Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Follow vorts When a dipole composed of an oscillation of electron and an ion encounters a boundary cndition, a ring like circulation of current is induced in the motion of the electron. Does that revelation help you understand anything about the production of a large magnetic field? Well it should. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My recent way of thinking suggests that heat energy is just random sound. If some way is found to direct the movements of the atoms in a coordinated manner, then that would look very much like a sound wave passing through the medium. I bet we could figure out how much the effective temperature of that wave is by the speed change of the atoms subjected to that signal. Double the instantaneous velocity of the atoms and you multiply the instantaneous energy by a factor of 4. This is like heating up the material a large amount. Since heat is apparently what makes Rossi's ECAT function, then this type of sound wave traveling through it should do something similar. At least that is the concept. Heat appears to equal sound with a random momentum vector that balances out over the entire mass of material while still having energy due to the motion of the atoms. The energy always adds regardless of the direction of the motion, while the momentum is a vector that can balance out. Sound to me is just the condition where momentum is directed by some source. That is why sound travels rapidly through materials while heat slowly spreads out. Give the idea some thought. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: It just might be possible for sound waves alone to do the job. It's not really sound. It's quantized heat energy. When you understand that, you realize that spin up and spin down electrons can mate if only for a brief period.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Axil, perhaps the dipole oscillation that you mention results in the generation of a local magnetic field. Unfortunately, one single source of this type would not generate a large external field of the nature that DGT suggests. The only way this would happen is if an extremely large coordinated combination of individual fields are super imposed. Normally, these individual fields want to be arranged such that the net external field is minimized for the least energy configuration. How do you propose that the coordination is realized? What force aligns the individual tiny fields? This is where I find it difficult to understand. There are numerous missing pieces to the puzzle which need to be found. It has been suggested that a large circulating current of some nature would lead to a large external field and that would follow according to classical physics. But, in that case the source of the large current is unknown. So, either of these cases has difficult questions to answer. It would be most helpful if DGT supplies additional information concerning the alleged field. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 3:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Follow vorts When a dipole composed of an oscillation of electron and an ion encounters a boundary cndition,a ring like circulation of current is induced in the motion of the electron. Does that revelation help you understand anything about theproduction of a large magnetic field? Well it should. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My recent way of thinking suggests that heat energy is just random sound. If some way is found to direct the movements of the atoms in a coordinated manner, then that would look very much like a sound wave passing through the medium. I bet we could figure out how much the effective temperature of that wave is by the speed change of the atoms subjected to that signal. Double the instantaneous velocity of the atoms and you multiply the instantaneous energy by a factor of 4. This is like heating up the material a large amount. Since heat is apparently what makes Rossi's ECAT function, then this type of sound wave traveling through it should do something similar. At least that is the concept. Heat appears to equal sound with a random momentum vector that balances out over the entire mass of material while still having energy due to the motion of the atoms. The energy always adds regardless of the direction of the motion, while the momentum is a vector that can balance out. Sound to me is just the condition where momentum is directed by some source. That is why sound travels rapidly through materials while heat slowly spreads out. Give the idea some thought. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It just might be possible for sound waves alone to do the job. It's not really sound. It's quantized heat energy. When you understand that, you realize that spin up and spin down electrons can mate if only for a brief period.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
propose that the coordination is realized? What force aligns the individual tiny fields? This is where I find it difficult to understand. There are numerous missing pieces to the puzzle which need to be found. It has been suggested that a large circulating current of some nature would lead to a large external field and that would follow according to classical physics. But, in that case the source of the large current is unknown. So, either of these cases has difficult questions to answer. It would be most helpful if DGT supplies additional information concerning the alleged field. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 3:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Follow vorts When a dipole composed of an oscillation of electron and an ion encounters a boundary cndition, a ring like circulation of current is induced in the motion of the electron. Does that revelation help you understand anything about the production of a large magnetic field? Well it should. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:21 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: My recent way of thinking suggests that heat energy is just random sound. If some way is found to direct the movements of the atoms in a coordinated manner, then that would look very much like a sound wave passing through the medium. I bet we could figure out how much the effective temperature of that wave is by the speed change of the atoms subjected to that signal. Double the instantaneous velocity of the atoms and you multiply the instantaneous energy by a factor of 4. This is like heating up the material a large amount. Since heat is apparently what makes Rossi's ECAT function, then this type of sound wave traveling through it should do something similar. At least that is the concept. Heat appears to equal sound with a random momentum vector that balances out over the entire mass of material while still having energy due to the motion of the atoms. The energy always adds regardless of the direction of the motion, while the momentum is a vector that can balance out. Sound to me is just the condition where momentum is directed by some source. That is why sound travels rapidly through materials while heat slowly spreads out. Give the idea some thought. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: It just might be possible for sound waves alone to do the job. It's not really sound. It's quantized heat energy. When you understand that, you realize that spin up and spin down electrons can mate if only for a brief period.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Dennis, Very interesting. So far, out of two hundred electrolysis experiments, the only one I find with much promise involves nitinol. Looking at the Debye temp of titanium (~ 107C) I think this makes sense with the thermal triggering that I did. I found that the maximum temperature remained elevated for hours after 10 to 30 second pulses with a joule heater in the cell. I replicated it once in the past, but it may be time for me to revisit this. Jack On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Debye_Temperature_and_Hardness_of_Co.html?id=Rhd5NwAACAAJ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract I personally use both copper and gold in Ni to drop both the Debye temp and the energy of vacancy formation. A rough rule of thumb is that adding a softer lower melting point material to Ni or Pd is good. So far, I have to keep my metals fcc. Notice also that you can drop the energy of vacancy formation also by having finer materials. If they are small enough (somewhere around 10nm) the becomes little difference between the Ef for bulk and surface. (normally, the surface Ef is lower than the bulk) so.. I say all that to let you know that you can have systems that work below 179 C. My demo at NI week will be operating at 80C. D2 note: the Cu added to Ni (also Pt) helps in the dissociation of the H -- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:24:12 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. Obviously, it would be difficult to run electrolysis at a power level high enough to heat the cathode to that temperature for very long (the water would boil off). A pressurized electrolytic cell would seem to be an option. Another option would be lateral cathode pulses of high power and relatively brief duration to bring the cathode temp above 179C, but avoid boiling off the water. The trouble with this method may come in if the nickel needs to remain at 179C. This also has me wondering about two other things. 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? 2) Electrolytic plasma experiments with tungsten -- is the cathode temperature a key element rather than the plasma? Best regards, Jack
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Debye_Temperature_and_Hardness_of_Co.html?id=Rhd5NwAACAAJ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract I personally use both copper and gold in Ni to drop both the Debye temp and the energy of vacancy formation. A rough rule of thumb is that adding a softer lower melting point material to Ni or Pd is good. So far, I have to keep my metals fcc. Notice also that you can drop the energy of vacancy formation also by having finer materials. If they are small enough (somewhere around 10nm) the becomes little difference between the Ef for bulk and surface. (normally, the surface Ef is lower than the bulk) so.. I say all that to let you know that you can have systems that work below 179 C. My demo at NI week will be operating at 80C. D2 note: the Cu added to Ni (also Pt) helps in the dissociation of the H Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:24:12 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. Obviously, it would be difficult to run electrolysis at a power level high enough to heat the cathode to that temperature for very long (the water would boil off). A pressurized electrolytic cell would seem to be an option. Another option would be lateral cathode pulses of high power and relatively brief duration to bring the cathode temp above 179C, but avoid boiling off the water. The trouble with this method may come in if the nickel needs to remain at 179C. This also has me wondering about two other things. 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? 2) Electrolytic plasma experiments with tungsten -- is the cathode temperature a key element rather than the plasma? Best regards,Jack
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. Obviously, it would be difficult to run electrolysis at a power level high enough to heat the cathode to that temperature for very long (the water would boil off). A pressurized electrolytic cell would seem to be an option. Another option would be lateral cathode pulses of high power and relatively brief duration to bring the cathode temp above 179C, but avoid boiling off the water. The trouble with this method may come in if the nickel needs to remain at 179C. This also has me wondering about two other things. 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? 2) Electrolytic plasma experiments with tungsten -- is the cathode temperature a key element rather than the plasma? Best regards, Jack maybe...the Debye temp. of tungsten is 400 K. harry
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
From: Jack Cole 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? It is looking like there is nothing there with Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing at SRI. It's a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in that testing (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) -some news would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. In fact, the local rumors are that there has been no glimmer of success at all. The most surprising detail to come out of the whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the very high magnetic field of DGT. Other prior experiments which showed a well-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern's - showed much higher trigger than ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low trigger temp could be related to the high field - if DGT are to be believed. In fact, the fact that this kind of field strength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubt on the entire DGT presentation. Many of us who were bullish on that demo a few days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because of this claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. ** ** Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. ** ** Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
They meant Tesla. But what is the big deal with this? These are dipoles. The magnetic force falls falls like ~1/r^3 at best with the distance. Each of these spheres have ~1T. Both structures are close. They are pretty still at a close distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NeoCube_objects.jpg 2013/7/26 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com Jones, Where was that claim made? did they mean uT? Stewart On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jack Cole ** ** 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? ** ** ** ** It is looking like there is nothing there with Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing at SRI. It’s a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in that testing (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) –some news would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. ** ** In fact, the local rumors are that there has been no glimmer of success at all. ** ** The most surprising detail to come out of the whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the very high magnetic field of DGT. ** ** Other prior experiments which showed a well-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern’s - showed much higher trigger than ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low trigger temp could be related to the high field – if DGT are to be believed. ** ** In fact, the fact that this kind of field strength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubt on the entire DGT presentation. ** ** Many of us who were bullish on that demo a few days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because of this claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. ** ** Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Here is some complementary information. This abstract says the Debye temperature is higher when defects are present. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract harry On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Debye_Temperature_and_Hardness_of_Co.html?id=Rhd5NwAACAAJ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract I personally use both copper and gold in Ni to drop both the Debye temp and the energy of vacancy formation. A rough rule of thumb is that adding a softer lower melting point material to Ni or Pd is good. So far, I have to keep my metals fcc. Notice also that you can drop the energy of vacancy formation also by having finer materials. If they are small enough (somewhere around 10nm) the becomes little difference between the Ef for bulk and surface. (normally, the surface Ef is lower than the bulk) so.. I say all that to let you know that you can have systems that work below 179 C. My demo at NI week will be operating at 80C. D2 note: the Cu added to Ni (also Pt) helps in the dissociation of the H -- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:24:12 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. Obviously, it would be difficult to run electrolysis at a power level high enough to heat the cathode to that temperature for very long (the water would boil off). A pressurized electrolytic cell would seem to be an option. Another option would be lateral cathode pulses of high power and relatively brief duration to bring the cathode temp above 179C, but avoid boiling off the water. The trouble with this method may come in if the nickel needs to remain at 179C. This also has me wondering about two other things. 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? 2) Electrolytic plasma experiments with tungsten -- is the cathode temperature a key element rather than the plasma? Best regards, Jack
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
the B field of an orbiting 1s electron about a H nucleus is about 12T at the nucleus. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:46:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jones, Where was that claim made? did they mean uT? Stewart On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jack Cole 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? It is looking like there is nothing there with Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing at SRI. It’s a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in that testing (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) –some news would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. In fact, the local rumors are that there has been no glimmer of success at all. The most surprising detail to come out of the whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the very high magnetic field of DGT. Other prior experiments which showed a well-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern’s - showed much higher trigger than ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low trigger temp could be related to the high field – if DGT are to be believed. In fact, the fact that this kind of field strength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubt on the entire DGT presentation. Many of us who were bullish on that demo a few days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because of this claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding#cite_note-7 Solenoids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solenoid and Helmholtz coilshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_coil are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. -- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. ** ** Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Jones, Where was that claim made? did they mean uT? Stewart On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jack Cole ** ** 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success?* *** ** ** ** ** It is looking like there is nothing there with Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing at SRI. It’s a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in that testing (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) –some news would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. ** ** In fact, the local rumors are that there has been no glimmer of success at all. ** ** The most surprising detail to come out of the whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the very high magnetic field of DGT. ** ** Other prior experiments which showed a well-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern’s - showed much higher trigger than ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low trigger temp could be related to the high field – if DGT are to be believed. ** ** In fact, the fact that this kind of field strength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubt on the entire DGT presentation. ** ** Many of us who were bullish on that demo a few days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because of this claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. ** ** Jones
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
for my lower temp demo, I now will be using mixed Ni+ Cu + Au alloy (reduced from a mixed solution held in C mesopores). I am not sure what it's final Debye temp is, but I expect it is much less than 0C. D2 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:52:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here is some complementary information. This abstract says the Debye temperature is higher when defects are present.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract harry On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Debye_Temperature_and_Hardness_of_Co.html?id=Rhd5NwAACAAJ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract I personally use both copper and gold in Ni to drop both the Debye temp and the energy of vacancy formation. A rough rule of thumb is that adding a softer lower melting point material to Ni or Pd is good. So far, I have to keep my metals fcc. Notice also that you can drop the energy of vacancy formation also by having finer materials. If they are small enough (somewhere around 10nm) the becomes little difference between the Ef for bulk and surface. (normally, the surface Ef is lower than the bulk) so.. I say all that to let you know that you can have systems that work below 179 C. My demo at NI week will be operating at 80C. D2 note: the Cu added to Ni (also Pt) helps in the dissociation of the H Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:24:12 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. Obviously, it would be difficult to run electrolysis at a power level high enough to heat the cathode to that temperature for very long (the water would boil off). A pressurized electrolytic cell would seem to be an option. Another option would be lateral cathode pulses of high power and relatively brief duration to bring the cathode temp above 179C, but avoid boiling off the water. The trouble with this method may come in if the nickel needs to remain at 179C. This also has me wondering about two other things. 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? 2) Electrolytic plasma experiments with tungsten -- is the cathode temperature a key element rather than the plasma? Best regards,Jack
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - rjdanieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
From: DJ Cravens notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. Dennis, Are you using something akin to Celani's constantan alloy? Or else Monel? Jones
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
I am using a chemical reduction of a metal salt solution. The metals end up in the pores of carbon mesopores. Average pore sizes are around 9nm. I use a range of mixtures. The Ni variations are good for higher temps and are cheaper. The Pd variations cost a lot to make but seem to give a better power density. If people try such a thing, one trick is to do the reduction slowly and at lower temps (say 10C). I expect what you really want to know is that I typically about 20:5:75 Ag:Au:Pd, or 20:2:78 Cu:Pt:Ni. Those are the metal ratios for the solution I use but I am unsure as to what actually gets reduced into the C pores. I am also see some glimmers of hope for a Ti based material. But work has to wait till after NI Week. The same with the metal loaded carbon aerogels (via formaldehyde resorcinol sol-gel production. I use the same type of material in the direct electrical stimulated/heated solid state things. Think souped up carbon resistors. That is why I am using C instead of the silicate based materials. Basically (over simplified), I just make the material, put it in a sealed brass sphere (some with a light insulation inside) and put in a constant temp bath. The samples get warmer than the bath (while the control sphere remains at the bath temp. I should say that I put some magnetic materials and some hydrogen storage metal material in the sphere as well. (load and purge with H or D gas at dry ice temps, then seal and warm. I expect it is about 5bar inside.) I get the best results when the spheres are not fully submerged into the bath- As Case showed (ref. the He measurement things with SRI) there needs to be come temp gradient or gas flow. D2 From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:48:27 -0700 From: DJ Cravens notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. Dennis, Are you using something akin to Celani’s constantan alloy? Or else Monel? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Is it possible that the units used to describe the magnetic field were incorrect? It is easy to have a slip of this sort and it would be a shame to use that against them. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 12:39 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From:Jack Cole 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis wouldseem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be afactor in Godes' success? It is looking like there is nothing therewith Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing atSRI. It’s a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in thattesting (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) –somenews would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. In fact, the local rumors are that therehas been no glimmer of success at all. The most surprising detail to come out ofthe whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the veryhigh magnetic field of DGT. Other prior experiments which showed awell-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern’s - showed much higher triggerthan ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low triggertemp could be related to the high field – if DGT are to be believed. In fact, the fact that this kind of fieldstrength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubton the entire DGT presentation. Many of us who were bullish on that demo afew days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because ofthis claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
It would not be out of line to assume that there is no relationship to the Debye temperature whatsoever. This might just be a guess on their part. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Here is some complementary information. This abstract says the Debye temperature is higher when defects are present. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract harry On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:14 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: notice you only need the 179 figure to get above the Debye temp. You can get around that by alloying the Ni with Cu and even annealing. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Debye_Temperature_and_Hardness_of_Co.html?id=Rhd5NwAACAAJ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210090108/abstract I personally use both copper and gold in Ni to drop both the Debye temp and the energy of vacancy formation. A rough rule of thumb is that adding a softer lower melting point material to Ni or Pd is good. So far, I have to keep my metals fcc. Notice also that you can drop the energy of vacancy formation also by having finer materials. If they are small enough (somewhere around 10nm) the becomes little difference between the Ef for bulk and surface. (normally, the surface Ef is lower than the bulk) so.. I say all that to let you know that you can have systems that work below 179 C. My demo at NI week will be operating at 80C. D2 note: the Cu added to Ni (also Pt) helps in the dissociation of the H Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:24:12 -0500 From: jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. Obviously, it would be difficult to run electrolysis at a power level high enough to heat the cathode to that temperature for very long (the water would boil off). A pressurized electrolytic cell would seem to be an option. Another option would be lateral cathode pulses of high power and relatively brief duration to bring the cathode temp above 179C, but avoid boiling off the water. The trouble with this method may come in if the nickel needs to remain at 179C. This also has me wondering about two other things. 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis would seem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be a factor in Godes' success? 2) Electrolytic plasma experiments with tungsten -- is the cathode temperature a key element rather than the plasma? Best regards, Jack
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Stack a zillion of these guys up and you might get a significant field at a distance. My take on this is that the size of the field needs to be clarified as well as the magnitude if it is real. It is too early for us to determine exactly what is occurring. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? the B field of an orbiting 1s electron about a H nucleus is about 12T at the nucleus. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:46:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jones, Where was that claim made? did they mean uT? Stewart On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From:Jack Cole 1) Brillouin Energy's method of electrolysis wouldseem likely to elevate the cathode temperature 179C. Could this be afactor in Godes' success? It is looking like there is nothing therewith Brillouin. Months ago, they received a very large grant for testing atSRI. It’s a pretty good bet that if anything had turned up in thattesting (and it should have turned up weeks ago if it was there) –somenews would have surfaced at ICCF, formally or informally. In fact, the local rumors are that therehas been no glimmer of success at all. The most surprising detail to come out ofthe whole conference IMHO - if it can be believed - is the report of the veryhigh magnetic field of DGT. Other prior experiments which showed awell-define trigger temperature, such as Ahern’s - showed much higher triggerthan ~180C, but he had no significant magnetic field at all. That low triggertemp could be related to the high field – if DGT are to be believed. In fact, the fact that this kind of fieldstrength is easy to document - but was not documented - casts significant doubton the entire DGT presentation. Many of us who were bullish on that demo afew days ago have shifted 180 degrees and are not skeptical simply because ofthis claim of 1.6 Tesla. It is almost preposterous. That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
You can use these types of electromagnetics to cancel out a field within a small region, but a lot depends upon the shape of the field you are attempting to eliminate. I have seen Helmholtz coils used to balance out the earth's field in experiments. In this case the incident field is almost constant within the region needing cancellation. A strongly varying field would be very difficult to cancel. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Dennis, do your experiments generally have pulses of currents hitting the active material? It might be that the metal wires are given impulse like kicks that cause them to ring at their resonant frequencies. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Ruby Carat summarizes Kim at http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-5-presentations-and-awards/ .. The Hyperion reactor contains a core of nickel metal foam. Heating the system to 180 C – 849 C, the Hyperion is then triggered, after which the magnetic field rose 0.6 to 1.6 Tesla. Kim says, “This indicates that LENRs are producing very strong electric fields E, currents I, and magnetic fields B.” .. (Plus lots of other stuff, of course)
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
My HV based systems are normally pulsed in the range of 0.1 to 400 Hz. But even the old electrolysis system would give MHz signals. (bubbles) D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:59:20 -0400 Dennis, do your experiments generally have pulses of currents hitting the active material? It might be that the metal wires are given impulse like kicks that cause them to ring at their resonant frequencies. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
From: DJ Cravens the B field of an orbiting 1s electron about a H nucleus is about 12T at the nucleus. Yes - but since this field is cancelled by the other electron (which completes the orbital shell) in the molecule, it is diamagnetic. But this brings up an important point about a possible role for f/H or fractional hydrogen (Mills hydrino or Rydberg matter are presumably the same). Since the magnetic near-field goes up exponentially as the electron cloud is reduced in diameter we can then explain how such a large external field could be related to a retained population of f/H. It need not be a large mass, given the intensity. One does not need to accept Mills theory for the energy gain but it helps for the magnetic anomaly. The hypothesis goes something like this. When a proton is surrounded by a fractional orbit, that 12 T near-field of normal monatomic hydrogen would increase exponentially; and thus the net amperage-equivalent of the entire reactor would increase when many were aligned - all due to the enhanced field. Since the active material in the DGT Demo had been run many times, we would expect that over time the number of fractional hydrogen atoms builds up. They would be captured internally by the ferromagnetic powder- nickel - between runs and retained. A vacuum could not release them due to the intense self-field, but the net field of the reactor would have a tendency to realign randomly or anti-ferromagnetic on cool-down - so there is no apparent external field until the electron discharge aligns things . If the Defkalion reactor has retained a fractional gram of f/H over many runs - which is strongly bound to nickel nanoparticles, the magnetic anomaly is less of a mystery. In a rough cross-comparison of units in moles and amps- Avogadro and Coulomb are basically a factor of 100,000 apart and we would have the equivalent amperage of 100,000 per gram of f/H - but with possibly much more field strength (amp-turn equivalent) due to increased near-field of each f/H particle. The falsifiability of this hypothesis would be that the reactor does not show a high field on the very first run with new nickel - or even the first few runs. It could possibly take a hundred hours or more to build up a population of f/H. The magnetic field should then increase to an equilibrium point when electrons are passed through the reactor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Interesting that you pulse some of them at 400 Hz. That might explain the occurrence of that frequency, but the MHz ones must be a different process. Bubbles seem to be a little slower acting, but who knows? I could imagine some form of reinforcement at RF frequencies which leads to a significant level of signal. Any time positive feedback is in effect, most anything can rise from the noise. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? My HV based systems are normally pulsed in the range of 0.1 to 400 Hz. But even the old electrolysis system would give MHz signals. (bubbles) D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:59:20 -0400 Dennis, do your experiments generally have pulses of currents hitting the active material? It might be that the metal wires are given impulse like kicks that cause them to ring at their resonant frequencies. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
yes, we tried to put in freqs into the electrolytic cells at the frequencies they were transmitting. No real effect.You might want to look up Letts' application of RF at around 82Mhz which was calculated based on the nuclear flip of a D nebulous due to the B field of an orbiting e. I think that use done ca 92-94 ?? with Bockris. Someone may want to calculate that for Ni. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:46:04 -0400 Interesting that you pulse some of them at 400 Hz. That might explain the occurrence of that frequency, but the MHz ones must be a different process. Bubbles seem to be a little slower acting, but who knows? I could imagine some form of reinforcement at RF frequencies which leads to a significant level of signal. Any time positive feedback is in effect, most anything can rise from the noise. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? My HV based systems are normally pulsed in the range of 0.1 to 400 Hz. But even the old electrolysis system would give MHz signals. (bubbles) D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:59:20 -0400 Dennis, do your experiments generally have pulses of currents hitting the active material? It might be that the metal wires are given impulse like kicks that cause them to ring at their resonant frequencies. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cm from the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Do you recall how large the signal was that you saw at the RF frequencies? And, any idea of how tight the frequency emission band was? Too bad the system did not respond well to outside RF drive. Of course, the drive requirement might be too tight to achieve with your equipment. If the magnetic field being generated by the DGT device is anywhere near as large as they suggest then we have a some supers clues to follow. My first inclination is to assume some form of superconductivity interacts with the heat generation. Does anyone have information supporting the large magnetic field generation? Also, does this field vary strongly with time, or remain relatively stable? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 4:57 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? yes, we tried to put in freqs into the electrolytic cells at the frequencies they were transmitting. No real effect.You might want to look up Letts' application of RF at around 82Mhz which was calculated based on the nuclear flip of a D nebulous due to the B field of an orbiting e. I think that use done ca 92-94 ?? with Bockris. Someone may want to calculate that for Ni. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:46:04 -0400 Interesting that you pulse some of them at 400 Hz. That might explain the occurrence of that frequency, but the MHz ones must be a different process. Bubbles seem to be a little slower acting, but who knows? I could imagine some form of reinforcement at RF frequencies which leads to a significant level of signal. Any time positive feedback is in effect, most anything can rise from the noise. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? My HV based systems are normally pulsed in the range of 0.1 to 400 Hz. But even the old electrolysis system would give MHz signals. (bubbles) D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:59:20 -0400 Dennis, do your experiments generally have pulses of currents hitting the active material? It might be that the metal wires are given impulse like kicks that cause them to ring at their resonant frequencies. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:45:17 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet_toys 2013/7/26 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com It is a strong field. But it falls fast, specially if the magnetized object is tiny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet 2013/7/26 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That kind of field at 20 cmfrom the device (their claim) would be pulling tools from across the room. Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
I was just using a freq. spectrum an. at the time. It just put the freq. in bins. or gave a FFT of the signal. I seem to recall that it had a 1/2 width of about 10 MHz You might ask Letts. I think he spent some time looking at such things. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:06:58 -0400 Do you recall how large the signal was that you saw at the RF frequencies? And, any idea of how tight the frequency emission band was? Too bad the system did not respond well to outside RF drive. Of course, the drive requirement might be too tight to achieve with your equipment. If the magnetic field being generated by the DGT device is anywhere near as large as they suggest then we have a some supers clues to follow. My first inclination is to assume some form of superconductivity interacts with the heat generation. Does anyone have information supporting the large magnetic field generation? Also, does this field vary strongly with time, or remain relatively stable? Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 4:57 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? yes, we tried to put in freqs into the electrolytic cells at the frequencies they were transmitting. No real effect.You might want to look up Letts' application of RF at around 82Mhz which was calculated based on the nuclear flip of a D nebulous due to the B field of an orbiting e. I think that use done ca 92-94 ?? with Bockris. Someone may want to calculate that for Ni. D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:46:04 -0400 Interesting that you pulse some of them at 400 Hz. That might explain the occurrence of that frequency, but the MHz ones must be a different process. Bubbles seem to be a little slower acting, but who knows? I could imagine some form of reinforcement at RF frequencies which leads to a significant level of signal. Any time positive feedback is in effect, most anything can rise from the noise. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? My HV based systems are normally pulsed in the range of 0.1 to 400 Hz. But even the old electrolysis system would give MHz signals. (bubbles) D2 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:59:20 -0400 Dennis, do your experiments generally have pulses of currents hitting the active material? It might be that the metal wires are given impulse like kicks that cause them to ring at their resonant frequencies. Dave -Original Message- From: DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? I did not notice external coils. My cells often sing at a few hundred hertz (around 400) and at tens of MHz. I was never sure if it was the reaction itself or just ringing of the components. Letts's empirical model has the reaction rates proceeding via the Lamor frequency rates at the vacancies. That frequency depends on the B field of the reactive volumes. It has the reaction rate at roughly linear with B. I personally have Sm2Co17 powder in my system to increase the B field in the reactive volume. Some here may remember the ICCF 4 (Maui) demo in the parking lot where they were using Sm Co materials. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:54:29 -0300 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Because of the above limitations of passive shielding, an alternative used with static or low-frequency fields is active shielding; using a field created by electromagnets to cancel out the ambient field within a volume.[7] Solenoids and Helmholtz coils are types of coils that can be used for this purpose. We saw a solenoid around the reactor, didn't we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding 2013/7/26 DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com the magnetic field from a dipole falls of as the inverse cube of the distance. it falls off quickly. I am not sure what it would be outside a mu metal shielded device, but I would expect not much would be available for tools across the room. Date
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Jones, f/h, hydrino AND relativistic hydrogen are all the same. I have always supported this hypothesis as the most likely source of the energy if not the primary source [relativistic/ZPE], or at very least the necessary bootstrap to enable the nuclear path theories. As far as the large magnetic fields I wanted to post the temporal chacteristics of relativistic hydrogen compounding the field but think you trumped me by just applying the contracted diameters and inverse square law for field strength. Nicely said! but I don't necessarily agree about the slow buildup of f/h, I suspect f/h forms proportional to loading if the correct geometry is present. You may also need to exceed a hydrogen population/area threshold to achieve the 20% synchronization [metronome platform] before the agitation energy [sparks or heater pulses] can actually hard link thru the um scale to the f/h migrating thru the nm scale. IMHO it is these f/h that are able to rectify energy from the changes in casimir value.. recent posts have convinced me this agitation energy requires micron geometry to create plasmons which then upconvert the agitation to local hydrogen that is in lockstep linkage with the f/h in nearby nano geometry. Skipping the normal energy loss with harmonics. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: DJ Cravens the B field of an orbiting 1s electron about a H nucleus is about 12T at the nucleus. Yes - but since this field is cancelled by the other electron (which completes the orbital shell) in the molecule, it is diamagnetic. But this brings up an important point about a possible role for f/H or fractional hydrogen (Mills hydrino or Rydberg matter are presumably the same). Since the magnetic near-field goes up exponentially as the electron cloud is reduced in diameter we can then explain how such a large external field could be related to a retained population of f/H. It need not be a large mass, given the intensity. One does not need to accept Mills theory for the energy gain but it helps for the magnetic anomaly. The hypothesis goes something like this. When a proton is surrounded by a fractional orbit, that 12 T near-field of normal monatomic hydrogen would increase exponentially; and thus the net amperage-equivalent of the entire reactor would increase when many were aligned - all due to the enhanced field. Since the active material in the DGT Demo had been run many times, we would expect that over time the number of fractional hydrogen atoms builds up. They would be captured internally by the ferromagnetic powder- nickel - between runs and retained. A vacuum could not release them due to the intense self-field, but the net field of the reactor would have a tendency to realign randomly or anti-ferromagnetic on cool-down - so there is no apparent external field until the electron discharge aligns things . If the Defkalion reactor has retained a fractional gram of f/H over many runs - which is strongly bound to nickel nanoparticles, the magnetic anomaly is less of a mystery. In a rough cross-comparison of units in moles and amps- Avogadro and Coulomb are basically a factor of 100,000 apart and we would have the equivalent amperage of 100,000 per gram of f/H - but with possibly much more field strength (amp-turn equivalent) due to increased near-field of each f/H particle. The falsifiability of this hypothesis would be that the reactor does not show a high field on the very first run with new nickel - or even the first few runs. It could possibly take a hundred hours or more to build up a population of f/H. The magnetic field should then increase to an equilibrium point when electrons are passed through the reactor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Another issue raises its head when you attempt to align a large number of individual magnets together to achieve a large overall field. The individual magnetic elements are subject to a strong magnetic force which attempts to reverse their directions. The energy stored within the total field is minimized when the alignment of the atoms is random, hence the effect tends to eliminate the net field. For some strange reason, this appears to not be happening with the DGT device if what is reported is correct. The only explanation that I can arrive at off the cuff is that the nickel's magnetic behavior can lock the field of the hydrogen contained within it. This does not seem to offer an explanation that would lead to the massive field levels that DGT speaks of. If a very large DC current were flowing due to interaction with super conductive material, then perhaps a far reaching field could exit the device. Personally, I find this difficult to accept. How could such an enormous field level not been seen until recently? Rossi has hinted before that something weird of this nature might be happening, but I suspect that he made a measurement error or is engaging in misdirection to confuse us all. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Jones, f/h, hydrino AND relativistic hydrogen are all the same. I have always supported this hypothesis as the most likely source of the energy if not the primary source [relativistic/ZPE], or at very least the necessary bootstrap to enable the nuclear path theories. As far as the large magnetic fields I wanted to post the temporal chacteristics of relativistic hydrogen compounding the field but think you trumped me by just applying the contracted diameters and inverse square law for field strength. Nicely said! but I don’t necessarily agree about the slow buildup of f/h, I suspect f/h forms proportional to loading if the correct geometry is present. You may also need to exceed a hydrogen population/area threshold to achieve the 20% synchronization [metronome platform] before the “agitation” energy [sparks or heater pulses] can actually hard link thru the um scale to the f/h migrating thru the nm scale. IMHO it is these f/h that are able to rectify energy from the changes in casimir value.. recent posts have convinced me this agitation energy requires micron geometry to create plasmons which then upconvert the agitation to local hydrogen that is in lockstep linkage with the f/h in nearby nano geometry. Skipping the normal energy loss with harmonics. Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? From: DJ Cravens the B field of an orbiting 1s electron about a H nucleus is about 12T at the nucleus. Yes – but since this field is cancelled by the other electron (which completes the orbital shell) in the molecule, it is diamagnetic. But this brings up an important point about a possible role for f/H or fractional hydrogen (Mills hydrino or Rydberg matter are presumably the same). Since the magnetic near-field goes up exponentially as the electron cloud is reduced in diameter we can then explain how such a large external field could be related to a retained population of f/H. It need not be a large mass, given the intensity. One does not need to accept Mills theory for the energy gain but it helps for the magnetic anomaly. The hypothesis goes something like this. When a proton is surrounded by a fractional orbit, that 12 T near-field of normal monatomic hydrogen would increase exponentially; and thus the net amperage-equivalent of the entire reactor would increase when many were aligned - all due to the enhanced field. Since the active material in the DGT Demo had been run many times, we would expect that over time the number of fractional hydrogen atoms builds up. They would be captured internally by the ferromagnetic powder– nickel - between runs and retained. A vacuum could not release them due to the intense self-field, but the net field of the reactor would have a tendency to realign randomly or anti-ferromagnetic on cool-down – so there is no apparent external field until the electron discharge aligns things . If the Defkalion reactor has retained a fractional gram of f/H over many runs - which is strongly bound to nickel nanoparticles, the magnetic anomaly is less of a mystery. In a rough cross-comparison of units in moles and amps- Avogadro and Coulomb are basically a factor of 100,000 apart and we would have the equivalent amperage of 100,000 per gram of f/H - but with possibly much more field strength (amp-turn equivalent) due to increased near-field of each f/H particle
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It would not be out of line to assume that there is no relationship to the Debye temperature whatsoever. This might just be a guess on their part. That's exactly what I was thinking. The Debye temp might be important, or it might be a red herring. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Also note that the Curie temp for nickel is 357 C. I believe above that temperature nickel would lose any permanent magnetism. So if there is a strong field above that temperature, I assume it would be induced from something going on with the reaction. Eric On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Stack a zillion of these guys up and you might get a significant field at a distance. My take on this is that the size of the field needs to be clarified as well as the magnitude if it is real. It is too early for us to determine exactly what is occurring. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My first inclination is to assume some form of superconductivity interacts with the heat generation. Superconductivity, at least of the two kinds we're familiar with, seems like a stretch at these temperatures. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
I wrote: Also note that the Curie temp for nickel is 357 C. I believe above that temperature nickel would lose any permanent magnetism. So if there is a strong field above that temperature, I assume it would be induced from something going on with the reaction. Thinking a little more, I assume that if the field is as strong as reported, it would almost certainly be induced and not from permanent magnetism. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: With the recent corresponding findings of both Defkalion and MFMP suggesting the temperature needs to be 179C to initiate the reaction, I am wondering if this may also have implications for electrolysis with nickel. This is a very interesting point that you make. If it is the case that the Debye temp of nickel must be surpassed in order to see a substantial effect (or even simply that the nickel be really hot), then it seems like Ni/H electrolysis would not result in an effect. Note also that that the Debye temp of palladium is quite low, which is consistent with seeing an effect in Pd/D electrolysis. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what I was thinking. The Debye temp might be important, or it might be a red herring. I think it is important. The smallest lambda phonon equal to twice the lattice repetition width is also the highest energy phonon. Remember the metronome vid?
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is important. The smallest lambda phonon equal to twice the lattice repetition width is also the highest energy phonon. When the lattice atoms are closest due to phonon oscillation, the Ni electron cloud is at maximum distortion. With an abundance of H atoms in a highly excited state, the nucleii of both atoms (Ni and H) have an increased probability of a reduced barrier. The probability of proton capture is at a maximum. It only takes a few. Just sayin'.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: When the lattice atoms are closest due to phonon oscillation, the Ni electron cloud is at maximum distortion. With an abundance of H atoms in a highly excited state, the nucleii of both atoms (Ni and H) have an increased probability of a reduced barrier. The probability of proton capture is at a maximum. It only takes a few. Yes -- I was thinking of something similar. (I'm still not convinced about the Debye temp -- is this a resonant frequency? I got the impression that it is the point at which any lattice-wide resonance goes away until the temperature drops back below it.) So to clarify the mechanism I'm thinking of which is related to what you're saying: - There is tunneling, but it is not tunnelling of p+p, but rather p+d. The reason for this is that p+p requires the weak interaction to proceed any further, whereas p+d results in an exothermic reaction right away (to 3He). - At hotter temperatures in nickel, the protons and deuterons are increasingly jostled around. Using Ron Maimon's mechanism, they are in fact bounced around significantly, like ball bearings being pulled back in a slingshot or people jumping on a trampoline. - The more energy the p's and d's have, the closer they approach nickel lattice sites. The closer they approach, the longer it takes for them to rebound. The longer it takes for them to rebound, the more chance there is for tunnelling of two that may be rebounding around the same time. - When they tunnel and there is a fast helium atom as a daughter, it creates a current and induces a magnetic field from its motion. (Recall that Ron is saying that the lattice site shares in the momentum of the reaction, so that there is no gamma.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Yes -- I was thinking of something similar. (I'm still not convinced about the Debye temp -- is this a resonant frequency? Just like the air in a flute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Excellent point Eric. Rossi appears to operate his ECAT at much higher temperatures than this while DGT was very close to it. I wonder if there is significance to the difference? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? Also note that the Curie temp for nickel is 357 C. I believe above that temperature nickel would lose any permanent magnetism. So if there is a strong field above that temperature, I assume it would be induced from something going on with the reaction. Eric On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Stack a zillion of these guys up and you might get a significant field at a distance. My take on this is that the size of the field needs to be clarified as well as the magnitude if it is real. It is too early for us to determine exactly what is occurring. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:39 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Excellent point Eric. Rossi appears to operate his ECAT at much higher temperatures than this while DGT was very close to it. I wonder if there is significance to the difference? Blow the flute harder than the resonant frequency and it resonates still. The added energy increases the chaos and tunneling potential Maybe.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
I realize that superconductivity of the normal type is not too likely, but the relative magnitude of the currents required to generate the large magnetic fields suggests that resistive losses would be extreme if normal resistance values were present. That is the reason I am searching for a low loss path for the current to follow. Of course, this may not be reasonable. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jul 26, 2013 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My first inclination is to assume some form of superconductivity interacts with the heat generation. Superconductivity, at least of the two kinds we're familiar with, seems like a stretch at these temperatures. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I realize that superconductivity of the normal type is not too likely, but the relative magnitude of the currents required to generate the large magnetic fields suggests that resistive losses would be extreme if normal resistance values were present. That is the reason I am searching for a low loss path for the current to follow. Of course, this may not be reasonable. You know, with all those near free electrons and an extreme electric field and temp gradient that pairing could occur, especially at the pulse rate of the HV. Details of the B field measurement are a must for the sake of theory.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
It appears that the actual motion of the Ni and H atoms is still far smaller than that required to breach the coulomb barrier. I would like to find that thermal or sound alone is enough to lead to LENR, but it just does not seem to be energetic enough. On the other hand, vibrations in the matrix that are synchronized at some sonic frequency appear very much like thermal vibrations which are known to work with Rossi's or DGT's devices. It just might be possible for sound waves alone to do the job. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Yes -- I was thinking of something similar. (I'm still not convinced about the Debye temp -- is this a resonant frequency? Just like the air in a flute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_model
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
But, the energy content of that sound is so small compared to the coulomb energy needed to fuse. There must be some kind of special trick that we are missing. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:42 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:39 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Excellent point Eric. Rossi appears to operate his ECAT at much higher temperatures than this while DGT was very close to it. I wonder if there is significance to the difference? Blow the flute harder than the resonant frequency and it resonates still. The added energy increases the chaos and tunneling potential Maybe.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It appears that the actual motion of the Ni and H atoms is still far smaller than that required to breach the coulomb barrier. I would like to find that thermal or sound alone is enough to lead to LENR, but it just does not seem to be energetic enough. At the energies we're talking about ( 20 keV), it seems like Coulomb penetration is effectively zero. The only hope we have at these temperatures is tunneling. My naive understanding is that there's Coloumb penetration -- jumping over the wall -- in which case the height of the wall is important; and there's tunneling -- teleporting through the wall -- in which case the width of the wall is important. I think the latter phenomenon is where our hopes are best placed at these energies. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It just might be possible for sound waves alone to do the job. It's not really sound. It's quantized heat energy. When you understand that, you realize that spin up and spin down electrons can mate if only for a brief period.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
I agree, the B field understanding might crack the case. And, if there is some form of transducer action connecting the B field to the current generating that field, positive feedback is perhaps possible. As we all know, positive feedback can amplify a signal to a great extent until a limit of some kind is encountered. It would be great if such a coupling is happening and techniques are found to enhance that behavior. I hope plenty of research goes into understanding that field. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:48 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:44 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I realize that superconductivity of the normal type is not too likely, but the relative magnitude of the currents required to generate the large magnetic fields suggests that resistive losses would be extreme if normal resistance values were present. That is the reason I am searching for a low loss path for the current to follow. Of course, this may not be reasonable. You know, with all those near free electrons and an extreme electric field and temp gradient that pairing could occur, especially at the pulse rate of the HV. Details of the B field measurement are a must for the sake of theory.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
Maybe so. So let's see if a large B field can dig a tunnel for us to use! Hydrogen in the atomic form might be far more susceptible to the field than molecular hydrogen. My bet is that the DGT device generates plenty of ionic hydrogen that falls upon the metal. The protons can be directed by a B field and I believe that monotonic hydrogen is magnetic as well. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It appears that the actual motion of the Ni and H atoms is still far smaller than that required to breach the coulomb barrier. I would like to find that thermal or sound alone is enough to lead to LENR, but it just does not seem to be energetic enough. At the energies we're talking about ( 20 keV), it seems like Coulomb penetration is effectively zero. The only hope we have at these temperatures is tunneling. My naive understanding is that there's Coloumb penetration -- jumping over the wall -- in which case the height of the wall is important; and there's tunneling -- teleporting through the wall -- in which case the width of the wall is important. I think the latter phenomenon is where our hopes are best placed at these energies. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis?
My recent way of thinking suggests that heat energy is just random sound. If some way is found to direct the movements of the atoms in a coordinated manner, then that would look very much like a sound wave passing through the medium. I bet we could figure out how much the effective temperature of that wave is by the speed change of the atoms subjected to that signal. Double the instantaneous velocity of the atoms and you multiply the instantaneous energy by a factor of 4. This is like heating up the material a large amount. Since heat is apparently what makes Rossi's ECAT function, then this type of sound wave traveling through it should do something similar. At least that is the concept. Heat appears to equal sound with a random momentum vector that balances out over the entire mass of material while still having energy due to the motion of the atoms. The energy always adds regardless of the direction of the motion, while the momentum is a vector that can balance out. Sound to me is just the condition where momentum is directed by some source. That is why sound travels rapidly through materials while heat slowly spreads out. Give the idea some thought. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 12:59 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion/MFMP implications for electrolysis? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It just might be possible for sound waves alone to do the job. It's not really sound. It's quantized heat energy. When you understand that, you realize that spin up and spin down electrons can mate if only for a brief period.
