Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Andrew's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 20:22:25 -0700:
Hi Andrew,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>Is Blacklight simply a patent repository these days or does it attempt to 
>make and sell equipment also?

I don't really keep tabs on them, but as I understand it they have always sold
licenses, and I think they now also sell software.
I don't think they have ever sold hardware.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Andrew]

Robin,

Is Blacklight simply a patent repository these days or does it attempt to 
make and sell equipment also?


Andrew

- Original Message - 
From: 

To: 
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test


In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 16:33:01 -0600:
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 16:33:01 -0600:
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the explanation.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

Robin, the amount of tritium produced is sensitive to the D/H ratio,  
increasing to a maximum rate as the ratio approaches 1. The maximum  
rate does not occur when the ratio is exactly unity in the gas because  
the reaction is controlled by the ratio in the NAE. The ratio in the  
NAE is unknown, but crudely related to the ratio in the gas, a  
behavior that has been observed.  Therefore, D and H are both  
reactants for the production of tritium. However, tritium does not  
result when H+D fuse.  To get tritium rather than He3, an electron has  
to be added.  This is why He3 is not detected while tritium is.


Of course, a clever person can find complicated ways to avoid this  
conclusion, but the simplest conclusion is that tritium results from D 
+H+e fusion.


If this is the way tritium forms, than H+H+e will produce deuterium.  
I'm waiting for this measurement to be made while heat is produced in  
the Ni+H2 system. If deuterium is found to be correlated with the  
heat, the expectation of electron capture will be confirmed.  Until  
then, people can believe whatever they want.  Apparently they want to  
believe the heat results from transmutation. This conflict will only  
be resolved if someone who can make heat using Ni+H2 looks for  
deuterium rather than transmutation products.   Hopefully, someone  
will make the measurement.


Cheers,

Ed Storms


On May 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 06:58:29  
-0600:

Hi Ed,
[snip]

It apparently
results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based
on the effect of the D/H ratio.


Could you explain how the effect of D/H ratio proves that this is  
the mechanism?


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 27 May 2013 06:58:29 -0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
>It apparently  
>results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based  
>on the effect of the D/H ratio.

Could you explain how the effect of D/H ratio proves that this is the mechanism?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

On May 26, 2013, at 8:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 25 May 2013 12:14:15  
-0600:

Hi Ed,
[snip]
OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in  
the

equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was
suggested in 1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3
without success.


Was anyone looking at Ni+H at this time, or were they all Pd+D  
experiments?


This interest was applied only to PdD. However, if D+H can make He3 at  
all, the system would not matter.  The presence of D and H is the only  
requirement, other than the conditions required to initiate the  
reaction.




The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from
tritium decay.  Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only
result from H+D fusion with an electron added.


I though T was only detected in Pd+D experiments? (Where it is to be  
expected

from the occasional D+D => p + T reaction.)


Tritium has been been made when either D2 or H2 were present because  
in both cases a little of the other isotope is always present.  The  
tritium does not come from the reaction you note. It apparently  
results from D+H+e fusion, which was proposed as early as 1996 based  
on the effect of the D/H ratio. My theory is an attempt to show why  
this happens and apply the mechanism to all isotopes of hydrogen.


Ed Storms

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  DJ Cravens's message of Sat, 25 May 2013 15:47:30 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>where as about 1 out of 6400 or so hydrogen atoms in hydrogen gas is 
>deuterium, I don't think that equates to 1 out of 6000 of them being D2.  Most 
>of the deuterium would likely be in the form of HD instead.  D2 being quit 
>rare.
> 
>D2

Unique in fact. ;)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 25 May 2013 12:14:15 -0600:
Hi Ed,
[snip]
>OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in the  
>equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was  
>suggested in 1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3  
>without success. 

Was anyone looking at Ni+H at this time, or were they all Pd+D experiments?


>The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from  
>tritium decay.  Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only  
>result from H+D fusion with an electron added.   

I though T was only detected in Pd+D experiments? (Where it is to be expected
from the occasional D+D => p + T reaction.)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

If D+H can fuse, what effect do you think the relative concentration of D
> and H has on the rate? The D2O contains as much H2O as the H2 contains
> deuterium. Therefore, both conditions should produce the same amount of He3.
>

I do not see the need to draw a straightforward conclusion about the ratio
of d and p.  There might be a straightforward relationship, or there might
be a combination of several parameters at play, including the lattice
geometry, the ionization energy of the inner shell electrons, the
presumably decreased mobility of heaver d, and the overall loading.  One
wants to avoid imposing too much a priori logic upon the situation or risk
tossing out possibilities that were a little more subtle than one might
have been anticipating.  Very basic reasoning about clear-cut requirements
is fine, but let's avoid relying upon inferences that are at several steps
removed from the actual experimental data.

Nevertheless, no He3 is found when D2O is used containing a little H2O. Why
> not?  On the other hand, the rate of tritium production is sensitive to the
> D/H ratio.  This is a major clue - we don't get many clues in this field
> and have to make the most of what is observed.
>

It is easy to ascribe the tritium ratio to secondary fusion events from
fast particles.  As for the production of 3He versus 4He, presumably driven
in my own hypothesis by the main Auger-related mechanism, it's not yet
clear to me how this would be governed for the reason mentioned above.

I will have to keep closer tabs on the low hydrogen concentrations used in
the Ni/H experiments.  I wasn't aware of that.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

On May 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


I object to theories that either suggest ideas that have no  
relationship to known behavior or are pure hand waving.  This idea  
seems to be in both classes. Would you not expect the nuclear  
reaction would be very common if the Auger effect only needed to  
occur for the process to work?


Only in a transition metal (e.g., nickel) lattice loaded to the  
gills with hydrogen and a few parts deuterium.


But Eric, the Ni is not loaded to the gills. The concentration is  
actually very low, unlike Pd.


Ed Storms


Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

On May 25, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was suggested in  
1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3 without  
success. The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from tritium  
decay.  Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only result  
from H+D fusion with an electron added.   The absence of He3 and the  
presence of tritium led to my model describing a process that  
functions the same way no matter which hydron is present.


Since you mention 1989, I assume you're talking about Pd/D  
experiments.  I would not be surprised at all if there were  
insignificant levels of 3He in Pd/D experiments, given what we know  
about the 4He being correlated with excess heat.  When I talk about  
3He as a byproduct, I have the Ni/H system specifically in mind.


If D+H can fuse, what effect do you think the relative concentration  
of D and H has on the rate? The D2O contains as much H2O as the H2  
contains deuterium. Therefore, both conditions should produce the same  
amount of He3.  Nevertheless, no He3 is found when D2O is used  
containing a little H2O. Why not?  On the other hand, the rate of  
tritium production is sensitive to the D/H ratio.  This is a major  
clue - we don't get many clues in this field and have to make the most  
of what is observed.


Have there been systematic investigations of 3He evolution in  
connection with Ni/H in recent years?  Was there excess heat?  Have  
there been convincing demonstrations of excess heat in Ni/H  
systems?  It seems pretty clear to me at this point that we do not  
know enough about the Ni/H system to give positive answers to these  
questions -- it's all still up in the air.  That means that we're at  
the beginning, in a sense, and 3He is just one among many possible  
byproducts that might be detected, as well as additional D2, as you  
propose.


 Eric, you are making a different series of assumptions than I am.   
The future will determine which assumption is correct.  As for me, I'm  
not going to waste my time looking for He3 unless more reason is found.


Ed Storms


Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 25 May 2013 00:20:10 -0700:
Hi,

Sorry, I'm pretty much restricted to what I can do in my living room, with
what's available to me.

[snip]
>Nice sanity check.  The next thing to check would be to put your alpha
>source in heavy water. :)
>
>1. Without the PC board interposed.
>2. With the PC board interposed.
>
>But note that 5 MeV is a lot lower than 23 MeV.  Can you obtain a more
>energetic alpha source?
>
>Am I right in assuming that heavy water is more likely to give rise to
>secondary neutrons by way of 4He(d,np)4He spallation and d(d,n)3He
>secondary reactions than deuterated palladium?
>
>Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[DJ Cravens]

where as about 1 out of 6400 or so hydrogen atoms in hydrogen gas is deuterium, 
I don't think that equates to 1 out of 6000 of them being D2.  Most of the 
deuterium would likely be in the form of HD instead.  D2 being quit rare.
 
D2

 
From: eric.wal...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 10:05:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:


Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For example, a 
reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very low concentration has 
a probability of occurring that is near zero, based on the random chance that 
all three can get together at the same time at the same location.  Then you 
have to add the ability to overcome the huge Coulomb barrier at a significant 
rate, which is also very small.


Ed, I urge you to familiarize yourself with Ron's theory.  If you were familiar 
with it, you would see that these concerns are perhaps misinformed, and that a 
discussion on the question of fast particles can proceed without ignoring basic 
science.  There are two points of basic science that are relevant here -- (1) 
although there are a small number of D2 in normal H2, around 1 out of 6000, if 
the protons dissociated from the H2 are moving helter-skelter, there is a high 
likelihood of their encountering the d dissociated from the D2.  Now the low 
availability of D2 is no longer relevant, in my opinion, since there are so 
many protons.


Concerning the problem of the Coulomb barrier (2), this is a problem faced by 
Ron's theory, your theory, and everyone else's theory.  If you want me to apply 
this particular point of basic science in determining what to discuss and 
propose, I'd have to set aside consideration of everything we talk about on 
this list.  But as it happens, Ron's theory does address Coulomb repulsion.  
Ron says that there is an efficient way to convert photons in the x-ray range 
into electrostatic repulsion sufficient to drive a nuclear reaction, by way of 
the Auger process.  So what is needed are enough events in which x-ray photons 
scatter on inner shell Nickel electrons when protons are close by.  If Ron's 
supposition about the Auger mechanism is true, there is a possibility that a 
sufficient number of protons will receive an electrostatic kick to start moving 
around at the energies needed for fusion.  I think this is basic science, 
although the basic scientists don't seem to think so. ;)


Only then is it worth considering the fast He3, which is not detected. 


I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis for the 
conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion experiments.  Right 
now I am reading Peter Hagelstein's papers in JCMNS, vol. 3.  So far I am 
underwhelmed, and the case looks shaky.  If you could point me to comparable 
evidence showing there is no 3He emerging from Ni/H systems, that would be 
helpful. My suspicion is that people have not yet been systematic about looking 
for it.

 

Why would you assume a person who is measuring the mass peak at D2 would not 
notice if it started to drop?

You are right to call me out on this.  My concern about overlooking a drop in 
D2 was no doubt misplaced.


Eric
  

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

I object to theories that either suggest ideas that have no relationship to
> known behavior or are pure hand waving.  This idea seems to be in both
> classes. Would you not expect the nuclear reaction would be very common if
> the Auger effect only needed to occur for the process to work?
>

Only in a transition metal (e.g., nickel) lattice loaded to the gills with
hydrogen and a few parts deuterium.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was suggested in 1989 and
> efforts were made to look for the resulting He3 without success. The only
> time He3 was detected, it resulted from tritium decay.  Nevertheless,
> tritium IS detected, which can only result from H+D fusion with an electron
> added.   The absence of He3 and the presence of tritium led to my model
> describing a process that functions the same way no matter which hydron is
> present.
>

Since you mention 1989, I assume you're talking about Pd/D experiments.  I
would not be surprised at all if there were insignificant levels of 3He in
Pd/D experiments, given what we know about the 4He being correlated with
excess heat.  When I talk about 3He as a byproduct, I have the Ni/H system
specifically in mind.

Have there been systematic investigations of 3He evolution in connection
with Ni/H in recent years?  Was there excess heat?  Have there been
convincing demonstrations of excess heat in Ni/H systems?  It seems pretty
clear to me at this point that we do not know enough about the Ni/H system
to give positive answers to these questions -- it's all still up in the
air.  That means that we're at the beginning, in a sense, and 3He is just
one among many possible byproducts that might be detected, as well as
additional D2, as you propose.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Axil Axil]

Most of the theories discussed here are localized theories. They depend on
the the reaction whatever it is, to happen in or very near the NAE.



But what if it can be shown that the reaction inside the NAE can affect
atoms at a some distance from the NAE. Can that be possible in any theory
that seems reasonable in current theoretical thinking?



I am taking about W&L type neutron production and localized H+D = He3
fusion. I do have classic experimental results that show 'Spooky LENR
Action at a Distance'.





This LENR non locality also is impossible, correct? LENR cannot work in
this way according to all know laws of nature, is that right?



On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On May 25, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> I would expect that if a Ni were able to fuse with 1D and 1H, it would
>> fuse with 2 H much more often.
>>
>
> There's no presumption of fusion of Ni with d and h.  The assumption is
> that Ni receives some of the momentum of the d+h reaction, since it's
> nearby.  This gets rid of the gamma.  The Ni never fused with the d+h, and
> in most cases it goes on being the same Ni it was before.
>
>
> OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in the
> equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was suggested in
> 1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3 without success.
> The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from tritium decay.
>  Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only result from H+D fusion
> with an electron added.   The absence of He3 and the presence of tritium
> led to my model describing a process that functions the same way no matter
> which hydron is present.
>
>
>
>> No evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found.
>>
>
> Has anyone looked for 3He?  If so, has this been done systematically?
>  Have the results been systematically correlated with excess heat in Ni/H
> experiments?  Have there been experiments that conclusively establish that
> there *is* excess heat in Ni/H experiments?  Perhaps you can see where I'm
> going with this.
>
>
> Presence of He3 has been looked for but not in the Ni-H2 system.  If the
> gas is examined for deuterium, as I suggest, the presence of He3 will be
> measured as well. However this is a more difficult measurement than
> detecting D2 because the mass of He3 is very close to that of HD, which is
> a major gas species in a mixture of D2 and H2.
>
>
> And NO, I do not believe Ron's theory.
>>
>
> I appreciate that.  I hope I didn't say anything to suggest that you did.
>
>
> No, you did not suggest that I accepted his theory. I just wanted to make
> sure you know my attitude.
>
>
> If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are
>> brought near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world of
>> chemistry.  There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to happen
>> expect by a random process or because a new structure is formed that
>> requires generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure is known.
>>
>
> Regarding the world of chemistry -- exactly: the Auger process.  This is
> an important insight -- it's necessary to find a way to bridge the eV seen
> in chemistry with the tens of keV seen in nuclear physics.  Ron identified
> the Auger process as a likely bridge, since in heavy nuclei the ionization
> energy of inner shell electrons is in the realm of nuclear fusion.  As far
> as I can tell, he proposes neither a random process nor a structure that is
> formed.  He seems to be talking about something along the lines of
> waveguides in optics, although this is where things start to go well beyond
> my knowledge.
>
>
> I object to theories that either suggest ideas that have no relationship
> to known behavior or are pure hand waving.  This idea seems to be in both
> classes. Would you not expect the nuclear reaction would be very common if
> the Auger effect only needed to occur for the process to work?
>
>
>
>>   I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the real
>> world of chemical behavior.
>>
>
> No one is making up rules -- they're putting forward tentative suggestions
> that go back to previous experimental results and a knowledge of the forces
> involved.  Here we're exploring one possibility along with many others.  I
> think you've missing an opportunity by failing to take Ron's theory
> seriously.
>
>
> Why should I take an idea seriously that conflicts will everything I know
> about CF and basic chemistry. I realize you like the idea. In contrast, I
> have studied all of the published theories and most of the observed
> behavior.  I also have a background in materials science and nuclear
> physics. All of this information conflicts with what Ron proposes. So, I
> see no reason to give it any attention. Unfortunately, most of the
> suggested theories suffer from the same problem. That is why CF has made
> very l

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

On May 25, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


I would expect that if a Ni were able to fuse with 1D and 1H, it  
would fuse with 2 H much more often.


There's no presumption of fusion of Ni with d and h.  The assumption  
is that Ni receives some of the momentum of the d+h reaction, since  
it's nearby.  This gets rid of the gamma.  The Ni never fused with  
the d+h, and in most cases it goes on being the same Ni it was before.


OK Eric, I understand. My confusion resulted because you had Ni in the  
equation. You are really suggesting H+D = He3 fusion. This was  
suggested in 1989 and efforts were made to look for the resulting He3  
without success. The only time He3 was detected, it resulted from  
tritium decay.  Nevertheless, tritium IS detected, which can only  
result from H+D fusion with an electron added.   The absence of He3  
and the presence of tritium led to my model describing a process that  
functions the same way no matter which hydron is present.


No evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found.

Has anyone looked for 3He?  If so, has this been done  
systematically?  Have the results been systematically correlated  
with excess heat in Ni/H experiments?  Have there been experiments  
that conclusively establish that there *is* excess heat in Ni/H  
experiments?  Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this.


Presence of He3 has been looked for but not in the Ni-H2 system.  If  
the gas is examined for deuterium, as I suggest, the presence of He3  
will be measured as well. However this is a more difficult measurement  
than detecting D2 because the mass of He3 is very close to that of HD,  
which is a major gas species in a mixture of D2 and H2.


And NO, I do not believe Ron's theory.

I appreciate that.  I hope I didn't say anything to suggest that you  
did.


No, you did not suggest that I accepted his theory. I just wanted to  
make sure you know my attitude.


If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are  
brought near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world  
of chemistry.  There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to  
happen expect by a random process or because a new structure is  
formed that requires generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure  
is known.


Regarding the world of chemistry -- exactly: the Auger process.   
This is an important insight -- it's necessary to find a way to  
bridge the eV seen in chemistry with the tens of keV seen in nuclear  
physics.  Ron identified the Auger process as a likely bridge, since  
in heavy nuclei the ionization energy of inner shell electrons is in  
the realm of nuclear fusion.  As far as I can tell, he proposes  
neither a random process nor a structure that is formed.  He seems  
to be talking about something along the lines of waveguides in  
optics, although this is where things start to go well beyond my  
knowledge.


I object to theories that either suggest ideas that have no  
relationship to known behavior or are pure hand waving.  This idea  
seems to be in both classes. Would you not expect the nuclear reaction  
would be very common if the Auger effect only needed to occur for the  
process to work?


  I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the  
real world of chemical behavior.


No one is making up rules -- they're putting forward tentative  
suggestions that go back to previous experimental results and a  
knowledge of the forces involved.  Here we're exploring one  
possibility along with many others.  I think you've missing an  
opportunity by failing to take Ron's theory seriously.


Why should I take an idea seriously that conflicts will everything I  
know about CF and basic chemistry. I realize you like the idea. In  
contrast, I have studied all of the published theories and most of the  
observed behavior.  I also have a background in materials science and  
nuclear physics. All of this information conflicts with what Ron  
proposes. So, I see no reason to give it any attention. Unfortunately,  
most of the suggested theories suffer from the same problem. That is  
why CF has made very little progress in being accepted or in making  
the effect work better.


Ed Storms


Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

I would expect that if a Ni were able to fuse with 1D and 1H, it would fuse
> with 2 H much more often.
>

There's no presumption of fusion of Ni with d and h.  The assumption is
that Ni receives some of the momentum of the d+h reaction, since it's
nearby.  This gets rid of the gamma.  The Ni never fused with the d+h, and
in most cases it goes on being the same Ni it was before.


> No evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found.
>

Has anyone looked for 3He?  If so, has this been done systematically?  Have
the results been systematically correlated with excess heat in Ni/H
experiments?  Have there been experiments that conclusively establish that
there *is* excess heat in Ni/H experiments?  Perhaps you can see where I'm
going with this.

And NO, I do not believe Ron's theory.
>

I appreciate that.  I hope I didn't say anything to suggest that you did.

If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are brought
> near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world of chemistry.
>  There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to happen expect by a
> random process or because a new structure is formed that requires
> generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure is known.
>

Regarding the world of chemistry -- exactly: the Auger process.  This is an
important insight -- it's necessary to find a way to bridge the eV seen in
chemistry with the tens of keV seen in nuclear physics.  Ron identified the
Auger process as a likely bridge, since in heavy nuclei the ionization
energy of inner shell electrons is in the realm of nuclear fusion.  As far
as I can tell, he proposes neither a random process nor a structure that is
formed.  He seems to be talking about something along the lines of
waveguides in optics, although this is where things start to go well beyond
my knowledge.


>   I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the real
> world of chemical behavior.
>

No one is making up rules -- they're putting forward tentative suggestions
that go back to previous experimental results and a knowledge of the forces
involved.  Here we're exploring one possibility along with many others.  I
think you've missing an opportunity by failing to take Ron's theory
seriously.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

Eric, my comment has no relationship to any theory, mine or Ron's. It  
is based purely on probability of the events you imagine happening at  
a useful rate. The most probable event is an encounter between one H  
and one Ni. A less probable event will occur when two H arrive at the  
same Ni at the same time. A very improbably event will occur when 1 D  
and 1 H both arrive at the same Ni at the same time. This is a fact  
that is not open to debate. What the H does when it gets to a Ni is an  
entirely different discussion.  I would expect that if a Ni were able  
to fuse with 1D and 1H, it would fuse with 2 H much more often. No  
evidence for the resulting nuclear product has been found.  And NO, I  
do not believe Ron's theory.


If as you say in a later posting, Ron suggests that the H and D are  
brought near to a Ni by some process, he is now entering the world of  
chemistry. There is no mechanism known in chemistry for this to happen  
expect by a random process or because a new structure is formed that  
requires generation of Gibbs energy. No such structure is known.


I object when people make up rules that simple do not exist in the  
real world of chemical behavior.


Ed Storms
On May 25, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For  
example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very  
low concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero,  
based on the random chance that all three can get together at the  
same time at the same location.  Then you have to add the ability to  
overcome the huge Coulomb barrier at a significant rate, which is  
also very small.


Ed, I urge you to familiarize yourself with Ron's theory.  If you  
were familiar with it, you would see that these concerns are perhaps  
misinformed, and that a discussion on the question of fast particles  
can proceed without ignoring basic science.  There are two points of  
basic science that are relevant here -- (1) although there are a  
small number of D2 in normal H2, around 1 out of 6000, if the  
protons dissociated from the H2 are moving helter-skelter, there is  
a high likelihood of their encountering the d dissociated from the  
D2.  Now the low availability of D2 is no longer relevant, in my  
opinion, since there are so many protons.


Concerning the problem of the Coulomb barrier (2), this is a problem  
faced by Ron's theory, your theory, and everyone else's theory.  If  
you want me to apply this particular point of basic science in  
determining what to discuss and propose, I'd have to set aside  
consideration of everything we talk about on this list.  But as it  
happens, Ron's theory does address Coulomb repulsion.  Ron says that  
there is an efficient way to convert photons in the x-ray range into  
electrostatic repulsion sufficient to drive a nuclear reaction, by  
way of the Auger process.  So what is needed are enough events in  
which x-ray photons scatter on inner shell Nickel electrons when  
protons are close by.  If Ron's supposition about the Auger  
mechanism is true, there is a possibility that a sufficient number  
of protons will receive an electrostatic kick to start moving around  
at the energies needed for fusion.  I think this is basic science,  
although the basic scientists don't seem to think so. ;)


Only then is it worth considering the fast He3, which is not detected.

I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis  
for the conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion  
experiments.  Right now I am reading Peter Hagelstein's papers in  
JCMNS, vol. 3.  So far I am underwhelmed, and the case looks shaky.   
If you could point me to comparable evidence showing there is no 3He  
emerging from Ni/H systems, that would be helpful. My suspicion is  
that people have not yet been systematic about looking for it.


Why would you assume a person who is measuring the mass peak at D2  
would not notice if it started to drop?


You are right to call me out on this.  My concern about overlooking  
a drop in D2 was no doubt misplaced.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis for the
> conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion experiments.
>

Sorry -- I meant to say *prompt* alphas.  In Pd/D experiments, there is
obviously the observation about helium.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

For example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very low
> concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero, based on
> the random chance that all three can get together at the same time at the
> same location.
>

Concerning the low likelihood of a three-body event, this is where I think
you're unfamiliarity with Ron's theory is giving you problems.  The
assumption is not that there are three nuclei that come
together stochastically to catalytically drive p+d fusion.  The assumption
is that there is a systematic process that brings the p+d in close
proximity to the nickel nuclei, and then the probability of a three-body
event becomes much more likely.  I should also clarify that at no point is
there an assumption that nickel atoms are moving about freely.

I should also mention that I have appropriated Ron's theory, which concerns
Pd/H and d+d fusion, and applied it to the question of Ni/H cold fusion.
 As far as I can tell, Ron doesn't necessarily think that his theory
applies to Ni/H.  So his explanation has been borrowed without his knowing
about it and applied to Ni/H.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For
> example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very low
> concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero, based on
> the random chance that all three can get together at the same time at the
> same location.  Then you have to add the ability to overcome the huge
> Coulomb barrier at a significant rate, which is also very small.
>

Ed, I urge you to familiarize yourself with Ron's theory.  If you were
familiar with it, you would see that these concerns are perhaps
misinformed, and that a discussion on the question of fast particles can
proceed without ignoring basic science.  There are two points of basic
science that are relevant here -- (1) although there are a small number of
D2 in normal H2, around 1 out of 6000, if the protons dissociated from the
H2 are moving helter-skelter, there is a high likelihood of their
encountering the d dissociated from the D2.  Now the low availability of D2
is no longer relevant, in my opinion, since there are so many protons.

Concerning the problem of the Coulomb barrier (2), this is a problem faced
by Ron's theory, your theory, and everyone else's theory.  If you want me
to apply this particular point of basic science in determining what to
discuss and propose, I'd have to set aside consideration of everything we
talk about on this list.  But as it happens, Ron's theory does address
Coulomb repulsion.  Ron says that there is an efficient way to convert
photons in the x-ray range into electrostatic repulsion sufficient to drive
a nuclear reaction, by way of the Auger process.  So what is needed are
enough events in which x-ray photons scatter on inner shell Nickel
electrons when protons are close by.  If Ron's supposition about the Auger
mechanism is true, there is a possibility that a sufficient number of
protons will receive an electrostatic kick to start moving around at the
energies needed for fusion.  I think this is basic science, although the
basic scientists don't seem to think so. ;)

Only then is it worth considering the fast He3, which is not detected.
>

I am currently tracking down the experimental and theoretical basis for the
conclusion that there are no alphas detected in cold fusion experiments.
 Right now I am reading Peter Hagelstein's papers in JCMNS, vol. 3.  So far
I am underwhelmed, and the case looks shaky.  If you could point me to
comparable evidence showing there is no 3He emerging from Ni/H systems,
that would be helpful. My suspicion is that people have not yet been
systematic about looking for it.


> Why would you assume a person who is measuring the mass peak at D2 would
> not notice if it started to drop?
>

You are right to call me out on this.  My concern about overlooking a drop
in D2 was no doubt misplaced.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Andrew]

For misunderstanding the context, my apologies. The Rossi stuff has the 
potential for generating frustration too.

Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 2:40 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test


  Hi,


  We were picking up an ongoing thread concerning whether fast particles are 
being generated in any quantity in an Ni/H cold fusion reaction.  (We've been 
debating it for several months now, I think.)  We were proceeding on the 
assumption that Ni/H is real.  Then I inadvertently mixed in Pd/D.


  We hijacked the thread about the testing of Rossi's E-Cat to talk about Ni/H 
in general (and an explanation for Ni/H).  We did not intend to imply much if 
anything about the E-Cat test.  My apologies for any confusion.  That kind of 
thing happens here a lot and can make it hard to follow the threads.  We try to 
spin off new threads when it happens, but I never do.


  Eric



  On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Andrew  wrote:


What's relevant here is not
- the nuclear details
- whether the output power is adequate (it is, by an apparent factor of 10 
at minimum)
but rather
- whether the input power was measured correctly.

Just my $0.02, Andrew

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

Eric, when you speculate, you need to apply some basic science. For  
example, a reaction involving three nuclei, one of which has a very  
low concentration has a probability of occurring that is near zero,  
based on the random chance that all three can get together at the same  
time at the same location. Then you have to add the ability to  
overcome the huge Coulomb barrier at a significant rate, which is also  
very small. Only then is it worth considering the fast He3, which is  
not detected.


Why would you assume a person who is measuring the mass peak at D2  
would not notice if it started to drop?


Ed Storms
On May 24, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


First Eric, looking for deuterium would automatically see an  
increase as well as a decrease. No additional effort is required.


You would be surprised what people will overlook if they're not  
expecting it as a possibility -- for example, they could do a whole  
bunch of initial trial runs and set them aside because they assumed  
something was wrong with the experimental setup.


Second, what reaction do you propose would use up the very small  
amount of D2 in H2?


Perhaps Robin's hydrino reactions, or this one:

N + p + d → Ni + fast 3He

(I know you don't think there are fast particles -- this is  
something I'm still keeping tabs on and haven't convinced myself of  
yet.)


Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

We were picking up an ongoing thread concerning whether fast particles are
being generated in any quantity in an Ni/H cold fusion reaction.  (We've
been debating it for several months now, I think.)  We were proceeding on
the assumption that Ni/H is real.  Then I inadvertently mixed in Pd/D.

We hijacked the thread about the testing of Rossi's E-Cat to talk about
Ni/H in general (and an explanation for Ni/H).  We did not intend to imply
much if anything about the E-Cat test.  My apologies for any confusion.
 That kind of thing happens here a lot and can make it hard to follow the
threads.  We try to spin off new threads when it happens, but I never do.

Eric


On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Andrew  wrote:

**
> What's relevant here is not
> - the nuclear details
> - whether the output power is adequate (it is, by an apparent factor of 10
> at minimum)
> but rather
> - whether the input power was measured correctly.
>
> Just my $0.02, Andrew
>

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Andrew]

What's relevant here is not
- the nuclear details
- whether the output power is adequate (it is, by an apparent factor of 10 at 
minimum)
but rather
- whether the input power was measured correctly.

Just my $0.02, Andrew
  - Original Message - 
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test


  On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:


Nice sanity check.  The next thing to check would be to put your alpha 
source in heavy water. :)


  Sorry, context switch, there.  I was thinking of Pd/D. But that set of 
questions is also interesting and possibly relevant here.


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

Nice sanity check.  The next thing to check would be to put your alpha
> source in heavy water. :)
>

Sorry, context switch, there.  I was thinking of Pd/D. But that set of
questions is also interesting and possibly relevant here.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:00 AM,  wrote:

I have a Geiger counter and a smoke alarm. When the detector is right in
> front
> of the Am241 pellet it rapidly registers a high count. Put the detector
> behind
> the PC board on which the circuit was built, but at a closer distance to
> the
> pellet, and it registers nothing. So much for calculations showing that
> lots of
> alpha particles would readily be detected.
>

Nice sanity check.  The next thing to check would be to put your alpha
source in heavy water. :)

1. Without the PC board interposed.
2. With the PC board interposed.

But note that 5 MeV is a lot lower than 23 MeV.  Can you obtain a more
energetic alpha source?

Am I right in assuming that heavy water is more likely to give rise to
secondary neutrons by way of 4He(d,np)4He spallation and d(d,n)3He
secondary reactions than deuterated palladium?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 24 May 2013 21:16:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>(I know you don't think there are fast particles -- this is something I'm
>still keeping tabs on and haven't convinced myself of yet.)

Neither have I.

I have a Geiger counter and a smoke alarm. When the detector is right in front
of the Am241 pellet it rapidly registers a high count. Put the detector behind
the PC board on which the circuit was built, but at a closer distance to the
pellet, and it registers nothing. So much for calculations showing that lots of
alpha particles would readily be detected.

(And these are 5 MeV alphas. The p-B11 reaction only produces alphas with less
than 3 MeV).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

N + p + d → Ni + fast 3He
>

That would be quite impressive.  I meant to write:

Ni + p + d → Ni + fast 3He

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

First Eric, looking for deuterium would automatically see an increase as
> well as a decrease. No additional effort is required.
>

You would be surprised what people will overlook if they're not expecting
it as a possibility -- for example, they could do a whole bunch of initial
trial runs and set them aside because they assumed something was wrong with
the experimental setup.

Second, what reaction do you propose would use up the very small amount of
> D2 in H2?
>

Perhaps Robin's hydrino reactions, or this one:

N + p + d → Ni + fast 3He

(I know you don't think there are fast particles -- this is something I'm
still keeping tabs on and haven't convinced myself of yet.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[mixent]

In reply to  Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 24 May 2013 20:30:40 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>First Eric, looking for deuterium would automatically see an increase  
>as well as a decrease. No additional effort is required. Second, what  
>reaction do you propose would use up the very small amount of D2 in H2?

f/H + D => 3He + fast electron (bremsstrahlung)

or possibly

f/H2(molecule) + D => 3He + fast proton (none)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

First Eric, looking for deuterium would automatically see an increase  
as well as a decrease. No additional effort is required. Second, what  
reaction do you propose would use up the very small amount of D2 in H2?


Ed Storms
On May 24, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


I have proposed the heat results from deuterium production, which  
I'm trying to get people to look for.


I am very interested to see whether the opposite result is seen --  
i.e., a significant *decrease* in deuterium over time in an Ni/H  
system.  If you help design any protocols, please keep this  
possibility in mind so that steps can be taken to look for it.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

I have proposed the heat results from deuterium production, which I'm
> trying to get people to look for.
>

I am very interested to see whether the opposite result is seen -- i.e., a
significant *decrease* in deuterium over time in an Ni/H system.  If you
help design any protocols, please keep this possibility in mind so that
steps can be taken to look for it.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil,
After rereading your post I may have shot myself in the foot 
since I do agree with some but not all of your conclusions.. I do agree that
[snip] The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal 
environment. The concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be 
discarded.
LENR must function in liquid and vapor. [/snip] my only point was that the 
solid geometry will try to relieve the suppression when it melts – one of the 
reasons skeletal cats are built in 2 stages with the softer alloy leached out 
while the higher melt temp nickel opposes the induced suppression as well as 
melting to form Rayney nickel. Your analysis does support sonofusion and plasma 
engines.
Fran


From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 2:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

Axil,

You pose some interesting questions.  If what you suggest is true, then this 
form of LENR would be a bulk effect.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 2:12 pm
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
The other very important piece of the puzzle that this Rossi demo has revealed 
is how extreme the LENR can get. This tells us important new things about the 
LENR reaction.
When the E-Cat melts down, its temperature reaches at least 2000C. The melting 
point of the ceramic used is in that temperature range.
We know that ceramic is used in the reactor and that the LENR reaction can melt 
it. This is exciting.
At that temperature, the nickel powder and the AISI 310 steel has long reached 
its melting point.
The LENR reaction must be able to function in a liquid metal environment. The 
concept of an NAE supported in only solid material must be discarded.
LENR must function in liquid and vapor.
Riddle me that one batman.
Collective, in other words, I will be awaiting your theories.



On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Edmund Storms 
mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
Thanks Fran. It's nice to get an occasional agreement :-) However, how do you 
propose to make helium and tritium from D and H by a process other than fusion? 
Of course, the process is not like hot fusion, but this does not remove another 
process that results in fusion as the mechanism.  The W/L mechanism is the only 
current published theory that does not propose fusion, but this idea is so far 
from explaining any observation, it can be ignored.

Ed Storms

On May 24, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Ed,
Good analysis and totally agree with your conclusions except for your 
description as a "fusion" process since that remains controversial would just 
call it an as yet "undetermined" process. [snip] , which allows the diffusion 
rate to drop enough to starve the fusion process of reactant and cool[/snip].
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:55 PM
To: c...@googlegroups.com; 
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

A great deal of discussion has been generated by the Rossi test. I
would liker to add my contribution.

Rossi has demonstrated two very important behaviors of the effect.

First, the effect can be initiated and sustained for a significant
time at temperatures above 800° C.  This means the NAE once formed is
very stable.  This degree of stability severely limits the theories
that can be applied and eliminates most of the ones presently being
explored.

Second, he has shown that the effect can be effectively controlled by
temperature. This means that one rate-controlling part of the process
is endothermic. I have previously proposed that this part involves
diffusion of H or D into the NAE.  This suggestion is based on simple
logic.  The rate of the nuclear reaction is determined by how rapidly
the reactants can assemble, which would be controlled by diffusion. Of
course, once the reactants are assembled, the nucear reaction would be
very fast and not be subject to control.

To effectively solve the control problem, Rossi has maximized thermal
contact between the NAE in the Ni and a source of temperature, which
is the heaters. He has to apply power because the NAE in the NI has to
cool rapidly once the LENR process tries to grow in intensity by
getting hotter as a result of its own heat production. In other words,
the effect involves two rate controlling processes, one is exothermic
and the other is endothermic.  Control requires a balance be created
between the two. This balance uses diffusion as the control mechanism.

He heats the material to a temperature that allows the heat producing
rate in the NAE to start to self-heat. He then turns off the external
heat source and the resulting tempe

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

On May 24, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
	I will happily concede your point once the ash is found on a scale  
approaching the energy released..but I was under the impression that  
to date the amount of ash found in these anomalous heat claims has  
always been of trivial amounts..am I wrong?


Fran, the amount of helium has been found to be correlated with the  
amount of heat. The amount of tritium is always too small to make  
detectable energy. Nevertheless, it can only result from a fusion  
reaction.


perhaps they haven't looked hard enough but perhaps also it just  
isn't there in sufficient quantity... what is your take on the  
claims of cu ash for the Rossi device?


I do not believe Cu can be produced from Ni+p transmutation and I have  
been saying this for years. This claim makes no sense and has no  
credible support.  I have proposed the heat results from deuterium  
production, which I'm trying to get people to look for.


If that ash is confirmed it would be more of a transformation than  
fusion... My own theory remains ZPE even more so now that radiation  
shielding has been eliminated from this latest experiment.


I and several people have seen radiation emitted when hydrogen is  
used. This radiation normally has such low energy, it does not escape  
from the apparatus. Rossi apparently stimulated a reaction that  
produced significant radiation at one time, but this probably had no  
relationship to what produces the steady heat. A person has to be  
careful not to relate apples and oranges.


I think that like the MAHG the device exploits changes in state  
between H and H2 while diffusion is stimulated resulting in a  
discount of the disassociation threshold that exceeds OU and tries  
to runaway- heat depleting the H2 reservoir until diffusion outward  
allows cooling enough to reassociate.. and like the MAHG very  
susceptible to self destruction. Whether just a bootstrap mechanism  
to the nuclear processes others are suggesting or the predominate  
contributor I remain undecided but I am convinced atomic forms of  
hydrogen recombining to molecular forms are at the heart of this  
anomaly.


Fran, do you understand what you are saying? You are proposing a  
simple, well understood chemical reaction can initiate a nuclear  
reaction. We know for a fact that simply heating a material to high  
temperatures will not initiate a nuclear reaction. In order to  
initiate a nuclear reaction, billions of degrees are required, which  
can only exist in plasma, not in a solid material. You need to  
consider what is real, not what you imagine.


Ed Storms


Langmuir proved that this procedure can even melt tungsten with  
arcing electrodes in open air [atomic welding], and when you  
consider this happening inside a catalyst like Rayney nickel or  
these Ni powders where resistive heating is used to bring the  
molecules closer to disassociation... can almost see the runaway  
reaction as H2 reforms, giving off more heat then we used from  
resistors to disassociate .. My theory being that diffusion through  
the catalyst region [tapestry of different suppression values]  
discounts the disassociation level based on how different the  
suppression level is from the level at which H2 molecule formed.  
Fractional hydrogen or hydrinos or relativistic hydrogen or super  
catalytic action are all names for this same effect.

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

Thanks Fran. It's nice to get an occasional agreement :-) However, how
do you propose to make helium and tritium from D and H by a process
other than fusion? Of course, the process is not like hot fusion, but
this does not remove another process that results in fusion as the
mechanism.  The W/L mechanism is the only current published theory
that does not propose fusion, but this idea is so far from explaining
any observation, it can be ignored.

Ed Storms
On May 24, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Ed,
Good analysis and totally agree with your conclusions except for
your description as a "fusion" process since that remains
controversial would just call it an as yet "undetermined" process.
[snip] , which allows the diffusion rate to drop enough to starve
the fusion process of reactant and cool[/snip].
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:55 PM
To: c...@googlegroups.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

A great deal of discussion has been generated by the Rossi test. I
would liker to add my contribution.

Rossi has demonstrated two very important behaviors of the effect.

First, the effect can be initiated and sustained for a significant
time at temperatures above 800° C.  

RE: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Roarty, Francis X]

Ed,
I will happily concede your point once the ash is found on a scale 
approaching the energy released..but I was under the impression that to date 
the amount of ash found in these anomalous heat claims has always been of 
trivial amounts..am I wrong? perhaps they haven't looked hard enough but 
perhaps also it just isn't there in sufficient quantity... what is your take on 
the claims of cu ash for the Rossi device? If that ash is confirmed it would be 
more of a transformation than fusion... My own theory remains ZPE even more so 
now that radiation shielding has been eliminated from this latest experiment. I 
think that like the MAHG the device exploits changes in state between H and H2 
while diffusion is stimulated resulting in a discount of the disassociation 
threshold that exceeds OU and tries to runaway- heat depleting the H2 reservoir 
until diffusion outward allows cooling enough to reassociate.. and like the 
MAHG very susceptible to self destruction. Whether just a bootstrap mechanism 
to the nuclear processes others are suggesting or the predominate contributor I 
remain undecided but I am convinced atomic forms of hydrogen recombining to 
molecular forms are at the heart of this anomaly. Langmuir proved that this 
procedure can even melt tungsten with arcing electrodes in open air [atomic 
welding], and when you consider this happening inside a catalyst like Rayney 
nickel or these Ni powders where resistive heating is used to bring the 
molecules closer to disassociation... can almost see the runaway reaction as H2 
reforms, giving off more heat then we used from resistors to disassociate .. My 
theory being that diffusion through the catalyst region [tapestry of different 
suppression values] discounts the disassociation level based on how different 
the suppression level is from the level at which H2 molecule formed. Fractional 
hydrogen or hydrinos or relativistic hydrogen or super catalytic action are all 
names for this same effect.
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

Thanks Fran. It's nice to get an occasional agreement :-) However, how  
do you propose to make helium and tritium from D and H by a process  
other than fusion? Of course, the process is not like hot fusion, but  
this does not remove another process that results in fusion as the  
mechanism.  The W/L mechanism is the only current published theory  
that does not propose fusion, but this idea is so far from explaining  
any observation, it can be ignored.

Ed Storms
On May 24, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

> Ed,
>   Good analysis and totally agree with your conclusions except for  
> your description as a "fusion" process since that remains  
> controversial would just call it an as yet "undetermined" process.  
> [snip] , which allows the diffusion rate to drop enough to starve  
> the fusion process of reactant and cool[/snip].
> Fran
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:55 PM
> To: c...@googlegroups.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: Edmund Storms
> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test
>
> A great deal of discussion has been generated by the Rossi test. I
> would liker to add my contribution.
>
> Rossi has demonstrated two very important behaviors of the effect.
>
> First, the effect can be initiated and sustained for a significant
> time at temperatures above 800° C.  This means the NAE once formed is
> very stable.  This degree of stability severely limits the theories
> that can be applied and eliminates most of the ones presently being
> explored.
>
> Second, he has shown that the effect can be effectively controlled by
> temperature. This means that one rate-controlling part of the process
> is endothermic. I have previously proposed that this part involves
> diffusion of H or D into the NAE.  This suggestion is based on simple
> logic.  The rate of the nuclear reaction is determined by how rapidly
> the reactants can assemble, which would be controlled by diffusion. Of
> course, once the reactants are assembled, the nucear reaction would be
> very fast and not be subject to control.
>
> To effectively solve the control problem, Rossi has maximized thermal
> contact between the NAE in the Ni and a source of temperature, which
> is the heaters. He has to apply power because the NAE in the NI has to
> cool rapidly once the LENR process tries to grow in intensity by
> getting hotter as a result of its own heat production. In other words,
> the effect involves two rate controlling processes, one is exothermic
> and the other is endothermic.  Control requires a balance be created
> between the two. This balance uses diffusion as the control mechanism.
>
> He heats the material to a temperature that allows the hea

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Rich Murray]

I appreciate the commonsense engineering concepts about the endothermic
character of diffusion of nuclei within a lattice into the NAE.

within the fellowship of service,  Rich


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> We know from direct measurements and studies at the boiling point that the
> Pd-D system has a positive temperature coefficient in this range. This
> behavior is characteristic of the effect because the rate must be
> determined by an endothermic reaction.   The Pd-D system will not be very
> active at very high temperatures because the concentration of D in Pd drops
> rapidly with increased temperature. This means the rate will start to drop
> as temperature is increased above a much lower temperature than is the case
> of Ni.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On May 23, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
>
>> Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this description
>> must be acknowledged because it is based on engineering principles, not on
>> a theory of LENR.
>>
>
> I agree, but perhaps this description only applies to Ni-H, not Pd-D.
> Could that be the case?
>
> I have never heard of a Pd-D experiment at such high temperatures. Who
> knows how it might work. I would like to find out.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Edmund Storms]

We know from direct measurements and studies at the boiling point that  
the Pd-D system has a positive temperature coefficient in this range.  
This behavior is characteristic of the effect because the rate must be  
determined by an endothermic reaction.   The Pd-D system will not be  
very active at very high temperatures because the concentration of D  
in Pd drops rapidly with increased temperature. This means the rate  
will start to drop as temperature is increased above a much lower  
temperature than is the case of Ni.


Ed Storms
On May 23, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:

Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this  
description must be acknowledged because it is based on engineering  
principles, not on a theory of LENR.


I agree, but perhaps this description only applies to Ni-H, not Pd- 
D. Could that be the case?


I have never heard of a Pd-D experiment at such high temperatures.  
Who knows how it might work. I would like to find out.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Edmund Storms" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:54:34 AM
> 
> A great deal of discussion has been generated by the Rossi test. I
> would liker to add my contribution.
> 
 
> Second, he has shown that the effect can be effectively controlled by
> temperature. This means that one rate-controlling part of the process
> is endothermic. I have previously proposed that this part involves
> diffusion of H or D into the NAE.  This suggestion is based on simple
> logic.  The rate of the nuclear reaction is determined by how rapidly
> the reactants can assemble, which would be controlled by diffusion.
> Of  course, once the reactants are assembled, the nucear reaction would
> be very fast and not be subject to control.

I've been wondering for a while about a geometric temperature-dependent 
explanation.

Suppose we have rods of nickel, with cracks on the surface  running along the 
length of the rod.
(The same argument can be applied to spheres, but rods are easier to explain).

The radius of the rod varies linearly with temperature.

With pure nickel there is NO stress around the cracks, so they are unchanged.

But suppose his "catalyst" were a surface treatment, resulting in a LOWER 
coefficient of expansion.

Then there WOULD be stress across the cracks, pulling them apart, which could  
serve either to deepen them, or to elongate them.

The deepening and/or lengthening of the cracks creates a NAE whose size is 
proportional to temperature, so the reaction is multiplied in like proportion.  
When the temperature drops the cracks close up again.

With rods the cracks oriented round the circumference would not expand. With 
spheres all cracks would be expand.

Re: [Vo]:My evaluation of the Rossi test

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:


> Regardless of which theory a person wishes to apply, this description must
> be acknowledged because it is based on engineering principles, not on a
> theory of LENR.
>

I agree, but perhaps this description only applies to Ni-H, not Pd-D. Could
that be the case?

I have never heard of a Pd-D experiment at such high temperatures. Who
knows how it might work. I would like to find out.

- Jed