RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. From: James Bowery 1) An infinite COP of long-duration is something that true believers in the current theory will have difficulty rationalizing away. 2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately recorded merely by digital camera showing the event. I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
How expensive is it to replicate? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. *From:* James Bowery 1) An infinite COP of long-duration is something that true believers in the current theory will have difficulty rationalizing away. 2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately recorded merely by digital camera showing the event. I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
it looks like the evidence that proved Radium ? 2014-03-22 15:14 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. *From:* James Bowery 1) An infinite COP of long-duration is something that true believers in the current theory will have difficulty rationalizing away. 2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately recorded merely by digital camera showing the event. I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
James, The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred, out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC, thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain. From: James Bowery How expensive is it to replicate? http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power . . . Who are these inquisitorial true believers?!? What constitutes holding power in this field? Note that Fleischmann made this point about low and high power 20 years ago. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. Once a particular brand, or type of CC has been identified as active, then it would be significant if a half dozen experimenters - or possibly many more- were able to verify the ongoing thermal anomaly in different parts of the US and the World - but all using unpowered experiments in the Arata-to-Cravens tradition. Essentially this kind of democratic experimental base - and hopefully a positive end-result is was what A. Lomax was trying to do with his LENR kits. I'm not sure how that went over, but it was probably doomed by complexity and cost. However, this type of CC demonstration would be more dramatic and cheaper, since it gets away from deuterium and promises significant output. The CC are mass-produced devices, coming from low wage suppliers, and there is certainly no more efficient way to get large amount of catalytic transition metals onto a ceramic support. In short, this could be a great opportunity for grass-root science to be able to stuff a bit of experimental truth about LENR down the collective throats of ivory tower skeptics... _ The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred, out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC, thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain. From: James Bowery How expensive is it to replicate? http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power . . . Who are these inquisitorial true believers?!? What constitutes holding power in this field? Strange you should ask about the identity of the people you've been fighting for decades. Note that Fleischmann made this point about low and high power 20 years ago. They did not make the point about focusing on replicating infinite COP as strategic in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: James, The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen Don't you mean deuterium?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry. Occasionally, this special condition is created in a material by chance, which produces the unreliable reproducibility. In contrast, Rossi has found a way to make this condition every time. Once an active material is created, it can be caused to make LENR many different ways, including simply by heating it in hydrogen gas (any isotope). Once the process starts, the rate can be increased using lasers, magnetic fields, increased temperature, and probably other ways not yet considered. Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. If people want to advance the field, they need to focus on how a material can be made active. What about the material has to change and what unique condition has to be created? Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. Once a particular brand, or type of CC has been identified as active, then it would be significant if a half dozen experimenters - or possibly many more- were able to verify the ongoing thermal anomaly in different parts of the US and the World - but all using unpowered experiments in the Arata-to-Cravens tradition. Essentially this kind of democratic experimental base - and hopefully a positive end-result is was what A. Lomax was trying to do with his LENR kits. I'm not sure how that went over, but it was probably doomed by complexity and cost. However, this type of CC demonstration would be more dramatic and cheaper, since it gets away from deuterium and promises significant output. The CC are mass-produced devices, coming from low wage suppliers, and there is certainly no more efficient way to get large amount of catalytic transition metals onto a ceramic support. In short, this could be a great opportunity for grass-root science to be able to stuff a bit of experimental truth about LENR down the collective throats of ivory tower skeptics... _ The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen. It could show a steady temperature gain over ambient of more than Cravens' ongoing gain of 5 degrees - essentially for years. That kind of experiment would cost a few hundred, out-of-pocket dollars for any garage lab with hydrogen, a datalogging PC, thermocouples and about a square meter of space to spare. To actually burn the hydrogen is counter-productive for proving gain. From: James Bowery How expensive is it to replicate? http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Jones etal-- SPIN IS THE CONTROLLING PARAMETER. At page 3 of the Craven/Gimpel paper on their demonstrations at the NI 2013 convention, they state the following: Notice the metal nano particles are held within 9 nm pores within carbon particles matched to the expected blackbody radiation. Nano particles alone have lower energy of vacancy of formation than large bulk material because they are more surface -like than bulk-like. However they are only a few hundred atoms. If the reaction is deuterium going to helium, we expect 24 Mev of energy to be released. The energy holding most chemical bonds is only on the order of a few ev. That means the reaction must dump energy to more than tens of millions of bonds or the reaction site would be destroyed. This is where the carbon framework comes in. It provides a path for the energy out of the reaction that does not destroy the reaction site which would have limited the useful lifetime of the material. Craven and Gimpel go on to point out the following: Also in side the sphere is powdered samarium cobalt. This is to help align (actually anti-align) the spins of the deuterium. A reaction pathway to helium-4-- i.e., tritium, neutrons, etc.-- without the anti-alignment pathway. As I have often suggested, the control of the spin as a key parameter in getting the best controlled reaction without destruction of the metal lattice is very important. These two researchers seem to understand this importance. In addition I think they have identified basically a two dimensional system as a key--the surface-like structure of the carbon particles--to encourage the reaction in the magnetic field. As Axil has repeated many times, dimensional control of the reaction-- one versus two versus three--is well founded in other research that have considered local micro magnetic fields of significant magnitude. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:14 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Cravens experiment was ongoing at infinite COP for 2.5 months before NI Week, and he indicated that he would keep it going (that needs to be confirmed). If true, this one has been ongoing for almost 10 months at infinite COP. From: James Bowery 1) An infinite COP of long-duration is something that true believers in the current theory will have difficulty rationalizing away. 2) An infinite COP of long-duration does not require expensive sensors or data analysis to achieve adequate S/N -- indeed it can be adequately recorded merely by digital camera showing the event. I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power, it makes sense to focus on replicating the FPE in its mode of infinite COP of long duration sans expensive measurement.
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
From: James Bowery The thread about the H-Cat, as an inexpensive but meaningful experiment in its base-level incarnation - raised the possibility that an automotive catalytic converter ($40 -$100) - filled with hydrogen Don't you mean deuterium? No - Not if you want to do this for lowest cost and especially to maximize the number of experimenters who will participate (as a grass-roots effort). Many experimenters have hydrogen tanks - not so many deuterium. Of course - there could be the possibility that deuterium gas would work better than hydrogen gas, and that is more likely to be true if the CC being used has more platinum than other catalytic metals. Apparently platinum works far better with deuterium than with protium- but in the CC there is also less of it. Different CC use different mixes, but almost none of them have much platinum due to its extreme cost. Iridium and rhodium are more likely - and nickel. There are a number of experiments in the literature where protium is more active than deuterium using the same catalyst. This probably gets down to trial and error at the start. The big question is whether an inexpensive CC is available which works well with hydrogen. That would be the first step towards putting together an experiment which dozens of participants will be involved in. Deuterium would be a deal-breaker for a grass-roots effort. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic converter technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who make those cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision. And because those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for years. It is the ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion. We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
I agree that scientifically the affair is done since 1991-1992. Since then there is effort to progress in reliability, intensity, understanding... the denial will only be resolved by mass adoption, of a working technology. Turkey reality can only be proven on thanksgiving. I know that LENR is accepted in top HQ, with some CTO of 50bn sales corps. the rest is manipulation of the masses, by desperate oligarchy of science and their minions. Imagine how violent must be those minions to terrorize CTO of 50-100bn sales international group. 2014-03-22 15:54 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I've made this point before but it bears repeating that in a resource starved field that is beset by inquisitorial true believers holding positions of power . . . Who are these inquisitorial true believers?!? What constitutes holding power in this field? Note that Fleischmann made this point about low and high power 20 years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Jed-- Getting Cravens AND Gimpel is a good idea. Do you know where Gimpel lives in Washington. He may be a neighbor of mine. Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic converter technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who make those cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision. And because those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for years. It is the ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion. We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Consequently, a kit or test is useless unless the material has been made active. We do not know how Rossi does this. We do not know how Cravens does this. Until this knowledge is revealed and a material can be treated in a way to make it active, success will be based on chance. I agree. But if someone does figure out how to do it with catalytic converter technology that will be the Cat's Pajamas. Because the people who make those cat converters know how to reproduce their work with precision. And because those things stand up to high heat and rugged conditions for years. It is the ideal platform for gas loaded cold fusion. I agree, the present technology for making catalysts would apply and could be used to make large amouns of active material. The challenge is to tell them what to do to the catalyst to make it active. This treatment can be very subtile. For example, the Case catalyst was made from a barrel of coconut charcoal. Once this source of charcoal was lost, new catalyst no longer worked. No one knows why. We might be able to persuade Cravens to cooperate in this project. Based on what Cravens has said, he actually has no idea why his material works and could not tell a person how to make active material. If he can tell me how to do this, I can easily make and test such material. Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. This problem would be easy to solve once access to the right tools is possible. That access requires money combined with knowledge. That combination has not been achieved. Ed Storms - Jed
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Ed, Sorry, but once again, you are only half-right. It is fairly clear to anyone who is paying close attention that you fear and will lobby against positive results from any kind of democratic experimental effort - since it will further marginalize your own theory if successful. Ed's theory is not incorrect... let me be clear on that. But he has fallen in love with an incomplete theory, which was one of Fred Sparber's fundamental warnings: never fall in love with your own theory to the exclusion of all others. Moreover, Ed's theory applies to only one of many gainful hydrogen reactions in LENR. That is what he does not want to be revealed. Experimenters will be able to see gain in LENR with or without Ed's theory. It may not even be among the top tier theories for gain, but it is relevant to some extent, and should not be ignored. It is as simple as that. I would hate to see any kind of meaningful open-sourced effort disparaged before it gets off the ground... assuming of course - that there is a CC which works well with hydrogen in an unpowered mode... the hidden motivation for negativity is rather transparent. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant descriptions of what you think I believe. My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. It is a simple description of what has been observed by hundreds of experiments. You are free to accept this experience or not, that is your choice. Nevertheless, please understand what you are doing. I'm not and never have disparaged any effort. However, a great deal of experience has shown what works and what does not. Why ignore this experience? Why keep trying things that are known not to work? Why keep reinventing the wheel just because you don't like my theory. You are a smart man and I'm at a loss why you cannot understand such simple concepts and respond to my comments accurately. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Sorry, but once again, you are only half-right. It is fairly clear to anyone who is paying close attention that you fear and will lobby against positive results from any kind of democratic experimental effort - since it will further marginalize your own theory if successful. Ed's theory is not incorrect... let me be clear on that. But he has fallen in love with an incomplete theory, which was one of Fred Sparber's fundamental warnings: never fall in love with your own theory to the exclusion of all others. Moreover, Ed's theory applies to only one of many gainful hydrogen reactions in LENR. That is what he does not want to be revealed. Experimenters will be able to see gain in LENR with or without Ed's theory. It may not even be among the top tier theories for gain, but it is relevant to some extent, and should not be ignored. It is as simple as that. I would hate to see any kind of meaningful open-sourced effort disparaged before it gets off the ground... assuming of course - that there is a CC which works well with hydrogen in an unpowered mode... the hidden motivation for negativity is rather transparent. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Jones, let me try to simplify this suggestion. The LENR process requires a special condition that is difficult to create in a material. Unless this special condition is created (I call the NAE) no treatment will cause LENR. This what 25 years of study of the effect has demonstrated and what can be concluded from over 100 years of experience in chemistry
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC. They kindly explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and loading and liquids. Patted me on the head politely and sent me along. Amusing, innit?
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
-Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant descriptions of what you think I believe. From my perspective, arrogance was not intended- and if seen, then it must have been a result of mirroring of the initial comment, which as you may recall began with an what can be called a rather arrogant belittlement of a proposed experiment that does not fit into someone's own pet theory. My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. LOL. Sure fooled me. Jones
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC. They kindly explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and loading and liquids. Patted me on the head politely and sent me along Amusing, innit? Cough... cough. In an alternative Universe, you went ahead and tried it anyway. It was a great success. You became rich and famous. The world did not need oil anymore and the price dropped in half. We did not go to war in the Middle East for oil. 9/11 never happened. And vortex became the home of nutters who thought LENR was too expensive. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Let me say this again as simply and as unambiguously as possible. LENR has been studied for 24 years. Hundreds of papers describing the behavior and the required conditions have been published. This data set shows what is required and what does not work. My comments are not a theory. I'm simply describing what has been discovered. Based on reading this experience, I can say with absolute certainty that LENR requires a special condition to form in a material before it can be initiated. What that special condition is can be called a theory but that a special condition is required is not a theory. No study will be successful or useful unless that special condition forms. That condition forms by chance on some occasions. Anyone attempting to study LENR needs to discover how to make this change occur. If the field is to advance, people need to focus on this problem. Simply testing a variety of materials is useful but it is a poor way to find what works. I'm suggesting that people actually be guided by what has been done, not try any crazy idea that might be suggested. Yes, I know you do not believe the NAE exists, Jones. You believe the treatment is the important variable, not the material itself. That is fair, but please keep the discussion focused on this difference of opinion and not wonder into what else you think I believe or not. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms Once again Jones, you make the discussion personal by arrogant descriptions of what you think I believe. From my perspective, arrogance was not intended- and if seen, then it must have been a result of mirroring of the initial comment, which as you may recall began with an what can be called a rather arrogant belittlement of a proposed experiment that does not fit into someone's own pet theory. My description does not involve a theory, at least not at this stage. LOL. Sure fooled me. Jones
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Terry, you need to now that Arata explored many sources of palladium black before be found one that worked. He never revealed his source or what made the particular batch active. Dissociation, loading and liquids are not the essential requirements. An essential requirement exists in a material, but the nature of that critical condition is being debated. Ed Srorms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:10 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC. They kindly explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and loading and liquids. Patted me on the head politely and sent me along. Amusing, innit?
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
There, there... Terry pat, pat, pat It's all gonna be ok... :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Caveat: There is no present indication that an automotive catalytic converter (CC) will show thermal gain in an unpowered hydrogen experiment, similar to Cravens work - but essentially there is a valid expectation of this result, based on experiments going back to Arata... and it is easily demonstrated. When I first joined the list ages ago, I asked the sages if they thought it was possible to get a CF reaction in a CC. They kindly explained to the naive newcomer that it required dissociation and loading and liquids. Patted me on the head politely and sent me along. Amusing, innit?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
James-- I agree. In fact that may be desirable to make a metal lattice with differing size voids so that close by reactions do not damage the overall lattice by adding too much heat in one spot. I other words designing the lattice with a low percentage of potentially active voids. Bob - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
So am I. A person gets what they pay for. It proves nothing if a person claims to see heat using a method that no one will accept as showing excess energy no matter how cheap the method. That has been a major problem in getting LENR accepted in the first place. If heating power is sought, it MUST be measured with accuracy and confidence no matter the cost. On the other hand, radiation is easy to measure with confidence and very cheeply. However, this requires a change in attitude, which is not easy. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:56 PM, James Bowery wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but getting the right size is the problem. Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack sizes?
Re:[Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Someone asked about crack formation. What work I have done was to prevent them rather than make them. Basically you heat the object up and then cool the surface sufficiently rapidly that a tensile stress is created that exceeds the tensile strength of the material. Much easier to do with non ductile materials like glass. Glass is rather strange. Even if you make a crack free surface, contact with anything from dust to say touching with a paper handkerchief will cause cracks. A typical glass tumbler has 70,000 cracks per sq.cm. So polishing might also be a method.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a random event. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Someone asked about crack formation. What work I have done was to prevent them rather than make them. Basically you heat the object up and then cool the surface sufficiently rapidly that a tensile stress is created that exceeds the tensile strength of the material. Much easier to do with non ductile materials like glass. Glass is rather strange. Even if you make a crack free surface, contact with anything from dust to say touching with a paper handkerchief will cause cracks. A typical glass tumbler has 70,000 cracks per sq.cm. So polishing might also be a method.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Perter, what you say is not true based on my understanding. Cracks can be made stable. However, LENR does have a lifetime problem that will limit the upper temperature and/or the time before the active material has to replaced. Yes, I know that some people including yourself think PdD and NiH are different. I have no proof at this time, but I prefer to believe that Nature does not have more than one mechanism to initiate nuclear reactions in a material. I also can identify the requirements a mechanism must met in order not to violate accepted natural law and present observations. So far, I see no reason for PdD and NiH to be different. I'm waiting for someone to look for deuterium and tritium production in the NiH system and report the result in a way that can be understood and evaulated. So far, we only have personal comments. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Regarding this post: There is more than one way to skin a cat. LENR active cracks can be produced in more than one way. The way Rossi produces NAE is different than the way Ed Storms produces NAE, and Rossi is far more productive and robust at it. Rossi produces NAE with his mouse which is a nano-particle generator. Nano-particles are attracted to each other and form fractal arrogates. These arrogates are like dust bunnies that you find under the bed. They enclose countless nano-cavities that serve as NAE. Here is pictures of such a fractal abrogate: http://ej.iop.org/images/1367-2630/11/6/063030/Full/nj33fig1.jpg Note the presence of numerous nano-cavities that develops naturally through electrostatic processes. When these dust bunnies drift onto the 5 micron micro particles, the micro particles use dipole vibration to feed power into these NAE inside the dust bunnies. I deeply regret that Ed Storms cannot comprehend this simple process. It would be better for LENR if he did. Here is the reference that describes the EMF forces that Rossi uses to produce dust bunnies: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063030/fulltext/ In general, any process that can increase a dusty plasma will result in LENR when properly utilized (i.e. use with 5 micron nickel micro particles) On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Perter, what you say is not true based on my understanding. Cracks can be made stable. However, LENR does have a lifetime problem that will limit the upper temperature and/or the time before the active material has to replaced. Yes, I know that some people including yourself think PdD and NiH are different. I have no proof at this time, but I prefer to believe that Nature does not have more than one mechanism to initiate nuclear reactions in a material. I also can identify the requirements a mechanism must met in order not to violate accepted natural law and present observations. So far, I see no reason for PdD and NiH to be different. I'm waiting for someone to look for deuterium and tritium production in the NiH system and report the result in a way that can be understood and evaulated. So far, we only have personal comments. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
beyond cracks , maybe is there some topological defect, longitudinal defects, crystallographic-phase change planes... is there document about hydroton. naively among possibilities I imagine a circular hydroton ring and thing about a superconductor.. to explain magnetic fields. maybe stupid... 2014-03-22 22:12 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably because the tools and skill are not common. Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result,
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
James Bowery http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22James+Bowery%22 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140322 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Alain, you can find the description of the Hydroton at http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-presentation-videos-monday-july-22/ http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: beyond cracks , maybe is there some topological defect, longitudinal defects, crystallographic-phase change planes... is there document about hydroton. naively among possibilities I imagine a circular hydroton ring and thing about a superconductor.. to explain magnetic fields. maybe stupid... 2014-03-22 22:12 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Dear Ed, The most dangerous aspect of the addiction of CF to cracks is that caracks are destroying the active material, so technologically speaking the crack theory is a death sentence. It can be true for palladium, but less noble transition metals are working hopefully in a different way. PdD and NiH are probably quite different species. Peter On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: If I had such a method, I would first write a patent. Unfortunately, that is the method we are trying to find. I can make cracks anytime I want but I can not make the most effective distribution at will, although I get lucky sometimes. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:58 PM, James Bowery wrote: I may have inadequately expressed what I was looking for: A technique to generate, in a single sample, a wide and relatively flat (very low kurtosis) distribution of crack sizes (and a large number of such cracks of course). This, as opposed to a wide array of techniques, each of which generates different but relatively narrow distribution of crack sizes. Obviously if you have a sensitive detection technique, like tritium with scintillation, you would prefer applying a single technique to a single sample and getting detectable tritium -- however small. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I know of no single paper that describes how cracks are formed. However, a huge literature exists that describe how cracks are produced in materials and how this destructive process can be avoided. I have 69 papers in my collection that address this issue. Unless you are prepared to do a lot of study, an answer to your question is not easy to supply. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:39 PM, James Bowery wrote: Is there a paper describing the technique(s) for generating a wide distribution of crack sizes? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Tritium can not be detected easily using a beta detector. The best way is to convert the gas to water and measure the tritium using the scintillation metaod. The allows the sample to be studied over a period of time by many people if they wish. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:02 PM, James Bowery wrote: Perhaps I can illustrate by avoiding thermal detection and going with tritium: Since tritium production is inherently time integrated, setting up a Cravens style dual experiment with a one treated to have a wide range of crack sizes, and both identical in all other respects, puts the primary cost constraint on the beta-emission counter. Can such counters be made economical? On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree. Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization. This is not an expensive device. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will not give enough energy to
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis : Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: James Boweryhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22James+Bowery%22 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140322 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles: http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles. Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis : Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.netwrote: James Boweryhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22James+Bowery%22 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140322 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence: Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk materials. This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on . the laws from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics. Those laws were developed with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what's happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel properties which the referenced paper is studying. This may also be the reason why the 'gray-hairs', or grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this out; they can't think out of the bulk-matter-box. So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that's what we Vorts are good at! J -Mark Iverson From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles: http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles. Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis : Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: James Bowery http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22James+Bo wery%22 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140322 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence: “Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk materials.” This is why some here take issue with Ed’s relying only on “… the laws from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics”. Those laws were developed with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what’s happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel propertieswhich the referenced paper is studying. This may also be the reason why the ‘gray-hairs’, or grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this out; they can’t think out of the bulk-matter-box. So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that’s what we Vorts are good at! J -Mark Iverson From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles: http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles. Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesis: Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: James Bowery Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion principle. Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in current scientific development. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence: Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk materials. This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on ... the laws from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics. Those laws were developed with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what's happening in LENR, and my $ is on the *novel properties*which the referenced paper is studying. This may also be the reason why the 'gray-hairs', or grairs to borrow a theme from Star Trek, have not been able to figure this out; they can't think out of the bulk-matter-box. So keep up the informed and researched speculations, cuz that's what we Vorts are good at! J -Mark Iverson *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:17 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE These guys studied amorphous Pd nanoparticles: http://www.sci.unich.it/~dalessandro/letteratura_chimica_pdf/2003_0236.pdf Of course, in order to get a broad range of crack sizes, one must have a wide range of sizes of amorphous Pd particles -- not just nanoparticles. Unfortunately, most of the search results for amorphous Pd out there return various Pd-based alloys -- not pure Pd. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Nanometer scale metallic glass particles would appear to be a natural result of this method of metal nanoparticle synthesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Synthesis : Inert-gas condensation is frequently used to make nanoparticles from metals with low melting points. The metal is vaporized in a vacuum chamber and then supercooled with an inert gas stream. The supercooled metal vapor condenses into nanometer-size particles, which can be entrained in the inert gas stream and deposited on a substrate or studied in situ. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 4:46 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: James Boweryhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22James+Bowery%22 Sat, 22 Mar 2014 14:14:49 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20140322 It sounds like amorphous metals may be a fruitful avenue of research. Yes, I imagine abrasion would cause lots of surface cracks on an amorphous metal - if it behaves like glass. I had wondered in the past whether the surface preparation of the palladium electrodes was one of the keys. Don't know how to develop cracks in a powdered material. I suppose that if the material is not too ductile, just the formation of the powder in a ball mill would do it. SO experimenting with the ball mill might be one possibility.
RE: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
From: Edmund Storms Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. No it isn't! this energy level is not well-known. Storms would do well to learn a little QM. His comments consistently demonstrate that he does not understand nuclear tunneling or quantum mechanics at a level of minimal competency. Talk about arrogant verbiage ! Once again, Storms makes the same mistake that he often makes in assuming that LENR must requires a known fusion reaction - the one that he thinks he understands. Not to mention: Storms wants to talk down to a competent scientist who probably knows more about QM, in general, than he does. This is almost unforgiveable on a forum which is looking for truth, not self aggrandizement or promotion of a pet theory. We should promote cooperation instead of sniping. Isn't that in the rules, actually? Jones
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Ed stated: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.- I would note Ed, that there are well documented low energy nuclear reactions that are called fusion reactions where the coulomb barrier is overcome. One is the fusion of two deuterons in a molecule that is bound together with a muon and an electron. The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the attractive negatively charged muon and an electron to the extent that the wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle with respect to the mass of the two initial deuterons. I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take place or get over this barrier (your words) between the two deuterons. As long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation. This increase in entropy is a long-held principle of chemical reactions as well. Spin conservation principle is only about 75 years old. The existence of electrons pairs in in chemical reactions is important relative to ionization potentials. Here it is believed the electrons pair up with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its distinctive characteristics as described by its wave function. Cooper paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons. These are consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions. Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0 spin particles) result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the coulomb barriers between such particles. Bob From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion principle. Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in current scientific development. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 6:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: A key statement in this paper is the very first sentence: Nanoparticles show many novel properties different from their bulk materials. This is why some here take issue with Ed's relying only on . the laws from the past 100 years of chemistry/physics. Those laws were developed with bulk samples, not nanoparticles, so they may or may not apply to what's happening in LENR, and my $ is on the novel propertieswhich
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Suppose only 2% of the material in a catalytic converter has the NAE capable of producing the putative excess heat. Since a catalytic converter contains so much more potentially NAE than a familiar CF cell it is like running a thousand CF cells at the same time of which only twenty produce excess heat. Harry
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed stated: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.- I would note Ed, that there are well documented low energy nuclear reactions that are called fusion reactions where the coulomb barrier is overcome. One is the fusion of two deuterons in a molecule that is bound together with a muon and an electron. The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the attractive negatively charged muon and an electron to the extent that the wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle with respect to the mass of the two initial deuterons. I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take place or get over this barrier (your words) between the two deuterons. As long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation. This increase in entropy is a long-held principle of chemical reactions as well. Spin conservation principle is only about 75 years old. The existence of electrons pairs in in chemical reactions is important relative to ionization potentials. Here it is believed the electrons pair up with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its distinctive characteristics as described by its wave function. Cooper paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons. These are consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions. Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0 spin particles) result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the coulomb barriers between such particles. Bob From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion principle. Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in current scientific development. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur
Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE
I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. ***Well, I'm sorry to see Ed go. I cannot agree with his assessment of the goal here, however. Speculation is offered towards trying to understand. When he says the goal here is not to understand, he's wrong. The goal is to understand. I hope he comes back. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Bob, I know very well about muon fusion. If you took the time to read my papers, you would understand not only do I understand but you have no idea what you are talking about. The muon produces hot fusion, not cold fusion. The process has no relationship to cold fusion. I have tried to be patient and explain what is known about LENR and what I consider a useful explanation. I have found these discussions interesting and useful in trying to explain LENR. However, I no longer see a purpose in continuing to subscribe to Vortex. The goal here is not to understand but to speculate. That is not my goal. Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Bob Cook wrote: Ed stated: Of course nanoparticles have unusual chemical and physical properties. The question is , Are these properties able to initiate a nuclear reaction? A huge ignorance exists about the difference between a nuclear reaction and a chemical change. You would do well to actually study some nuclear physics and apply this knowledge. If you check, you will discover the thing called the Coulomb barrier. The energy needed to get over this barrier is well known. This energy is huge and this is why nuclear reactions do not occur in and are not affected by chemical conditions. If you want to explain LENR using nano particles, you need to show how and why the chemical properties allow the Coulomb barrier to be overcome. Otherwise you are engaging in fantasy.- I would note Ed, that there are well documented* low energy* nuclear reactions that are called fusion reactions where the coulomb barrier is overcome. One is the fusion of two deuterons in a molecule that is bound together with a muon and an electron. The theory is that the coulomb repulsive field between the two deutrons--the barrier--is reduced by the presence of the attractive negatively charged muon and an electron to the extent that the wave function of each deuteron overlaps the other and another quantum system force (not coulombic) draws the two protons into a new particle, helium, with a relase of energy associated with the redcued total mass of the new particle with respect to the mass of the two initial deuterons. I am suprised that you do not seem to recognize the reality of this reaction. There appears to be no kinetic energy needed to cause this reaction to take place or get over this barrier (your words) between the two deuterons. As long as the characteristics of the particles as presented by their wave function is such that these wave functions can blend together to form a new wave function with lower potential energy (mass) they shall blend together consistent with theromodynamic principles associated with reactions that result in an increase of entropy and spin conservation. This increase in entropy is a long-held principle of chemical reactions as well. Spin conservation principle is only about 75 years old. The existence of electrons pairs in in chemical reactions is important relative to ionization potentials. Here it is believed the electrons pair up with opposite spins with an overlap of their respective force fields as described by their wave functions to form a new quasi particle with its distinctive characteristics as described by its wave function. Cooper paring is possible for any Fermi particles including protrons. These are consider to be quasi particles with spins pointing in opposite directions. Bose Einstein Condensates of Bose particles (integral or 0 spin particles) result from nuclear reactions without high energies required to over come the coulomb barriers between such particles. Bob *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:35 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:2 Modes of the FPE Nano-particles allow for the collection and amplification of EMF(light) to an extreme level in optical cavities sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier. This mechanism is well described in nano-optics, nanoplasmonics, and quantum mechanics. SPP allow this energy accumulation and concentration to occur because they as bosons which are not constrained by the fermion exclusion principle. Most of this science is only a decade or two old and are leading the way in current scientific development. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
