. (This is something Ed and I discussed yesterday as it happens.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Robin, > if you are going to needlessly multiply miracles... I am not expecting many converts until Mizuno is replicated (in part, at least) and all of the other theories fail, or are too general to provide any guidance. AFAIK - no other hypothesis can even begin to work fluorescence into the mix. Of course and again, fluorescence could be only coincidental... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:56:49 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] To butcher a quote, if you are going to needlessly multiply miracles, why not go the whole hog, and create a ton of gold directly from ZPE energy, iso half a gram of C13. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Edmund Storms wrote: If the amount of transmutation claimed by Mizuno occurred, his apparatus should be a melted glob. That's the problem. Suppose there is some combination of endothermic and exothermic nuclear reactions occurring? Some of the energy comes out as heat, and some of it is used up causing other transmutations. This would be analogous to the chemical heat of forming palladium hydride during electrolysis. That overall process is endothermic even though the formation of a palladium hydride is exothermic. It takes more energy to decompose the water than you get from Pd-H formation. (This is something Ed and I discussed yesterday as it happens.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
> ED: So, I ask, where does this amazing particle come from and where does > the energy come from to make it in the apparatus? Since this is essentially the same as the two Steve's question, here is a quick verbalization of a very complex rationale which is still evolving: [if nothing else it should be good for a Rube Goldbergesque smile} Let me revise what I had previously speculated-on ... which is that a transmuton, or virtual neutron, derives from a most unusual three-particle "ZPE pumping reaction" of the Dirac epo field, which is a methodology which is similar in some ways to Mills' hydrino formation but markedly different in that the formation of this "transmuton" is endothermic, not exothermic as in CQM. It demands FRET - Forster resonant energy transfer at 3.4 eV. Phenanthrene provides that. The "starting particle" itself would be a monatomic hydrogen, which ends up with a near-maximum-low Bohr redundant orbital (near 1/137) and it would still need a neutrino to complete the reaction with carbon, which takes the proton only via Coulomb shielding (with the deflated electron as shield), reverts to 13N for a very short time and then goes to 13C via positron decay. The positron is part of the "borrowed energy repayment" and it reverts back to the Dirac epo field "to pay the piper". A neutrino, assuming one is required, comes from either the solar flux, due to vastly increased cross-section under these circumstances, or from the epo field. The net energy gain of the (proton --> transmuton+neutrino) after the transmutation is close to the average mass-energy of existing neutrons in 12C or otherwise this reaction would not be resonant, and could not occur since so little energy is involved on either end. It is almost a singularity in some ways, but has probably been seen before at least in parts (Les Case). It all begins with QTAIM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qtaim This is a quantum physical process needed for a complete understanding of what is going on at the QM level in this reaction- via the Forster radius: that is- when phenanthrene is heated and pressurized with H2 past a resonant (kinetic) threshold... ... then, once the threshold is reached, it begins to slowly undergo unusual low energy nuclear changes, which seem to end with massive isotopic shifts in carbon - with only modest excess energy release. This approach is a quantum chemical model that characterizes the chemical bonding of a system based on the topology of the quantum charge density when there are two *loosely bound* interacting protons, which become variably bound under pressure with a third proton. See image #2 of the molecular structure under the Wiki entry above to see where on the molecule that this reaction occurs. It occurs in sequential pumped steps of 3.4 eV FRET transfers from the Dirac epo field via the fluorescent pathway to the transmuton. The problem with using Mills for explaining this unique variety of shrinkage reaction is that the phenanthrene molecule has a different ionization energy than needed, which means that it cannot function as a Mills' catalyst. That is exactly why I proposed getting the same level of 'ending energy' transfer (multiples of 27.2 eV via FRET and the sequential 3.4 eV fluorescent ZPE pumping, instead of catalysis, and/or energy holes, as Mills does. Of course, the inherent fluorescence of phenanthrene and its absorption spectrum at this level could be coincidental. If you believe in coincidence. In the end, this is an unique alternative explanation and isn't CQM at all but is CQM-influenced or CQM-inspired. Note that the methodology for hydrinos proposed by Mills is never suggested as being the *only way* that the same end result (redundant states) can happen in practice. This is bizarre and complicated enough, admittedly - but there is more. Until Mizuno is vindicated and replicated and better alternative theories arrive - or until this one is shot down for some other reason than Occam (which is a lame cop-out) there is little harm in providing alternatives from which to fashion such a "construct" nor harm in even inventing a hypothetical particle which is capable of a low energy transmutation of carbon - and it could very well end up being ONLY carbon. Note also that Les Case used active ingredients (charcoal from coconut shells supposedly) which might well contain phenanthrene, so there may be other evidence of this reaction in old experiments. I fully believe that fluorescence is vital to this reaction even if the pathway which is proposed here is not accurate. Maybe, if nothing else - this effort will spur Mills into publishing a good MS analysis of his solid fuel ash... which has never appeared. I am certain he would find a LENR transmutation of sodium to magnesium, if he looked. And that is the reason that he will never look or at least never publish it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the mechanism does not matter. Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if significant C13 were made. Ed Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have proven the entire LENR field to be bunk. Actually, most people expect the energy to be carried off in an ordinary way, i.e. by radiation or particle emission. However, the kind of radiation and the energy of the particles is not as expected. Nevertheless, the energy ends up as heat, which is measured. Normally the amount of fusion or transmutation is small. If the amount of transmutation claimed by Mizuno occurred, his apparatus should be a melted glob. That's the problem. Ed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: > >> When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following >> mass change occurs: >> >> 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass >> equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does >> not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, >> this much energy MUST be removed. >> >> Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If >> the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin >> said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the >> mechanism does not matter. >> >> Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends >> on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount >> of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur >> under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell >> requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how >> they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as >> Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if >> significant C13 were made. >> >> >> Ed > > > Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of > all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been > reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent > excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism > exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have > proven the entire LENR field to be bunk. Ahem ... I believe the argument here is not that no such reaction could have taken place, which is what you seem to be responding to. The argument is, rather, that if the enormous number of transmutations which are being claimed actually took place, then the aggregate energy released would have been far too large for the observed effects. This argument does *not* apply to (most?) cold fusion experiments. Keep in mind, in a typical CF experiment the amount of material which is transmuted is microscopic, and is an insignificant fraction of the material present in the experiment. In this case the amount supposedly transmuted was a major fraction of the input material mass, if I've properly understood the discussion up to this point. That's a gross difference, and is in fact the whole point being argued by Ed and Jones: Either there is a mechanism with allows the transmutations to take place with (almost) no energy imbalance, or the number of transmutations can't be as large as claimed because there was insufficient observed excess heat. The issue is not how the excess heat made it from the reaction site to the calorimeter without disrupting parts of the lattice. The issue is that the excess heat which should have been present simply didn't make it anywhere; it was not observed. > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the mechanism does not matter. Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if significant C13 were made. Ed Congratulations! If the above is true then it should also be true of all heavy LENR observed. Since heavy lattice element LENR has been reported to occur without high energy signatures, or even concurrent excess heat, your above assertions, in particular that no mechanism exists carry off energy in an unseen way from nuclear reactions, have proven the entire LENR field to be bunk. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation > - Original Message > > > From: Edmund Storms > > > When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the > following > > mass change occurs: > > > 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of > mass > > equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism > does > > not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the > product, > > this much energy MUST be removed. > > No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. > > The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is so > very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in practice, so > the energy content before and after, of a real neutron, is > absolutely meaningless to this situation. > > We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period > > OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention of > a "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has far > less mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral energy > poor particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and that is > clearly true. > > I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or > whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an invention > which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be fiction. > > But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino > was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - > which served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino was > discovered to be both real and very close to having the physical > properties that its inventors thought it would have when it was > "constructed". > Jones > Perhaps it is a neutron made from neutrinos. How many neutrinos equal the mass of a neutron? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Well I think that we now have honed-down the differing points-of- view to Planck time Indeed. But let me add one more argument. We agree that C13 differs from C12 by the presence of one additional neutron. Therefore, for a C12 to become C13, the mass of one neutron must be added for the atomic mass of C13 to equal what is measured. This mass must come from somewhere and it must be equal to the mass of a neutron once it enters the C12 nucleus. You seem to be saying that something with a mass nearly equal to the difference between C12 and C13 enters the C12 nucleus. Because the mass change is nearly zero, the energy change is also nearly zero. This proposed particle converts to a neutron once it enters the C12, thereby giving the C13 all the expected properties that an extra neutron provides without releasing any energy to the outside world. So, I ask, where does this amazing particle come from and where does the energy come from to make it in the apparatus? Ed You seem to be saying that even if a transmuton exists, it becomes a real unbound neutron (high mass) prior to becoming a bound (stable average mass) neutron. In contrast, I am suggesting that it never becomes an unbound neutron; and instead appears ab initio as a bound (stable mass) particle without ever going through the stage of "real neutron" so there is no (or only slight) additional energy to dissipate. Jones When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is so very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in practice, so the energy content before and after, of a real neutron, is absolutely meaningless to this situation. We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period I agree, Jones. However, if C12 is converted to C13, a real neutron must be added. This real neutron might have been a virtual neutron at one time, but once it enters the C12 nucleus, it has to become a real neutron to make C13 real C13. Once this happens, by whatever magic you can imagine, the mass balance must take place. Ed OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention of a "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has far less mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral energy poor particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and that is clearly true. I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an invention which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be fiction. But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - which served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino was discovered to be both real and very close to having the physical properties that its inventors thought it would have when it was "constructed". Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Jones Beene wrote: > Ed, > > Well I think that we now have honed-down the differing points-of-view > to Planck time > > You seem to be saying that even if a transmuton exists, it becomes a > real unbound neutron (high mass) prior to becoming a bound (stable > average mass) neutron. > > In contrast, I am suggesting that it never becomes an unbound > neutron; and instead appears ab initio as a bound (stable mass) > particle without ever going through the stage of "real neutron" so > there is no (or only slight) additional energy to dissipate. But where did it come from to start with? What particle(s) went into the creation of this (newly minted) neutron? The energy difference between the starting species and the final nucleus is presumably what is of interest here. If it started out as a neutron on the outside then there was a big mass difference. If it didn't start out as a neutron, then what *did* it start out as? Without some kind of assumption as to the starting state, it would seem that all discussion of how much energy should have been released is rather pointless. - = . > > Jones > > > When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. >>> No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. >>> >>> The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is >>> so very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in >>> practice, so the energy content before and after, of a real >>> neutron, is absolutely meaningless to this situation. >>> >>> We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period >> I agree, Jones. However, if C12 is converted to C13, a real neutron >> must be added. This real neutron might have been a virtual neutron >> at one time, but once it enters the C12 nucleus, it has to become a >> real neutron to make C13 real C13. Once this happens, by whatever >> magic you can imagine, the mass balance must take place. >> >> Ed >>> >>> OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention >>> of a "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has >>> far less mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral >>> energy poor particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and >>> that is clearly true. >>> >>> I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or >>> whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an >>> invention which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be >>> fiction. >>> >>> But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino >>> was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - >>> which served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino >>> was discovered to be both real and very close to having the >>> physical properties that its inventors thought it would have when >>> it was "constructed". >>> >>> Jones >>> >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
>From Jones, ... > In contrast, I am suggesting that it never becomes an unbound > neutron; and instead appears ab initio as a bound (stable mass) > particle without ever going through the stage of "real neutron" > so there is no (or only slight) additional energy to dissipate. > > Jones Where is it speculated that this (stable mass) particle resides? I'm getting the impression that the particle is theorized NOT to have actually become a part of the C12 nucleus... or IS it? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Ed, Well I think that we now have honed-down the differing points-of-view to Planck time You seem to be saying that even if a transmuton exists, it becomes a real unbound neutron (high mass) prior to becoming a bound (stable average mass) neutron. In contrast, I am suggesting that it never becomes an unbound neutron; and instead appears ab initio as a bound (stable mass) particle without ever going through the stage of "real neutron" so there is no (or only slight) additional energy to dissipate. Jones > > > >> When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following > >> mass change occurs: > > > >> 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass > >> equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism > >> does > >> not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, > >> this much energy MUST be removed. > > > > No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. > > > > The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is so > > very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in practice, so > > the energy content before and after, of a real neutron, is > > absolutely meaningless to this situation. > > > > We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period > > I agree, Jones. However, if C12 is converted to C13, a real neutron > must be added. This real neutron might have been a virtual neutron at > one time, but once it enters the C12 nucleus, it has to become a real > neutron to make C13 real C13. Once this happens, by whatever magic you > can imagine, the mass balance must take place. > > Ed > > > > > > OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention of a > > "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has far less > > mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral energy poor > > particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and that is > > clearly true. > > > > I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or > > whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an invention > > which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be fiction. > > > > But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino > > was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - which > > served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino was > > discovered to be both real and very close to having the physical > > properties that its inventors thought it would have when it was > > "constructed". > > > > Jones > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. Of course, the source of the neutron must be taken into account. If the neutron has to be made from an electron and a proton, as Robin said, 0.78 MeV must be subtracted from the 4.95 MeV. Again the mechanism does not matter. Of course, the possibility of this reaction actually occurring depends on whether a rational mechanism can be proposed. A considerable amount of experience shows that such a combination of reactions do not occur under ordinary conditions. To propose they occur in the Mizuno cell requires some very unique conditions be identified and then show how they create a novel mechanism. The hydrino might to the job, but as Robin noted, the amount of released energy would be huge if significant C13 were made. Ed On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Robin, As I stated before, this is NOT a hot fusion reaction, obviously, so using the energy pathway, and the full value, from a known hot fusion reaction is simply not called for. In fact it can be most misleading, and it is most misleading here. The same would be true for those LENR reactions (not all) where the transmutation products indicate far more energy should has been shed than was seen in actuality. Ed Storms raised this point and it should be mentioned that he has specialized in reactions where the energy balance from helium ash does resemble hot fusion, even if the timing and other indicia are different, but there are many kinds of LENR where this is not the case involving different kinds of ash and transmutation. The above statement is true, even if Horace has a better model for this Mizuno reaction - and you can make your own determination of that. In the future it might be expedient to borrow some of his logic in any iimproved model - but for now, from my POV the ZPE/Casimir extradimensional pathway is the one which I find more explicative of what is going on and this mostly relates to the fluorescense, and a few other details. From a logical standpoint: if the starting point was carbon 12 and the ending point is 13C there is a large mass difference in the two, which without knowing more, indicates a massive endothermic change ... NOT an exotherm at all. So at best Ed is completely mistaken in looking for an explanation of large exotherm. Most of any exotherm, had it been coming hot fusion, we can suppose comes from a proton plus whatever happens to it beforehand (i.e. a proton plus what has transpired to convert it into a 'transmuton') ... This is the critical logic! The neutron cross-section for 12 C is almost non-existent so DEFINITELY there is no real neutron involved, in any way. What I am labeling as a "transmuton" is capable of doing what a neutron cannot do, and it may resemble Horace's deflated species or not. ERGO = there is a certain amount of mass, when we consider the 12C + H and the 13C as separate entities - which may seem to have disappeared in 3-space, BUT ... this does not in any way indicate that the mass-energy should be in the reaction itself if we are basing everything - as I was - on a ZPE transformative process. This reaction happens at the interface of 3-space and 4-space where everything is waves, the particle duality has ceased to exist, linear time is not relevant, and energy can be borrowed in advance. In the end, the net energy balance in no way resembles the expected reaction for hot fusion... don't know how many ways I need to say it, but this is not hot fusion anymore than most LENR. Since low energy reactions do not resemble hot fusion in some way: the ways that they differ can vary also, and may include the "phonon cascade" or other differences in energy release. You simply cannot say "my LENR reaction differs only in the way the energy is released, therfore yours must differ in the same way." There is no logic there. How can anyone, especially those that haunt this particular forum, where the emphasis is on LENR or many types which are seen in the literature - possibly expect this unique Mizuno reaction to resemble prior hot fusion in any specific way? ... or for that matter, their own version of cold fusion? Hey, that is why we give this niche its own general name - LENR! and it is not limited to D+D-->He anymore than hot fusion is limited to a specific reaction ! Hope that helps ... Jones - Original Message The energy required to make 1 neutron is 0.782 MeV. The energy output from adding that neutron to C12 and getting C13 is 4.95 MeV. That still leaves 4.16 MeV. In short only 16% of the
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Edmund Storms When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following mass change occurs: 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, this much energy MUST be removed. No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is so very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in practice, so the energy content before and after, of a real neutron, is absolutely meaningless to this situation. We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period I agree, Jones. However, if C12 is converted to C13, a real neutron must be added. This real neutron might have been a virtual neutron at one time, but once it enters the C12 nucleus, it has to become a real neutron to make C13 real C13. Once this happens, by whatever magic you can imagine, the mass balance must take place. Ed OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention of a "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has far less mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral energy poor particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and that is clearly true. I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an invention which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be fiction. But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - which served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino was discovered to be both real and very close to having the physical properties that its inventors thought it would have when it was "constructed". Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
- Original Message > From: Edmund Storms > When C12 is converted to C13 by addition of a neutron, the following > mass change occurs: > 12.000 + 1.0086649 = 13.0033548, which represent a loss of mass > equal to 0.0053101 AMU. This is equal to 4.95 MeV. The mechanism does > not matter. If C12 is the starting material and C13 is the product, > this much energy MUST be removed. No one denies this Ed. You seem to be missing the point. The point is that C12 has a cross section for neutrons which is so very low that this reaction above will NEVER happen in practice, so the energy content before and after, of a real neutron, is absolutely meaningless to this situation. We are not dealing with a real neutron reaction. Period OK let's move on from there. You may complain that my invention of a "transmuton" which derives from a proton initially but has far less mass to loose, when it is adsorbed by 12C as a neutral energy poor particle - has no basis of fact in prior science, and that is clearly true. I will agree that for now - the transmuton or virtual neutron or whatever one wishes to label it - is a "construct" or an invention which serves a specific purpose. It could easily be fiction. But it is a construct in exactly the same sense that the neutrino was for many decades a construct, a fiction and an invention - which served a specific purpose ... that is, until the neutrino was discovered to be both real and very close to having the physical properties that its inventors thought it would have when it was "constructed". Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Robin, As I stated before, this is NOT a hot fusion reaction, obviously, so using the energy pathway, and the full value, from a known hot fusion reaction is simply not called for. In fact it can be most misleading, and it is most misleading here. The same would be true for those LENR reactions (not all) where the transmutation products indicate far more energy should has been shed than was seen in actuality. Ed Storms raised this point and it should be mentioned that he has specialized in reactions where the energy balance from helium ash does resemble hot fusion, even if the timing and other indicia are different, but there are many kinds of LENR where this is not the case involving different kinds of ash and transmutation. The above statement is true, even if Horace has a better model for this Mizuno reaction - and you can make your own determination of that. In the future it might be expedient to borrow some of his logic in any iimproved model - but for now, from my POV the ZPE/Casimir extradimensional pathway is the one which I find more explicative of what is going on and this mostly relates to the fluorescense, and a few other details. >From a logical standpoint: if the starting point was carbon 12 and the ending >point is 13C there is a large mass difference in the two, which without >knowing more, indicates a massive endothermic change ... NOT an exotherm at >all. So at best Ed is completely mistaken in looking for an explanation of >large exotherm. Most of any exotherm, had it been coming hot fusion, we can suppose comes from a proton plus whatever happens to it beforehand (i.e. a proton plus what has transpired to convert it into a 'transmuton') ... This is the critical logic! The neutron cross-section for 12 C is almost non-existent so DEFINITELY there is no real neutron involved, in any way. What I am labeling as a "transmuton" is capable of doing what a neutron cannot do, and it may resemble Horace's deflated species or not. ERGO = there is a certain amount of mass, when we consider the 12C + H and the 13C as separate entities - which may seem to have disappeared in 3-space, BUT ... this does not in any way indicate that the mass-energy should be in the reaction itself if we are basing everything - as I was - on a ZPE transformative process. This reaction happens at the interface of 3-space and 4-space where everything is waves, the particle duality has ceased to exist, linear time is not relevant, and energy can be borrowed in advance. In the end, the net energy balance in no way resembles the expected reaction for hot fusion... don't know how many ways I need to say it, but this is not hot fusion anymore than most LENR. Since low energy reactions do not resemble hot fusion in some way: the ways that they differ can vary also, and may include the "phonon cascade" or other differences in energy release. You simply cannot say "my LENR reaction differs only in the way the energy is released, therfore yours must differ in the same way." There is no logic there. How can anyone, especially those that haunt this particular forum, where the emphasis is on LENR or many types which are seen in the literature - possibly expect this unique Mizuno reaction to resemble prior hot fusion in any specific way? ... or for that matter, their own version of cold fusion? Hey, that is why we give this niche its own general name - LENR! and it is not limited to D+D-->He anymore than hot fusion is limited to a specific reaction ! Hope that helps ... Jones - Original Message > The energy required to make > 1 neutron is 0.782 MeV. The energy output from adding that neutron to C12 and > getting C13 is 4.95 MeV. That still leaves 4.16 MeV. > > In short only 16% of the energy is needed to make the neutron.
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
On Dec 9, 2008, at 12:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:33:50 -0800 (PST): Hi Jones, [snip] One suggestion is that most of the excess was "borrowed" in advance, in the QM sense, to convert a proton into a virtual neutron. Jones I have already pointed out that this just isn't so. The energy required to make 1 neutron is 0.782 MeV. The energy output from adding that neutron to C12 and getting C13 is 4.95 MeV. That still leaves 4.16 MeV. In short only 16% of the energy is needed to make the neutron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If anyone had actually read my Deflation Fusion article they would have clearly seen this is no problem for the fusion model proposed there. This is one of the strengths of this model. It explains the unusual branching ratios for D+D fusion as the result of the highly "de-energized" intermediate product nucleus. The same argument applies to C+p+e or C+D+e fusion. The energy contributed or removed from the intermediate product nucleus upon tunneling of the deflated state hydrogen into the nucleus depends on the size of the deflated state hydrogen upon arrival, which should be a stochastic variable. A complete model of this kind of tunneling event probably requires string theory. However, the mean value of the resulting net energy or energy deficit can be determined through excess heat measurements. Further, the larger the nucleus, the greater the Coulomb barrier to the electron escape and thus the longer its half-life in the nucleus and thus the greater the probability of a weak reaction of the deflated state hydrogen electron with some proton. All that said, I still think discussion of C13 creation mechanisms is premature without some confirmation C13 is actually being created in large quantities, which can readily be confirmed by NMR analysis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:33:50 -0800 (PST): Hi Jones, [snip] >One suggestion is that most of the excess was "borrowed" in advance, in the QM >sense, to convert a proton into a virtual neutron. > >Jones I have already pointed out that this just isn't so. The energy required to make 1 neutron is 0.782 MeV. The energy output from adding that neutron to C12 and getting C13 is 4.95 MeV. That still leaves 4.16 MeV. In short only 16% of the energy is needed to make the neutron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:19:26 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Has anyone considered that if C12 were converted to C13, the 4.9 MeV >of energy released would break any chemical bond the C12 had within >the compound as well as many other chemical bonds in the vicinity? >Such a transformation should result in a large amount of pure carbon. >Consequently, the chemical structure would be clearly altered by as >much transformation that is claimed. > >Ed It wouldn't just have destroyed the chemical bonds, it would have melted and perhaps vaporized the entire container. 1/2 gm of nuclear fuel has about the same energy output as 500 kg (1/2 tonne) of coal. We're looking at an average power output of 185 kW, that's the power consumption of 185 electric kettles all in one little container. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
One suggestion is that most of the excess was "borrowed" in advance, in the QM sense, to convert a proton into a virtual neutron. Jones - Original Message > From: Edmund Storms > Has anyone considered that if C12 were converted to C13, the 4.9 MeV > of energy released would break any chemical bond the C12 had within > the compound as well as many other chemical bonds in the vicinity? > Such a transformation should result in a large amount of pure carbon. > Consequently, the chemical structure would be clearly altered by as > much transformation that is claimed. > > Ed
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Has anyone considered that if C12 were converted to C13, the 4.9 MeV of energy released would break any chemical bond the C12 had within the compound as well as many other chemical bonds in the vicinity? Such a transformation should result in a large amount of pure carbon. Consequently, the chemical structure would be clearly altered by as much transformation that is claimed. Ed On Dec 8, 2008, at 8:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:32:07 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] Hi Robin, Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. Yes indeed - but if I am not mistaken he clearly states that there was NO significant hydrogenation, meaning of course that the phenanthrene remained largely unaffected chemically; and that the second (outsourced) MS was performed on the black residue. Possibly it was even slightly hydrogen depleted by then, since in the ongoing gas MS, some methane was seen. [snip] Only about half the C12 is purported to have converted to C13, which means that the remainder was methane and higher hydrocarbons, or just plain C12. The proportion that was plain C12 could easily have provided sufficient H for the other substances (even without the H2 gas). Furthermore, production of C13 would also entail consumption of an H atom, so a scarcity of H would also limit the amount of C13 produced. In short, I don't think H scarcity was a limiting factor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:32:07 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] >Hi Robin, > > >> Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. > > >Yes indeed - but if I am not mistaken he clearly states that there was NO >significant hydrogenation, meaning of course that the phenanthrene remained >largely unaffected chemically; and that the second (outsourced) MS was >performed on the black residue. Possibly it was even slightly hydrogen >depleted by then, since in the ongoing gas MS, some methane was seen. [snip] Only about half the C12 is purported to have converted to C13, which means that the remainder was methane and higher hydrocarbons, or just plain C12. The proportion that was plain C12 could easily have provided sufficient H for the other substances (even without the H2 gas). Furthermore, production of C13 would also entail consumption of an H atom, so a scarcity of H would also limit the amount of C13 produced. In short, I don't think H scarcity was a limiting factor. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:31:19 -0500: Hi, [snip] >(OTOH, come to think of it, if they're splitting out individual atoms, >they must be hitting the molecules really hard rather than just cleaving >them into a few big pieces. Hmmm.) [snip] Indeed. I'm not up to date on all the different varieties of MS that are currently available, but I believe that particle energies on the order of 10's of keV are not uncommon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Hi Robin, > Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. Yes indeed - but if I am not mistaken he clearly states that there was NO significant hydrogenation, meaning of course that the phenanthrene remained largely unaffected chemically; and that the second (outsourced) MS was performed on the black residue. Possibly it was even slightly hydrogen depleted by then, since in the ongoing gas MS, some methane was seen. Doesn't he state somewhere very specifically that there was little hydrogenation ? I found it most surprising that he would claim a rather massive nuclear transmutation but almost no chemical change after that many days under heat and pressure. OTOH the triple benzene ring must be exceptionally stable over time for this exact chemical to appear in coal, crude oil and creosote; since some of those deposits are from fossils which were once living a billion years years ago. I suppose if the moleucle will last a billion years unchanged in coal, then 10 days in a hot reactor is not too much of a stretch. It would be easy to write this off as bunko if it were coming from a lesser experimenter, and I cannot blame anyone, even the open-minded folks on this forum, for thinking that it is a huge leap of faith to accept it on face value. I am glad to see from the Mizuno message back to Jed that he had considered the obvious objections, even though I believe he is wrong about some details there. This one begs for a quick replication attempt with no calorimetry, looking solely for the end product transmutation to 13C. Heck it would be pretty big news if he got only 10^19 transmuted atoms instead of over 10^20 or whatever Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:33:37 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] >> "The mass-13 species cannot be a CH molecule >> created in the mass spectrometer because when >> organic molecules are broken down, products with >> M/e range from 5 to 11 are not created. > > ...but we are looking at 13 here, not 5-11. > > It should be obvious that if you hit phenanthrene or a derivative hard enough, > you can break just about any sized chunk off it. Maybe. On the other hand, organic molecules apparently cleave into characteristic chunks, rather than just blowing apart into all possible combinations. See, for example, a page of example cleavage points for selected molecules: http://www.chem.arizona.edu/massspec/example_html/examples.html Based on that, it seems possible that Mizuna may be stating a well known fact (well known among certain organic chemists, I mean) when he says you won't see CH as a breakdown product from phenanthrene. Note particularly carboxylic acid, which contains two CH groups, yet apparently doesn't show a peak at 13. (OTOH, come to think of it, if they're splitting out individual atoms, they must be hitting the molecules really hard rather than just cleaving them into a few big pieces. Hmmm.) > As I pointed out on this list > twice already, the CH combination is just about all phenanthrene is made of > (10 > or the 14 C atoms have a single H attached, and the other 4 have none at all), > so it stands to reason that when you forcefully break up the molecule, you are > going to get lots of CH radicals. > Perhaps the confusion arises because he is expecting a molecule and not > considering a radical. > >> C2H2^2+ >> might be a possible candidate, but this cannot >> appear as a fragment from decomposed organic >> molecules, but only from synthesis." > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:32:08 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] Hydrogen gas was added to the experiment. >Robin, > >You have backed into what I have been saying all along i.e. that there is way >to little hydrogen available for a substantial part of what is reported not to >be 13C... > >ie. the H:C ratio is 10:14 at best - but since in the table near the end of >the experiment, he sees some methane, some CH3 and other aromatic compound >which take away the small amount of H which is there at the beginning -- then >the tiny amount of hydrogen left over is simply not enough to account for the >fact that something like 10^20 atoms of 12C must have been converted to 13C. > >Jones Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Robin, You have backed into what I have been saying all along i.e. that there is way to little hydrogen available for a substantial part of what is reported not to be 13C... ie. the H:C ratio is 10:14 at best - but since in the table near the end of the experiment, he sees some methane, some CH3 and other aromatic compound which take away the small amount of H which is there at the beginning -- then the tiny amount of hydrogen left over is simply not enough to account for the fact that something like 10^20 atoms of 12C must have been converted to 13C. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
Earlier I suggested checking for C14 by liquid scintillation checking of the residue in the subject experiment because: (1) it is cheap, (2) it is quantitatively very accurate to incredibly small quantities, (3) it can be accomplished after the fact, and (4) the probability of increased C14 may be small but finding it could have dramatic consequences. It provides a check for C13+p+e -> C14 and C12 +D+e -> C14 reactions. These reactions are reasonable to check for provided C13 is actually being created in the large quantities suggested without a positron signature. If C13 is not being created then most of this discussion is moot. On a similar basis, I would like to suggest NMR analysis of the residue because: (1) it is cheap though not as cheap as C14 counting, (2) it is quantitatively very accurate to incredibly small quantities (and sample size), (3) it can be accomplished after the fact, and (4) proving the synthesis of large amounts of C13 from C12 by chemical means could have dramatic consequences. This should put an end to all speculation. C13 is readily distinguished from C12 because it has a nuclear magnetic moment, and is sensitive enough to NMR to distinguish chemical bonds in which it is involved. C13 NMR is a well developed technology commonly used to determine organic molecular structure due to the fact C13 is 1.1 % abundant, thus the needed signals are readily acquired. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:33:37 -0500: Hi, [snip] >"The mass-13 species cannot be a CH molecule >created in the mass spectrometer because when >organic molecules are broken down, products with >M/e range from 5 to 11 are not created. ...but we are looking at 13 here, not 5-11. It should be obvious that if you hit phenanthrene or a derivative hard enough, you can break just about any sized chunk off it. As I pointed out on this list twice already, the CH combination is just about all phenanthrene is made of (10 or the 14 C atoms have a single H attached, and the other 4 have none at all), so it stands to reason that when you forcefully break up the molecule, you are going to get lots of CH radicals. Perhaps the confusion arises because he is expecting a molecule and not considering a radical. >C2H2^2+ >might be a possible candidate, but this cannot >appear as a fragment from decomposed organic >molecules, but only from synthesis." [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Vo]:Mizuno comments on CH molecules, and on his personal situation
I sent Mizuno a short message partly in English, including this sentence regarding the C-13 -- or whatever it is: ". . . the more mundane explanation is that the mass spec is seeing C-H molecules." He responded in Japanese. Below is a partial translation. "A CH fragment is not possible . . . products with M/e = 5 ~ 11 do not exist as organic matter. Furthermore there are no organic ions of mass 13. What combination of atoms would constitute a CH^+ ion? C2H2^2+ might be a possibility, but there is no way you could synthesize this as a fragment . . . If you want a bulletproof analysis I suppose it would be best to oxidize the materials to make H2O and CO2." He used the English word "fragment" here. I believe what he means is that C2H2^2 can be synthesized or built up (perhaps in multiple steps?) but it cannot be a fragment created by breaking down organic molecules. I will ask him if that is what he means. If it is, maybe we should add a sentence or two along these lines to the paper: "The mass-13 species cannot be a CH molecule created in the mass spectrometer because when organic molecules are broken down, products with M/e range from 5 to 11 are not created. C2H2^2+ might be a possible candidate, but this cannot appear as a fragment from decomposed organic molecules, but only from synthesis." To change the subject, Ed Storms and others here have commented that this experiment is somewhat crude or unready for publication. I agree, and I think Mizuno would also agree. However, I have been pushing him for many months to publish it anyway, ready or not. I should explain why. Mizuno faces mandatory retirement in April 2009, the end of the academic year in Japan. The university is trying to push him out of his office by the end of December because they want to renovate the space for the next researcher. He has already had to pack up most of his equipment, and move some of the instruments that he personally purchased to his house. There is not room for all of the instruments, books and materials. He went around sounding out other professors asking if they want experimental equipment. Most of them do not because, he explained, "nowadays people do not do experiments." I do not know what these other professors do instead of experiments. Computer simulations? He is saving many of his papers & notebooks by scanning them into PDF format. Anyway, a large chunk of 40 years of work is going into the dumpster. There may be a way for him to continue with this research after he retires, but I would not bet on it, so this is the last chance he will have to reveal this research. You have to realize that Mizuno teaches a full load of courses in conventional electrochemistry. He has full-time employment. You also have to realize that the university and the Ministry of Education despise cold fusion and together they have done everything short of firing him to prevent him from doing this research. In the upcoming ICCF-14 Japan country history, Kasagi and Iwamura point out that there are now only three groups in Japan still allowed to do cold fusion: Kasagi, Arata, and Mizuno. The Min. of Ed. is trying to shut them all down, once and for all. The official reasons are the same as those given in the U.S.: they have committed to plasma fusion; cold fusion is pathological science; it has never been replicated; etc. They even cite the DoE. Mizuno has been working with creosote for five or 10 years, but this along with all of his cold fusion research has been strictly on the side, during his nonexistent spare time, paid for and conducted entirely with his nonexistent spare personal funds. He conducted the creosote experiments using left-over equipment from old experiments. He started out with a large cell which is far from ideal for this purpose -- actually it is rather dangerous -- but it was available, so he used it. The calorimetry is still not great, but it is better than it was a few years ago. It was improved by doing a calibration with the heater inside the cell stimulating heat from a reaction. Storms and I suggested this, and Mizuno agreed it is a good idea. That particular change was harder to make than you might think, for various reasons I will not get into. The mass spectroscopy probably has many open questions, but I think it is unlikely he will be able to afford an outsourced analysis of this material in the future, even if he can continue with research somehow. So this is probably the best we are going to get. As I see it, it is better to publish something than nothing. This research was lost for 60 years, and it will be lost forever unless someone pays attention to Mizuno. So anyway, there he is surrounded by boxes of who knows what. Jones Beene and Brian Ahern asked him for a sample of the material. He responded: "Regarding leftover sample materials, I am looking through the boxes now to see if I have
