Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
How can you have the fractional quantum hall effect at high temperatures? The same way that a Bose Einstein condensate can form at temperatures up to 2300K. It is a matter of the weight of the quasi-particle. a quasi-particle with almost no weight can produce high temperature reactions. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > What the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) shows is that charge >> screening in topologically constrained fermions will occur in the direction >> of complete charge screening as the strength of a tightly focused magnetic >> field is increased (the ratio of fermions to magnetic flux quanta). >> > > How can you have the fractional quantum hall effect at high temperatures? > > >> This screening will result in both fusion and fission of the nucleus. >> > > I think you should be more explicit in this step [1]. > > Eric > > [1] > http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png > >
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Axil Axil wrote: What the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) shows is that charge > screening in topologically constrained fermions will occur in the direction > of complete charge screening as the strength of a tightly focused magnetic > field is increased (the ratio of fermions to magnetic flux quanta). > How can you have the fractional quantum hall effect at high temperatures? > This screening will result in both fusion and fission of the nucleus. > I think you should be more explicit in this step [1]. Eric [1] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
>> Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. What the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect (FQHE) shows is that charge screening in topologically constrained fermions will occur in the direction of complete charge screening as the strength of a tightly focused magnetic field is increased (the ratio of fermions to magnetic flux quanta). The nucleus is a complex structure of layered fermions. When a magnetic field of sufficiently high strength is applied to the topologically constrained nucleus, charge screening through composite fermion formation will occur on all fermion levels that entail the top level of the nucleus, the layer of the nucleons and the lowest layer of the quarks. This screening will result in both fusion and fission of the nucleus. On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:08 AM, John Franks wrote: > >> Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis > of one another. > > You mean muonic hydrogen and yes that does work. For hydrogen made with > electrons (lattice or not once again), you can't get lower than the ground > state. This is nothing to do with lack of imagination, more wishful > thinking on the part of LENR. > >
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
I wrote: In my own case I'm not thinking of hydrinos. I'm thinking of brief but > sharp transients in the electronic structure of the host metal that > intervene between two fusion precursors. > Btw, for those who are interested, here is a drawing I put together to give a sense of this particular idea: http://i.imgur.com/LTGzr1L.png The blue is the electron charge density. Presumably such a spike is a transient occurrence, lasting only for a moment. It might be possible to get very high (arbitrarily high?) charge densities in localized regions for brief periods of time under nonequilibrium conditions. Eric
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Vortex, I contacted Remi after tracking down his email and he writes below -- Forwarded message -- From: Remi Cornwall Date: Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM Subject: RE: Thermo-converter and other things To: John Franks Dear John, Thank you for showing interest and contacting me. Yes, we have data but we aren't rushing anything and will very diligently question our data and setup before announcing anything more formally. We can report that the electrodynamic model in chapter 4 of the thesis is a faithful representation of what we see in the lab. We shall engage in calorimetry to prove the link with the thermodynamic cycles in the thesis. The way to do science is just to be patient and keep your powder dry. In all our endeavours, we are in no rush, wishing to submit grant applications and assemble a team of competent co-workers. This takes time and in fact, most of my time seems to be taken up with administrative matters - not least report writing, grants, patents, presentations. In the works, I am conceiving/writing a few papers: one leading on from the QSE (Quantum Signalling and Encryption) project to find a mechanism for Relativity, another in the QSE project to do with a Franson interferometer setup and then hopefully a return to ideas on Electromagnetic Propulsion, where I may have some basis as to dumping momentum in the putative scheme on cornwallresearch.org and the university site but not listed on vixra or arxiv until I am ready. Of course, more results from TEC (Thermo-electromagnetic conversion) will be listed in due course. You are welcome to have a go yourself and I believe all the material, specifically the grade of ferrofluid, can be found in the thesis and is available from Liquids Research, Bangor, UK - contacts Dr Vijay Patel/dept. chemistry, Bangor and Prof Kevin O'Grady/dept. physics York. In the meantime I might be changing department or university. Onwards and upwards! All the best, Remi. From: John Franks Sent: 14 December 2013 17:45 To: Remi Cornwall Subject: Thermo-converter and other things Dear Dr Cornwall, I have come across your work on vixra.org and elsewhere and was intrigued as to the status of it and your other projects. You have a very bold research portfolio! Regards, John Franks, engineer (ret)
RE: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
From: Eric Walker John Franks wrote: >> Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one >> another. In my own case I'm not thinking of hydrinos. I'm thinking of brief but sharp transients in the electronic structure of the host metal that intervene between two fusion precursors. This is only mentioned as one example; no doubt trained, disciplined imagination and focus can provide some other possibilities for obtaining screening. I doubt screening is the only promising idea. As I said, there seems to be a lack of imagination. Indeed. Speaking of imagination, one of the better proposals – or analogies (with an emphasis on anal) for how this can happen routinely in a condensed metal was suggested by Michel Julian, which he called the “sphincter effect”. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42586.html All joking aside, it is very likely that protons (or deuterons) when passing through a metallic and nanoporous proton conductor (like nickel), will be effectively “shot out” of an electron cloud of the metal - and into a nanocavity, where the bare proton will occasionally interact with another coming from the near opposite vector. The strong force takes over from there. Of course, we could clean up the wording a bit and call it the “slingshot effect” …
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 2:08 AM, John Franks wrote: >> Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of > one another. > In my own case I'm not thinking of hydrinos. I'm thinking of brief but sharp transients in the electronic structure of the host metal that intervene between two fusion precursors. This is only mentioned as one example; no doubt trained, disciplined imagination and focus can provide some other possibilities for obtaining screening. I doubt screening is the only promising idea. As I said, there seems to be a lack of imagination. Eric
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
>> If LENR is real, as many experiments indicate... >> still un-taught in University >> nuclear physics, where admittedly it does not fit well. Not convinced. >> But in contrast to the large amount of positive lab results in LENR ??? Sounds pathological. Church of the converted. >> Experiment rules ! That is our motto. "Dispassionate inquiry without conflicts of interests rule!" should be the motto. Take care, John.
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
>> Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. You mean muonic hydrogen and yes that does work. For hydrogen made with electrons (lattice or not once again), you can't get lower than the ground state. This is nothing to do with lack of imagination, more wishful thinking on the part of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM, John Franks wrote: LENR has been going on for years and I and others just can't see how you can > bring nucleons within 10s of fermi of each other to fuse, lattice or no > lattice. > About twenty four years, if Paneth and Peters aren't considered. Perhaps sufficient screening can bring nucleons within 10s of fermis of one another. Keep in mind that a solid has very a different electronic structure than a plasma. It seems like the main obstacles to progress with regard to cold fusion at this point are conceptual. People lack imagination. Not the free association, wild-and-crazy kind of imagination, but the lateral-thinking kind. Physicists similarly lacked imagination concerning possibilities for fission, fusion, superconductivity and relativity prior to the turn of the last century. That lack of imagination, and no doubt a touch of hubris, predisposed brilliant minds to disregard compelling evidence that weird things were going on at the time in their measurements. There were hints here and there, but those people failed to follow up on them with sufficient vigor to pry the lid off of the matter and get at something new and fantastic. That was left for other people, who were a little more detail-oriented in their approach and irritated by what they didn't understand. Today, a lack of imagination, and perverse incentives in academic research, seem to be having a similar effect. Personally, I feel both somewhat fortunate, and a little disheartened, to be following what seem to be new developments in physics when so many who have devoted themselves to the study of the field and who could help move things forward are dismissive of them. Eric
RE: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Hi John, Your level of intelligent skepticism towards LENR is not atypical, but IMO it is unwise to try to wedge this niche into prior tenets of nuclear physics, where admittedly it does not fit well. If LENR is real, as many experiments indicate, it is because there are new types of nuclear reactions - which were unknown prior to 1989 and are still un-taught in University. OK - then you may ask why not new thermal cycles? And one would have to agree that in principle, both require a paradigm shift. But in contrast to the large amount of positive lab results in LENR - there is comparatively little in TEC although much more money has been spent in pursuit of it. Experiment rules ! That is our motto. If Remi has replicated experiments to show now - please post them and we can discuss with an open mind. After all, no field would benefit more from TEC than LENR. That is why there is so much cross-connection and mutual interest between the two. From: John Franks Jones, I don't know, this guy is at a really good university and its been signed off by some top academics. He seems to be in the middle of his work and the theory is well based on experimental fact and he has a rationale. LENR has been going on for years and I and others just can't see how you can bring nucleons within 10s of fermi of each other to fuse, lattice or no lattice. The link with BEC or Cooper paring is just plain wrong, they never come that close and it is a low temperature effect. I don't see a mechanism and claims of excess energy require extraordinary evidence, which no one is buying. Hasn't it been up to DoE review twice now and they still don't believe it? It seems delusional to me, deeply flawed from the start. The only device is the Farnsworth Fusor which is based in experimental and theoretical fact. Good luck anyhow. I will try to contact Remi to find out what the situation is. He has three other websites and other projects: http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rocornwall/ http://www.cornwallresearch.org/index.htm http://arxiv.org/a/cornwall_r_1#! The last one is very conservative and blacklists a lot of new physics. That seems to be the problem with getting new ideas past the establishment. I think this guy has the right idea in taking them head on by doing a PhD. The establishment is more hindrance than help and explains why this stuff takes so long, the trouble is, governments and investors are enthralled to the universities. The options for energy production don't look good - "renewables", fracking or nuclear. The public aren't convinced and there could be a sea-change in thinking. John. On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Jones Beene wrote: For many years Remi was posting his thermoelectric ideas here, and he is a clever guy. I hope that he has now discovered a new thermal cycle, but to be honest - I have much more faith in LENR than in new thermal cycles. But there is overlap !
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
Jones, I don't know, this guy is at a really good university and its been signed off by some top academics. He seems to be in the middle of his work and the theory is well based on experimental fact and he has a rationale. LENR has been going on for years and I and others just can't see how you can bring nucleons within 10s of fermi of each other to fuse, lattice or no lattice. The link with BEC or Cooper paring is just plain wrong, they never come that close and it is a low temperature effect. I don't see a mechanism and claims of excess energy require extraordinary evidence, which no one is buying. Hasn't it been up to DoE review twice now and they still don't believe it? It seems delusional to me, deeply flawed from the start. The only device is the Farnsworth Fusor which is based in experimental and theoretical fact. Good luck anyhow. I will try to contact Remi to find out what the situation is. He has three other websites and other projects: http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rocornwall/ http://www.cornwallresearch.org/index.htm http://arxiv.org/a/cornwall_r_1#! The last one is very conservative and blacklists a lot of new physics. That seems to be the problem with getting new ideas past the establishment. I think this guy has the right idea in taking them head on by doing a PhD. The establishment is more hindrance than help and explains why this stuff takes so long, the trouble is, governments and investors are enthralled to the universities. The options for energy production don't look good - "renewables", fracking or nuclear. The public aren't convinced and there could be a sea-change in thinking. John. On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > For many years Remi was posting his thermoelectric ideas here, and he is a > clever guy. > > I hope that he has now discovered a new thermal cycle, but to be honest - I > have much more faith in LENR than in new thermal cycles. But there is > overlap ! >
Re: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
John, Thanks for pointing this out. I printed the first paper. There are a number of papers looking at ways to beat (at least the conventional form of) the 2nd law. It is very impossible to keep up with all of them. Many, and maybe all, could be mistaken due to incomplete system modeling. Only a working device will convince anyone. -- Lou Pagnucco John Franks wrote: > Hi vortex, > > I found this which says it is a Maxwell Demon, > > http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0077 > > http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0078 > > Regards, > John. >
RE: [Vo]:More versatile Maxwell's demons
For many years Remi was posting his thermoelectric ideas here, and he is a clever guy. I hope that he has now discovered a new thermal cycle, but to be honest - I have much more faith in LENR than in new thermal cycles. But there is overlap ! As a factual matter, thermoelectric converters - the ones which one can actually purchase - are not much better in 2013 than they were in 2003, 1993, or 1983, Curiously, this field is how Andrea Rossi gained some of his... shall we say... notoriety, for better or for worse. From: John Franks Hi vortex, I found this which says it is a Maxwell Demon, http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0077 http://vixra.org/abs/1311.0078 Regards, John. <>
