Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Axi and Jones-- Thanks. That's sure seems to be an indication that magnetic fields are important in the control of the Cravens/Gimpel National Instruments Expo experiment. They believed that they were producing He. Like Jones said it would be nice to know if they measured He and, if so how and how much. Also did they measure HE or HE? Jones indicated that the energy spectrum is flat at the temperature that the test was run. That may be true, but the driving or resonate frequencies may be at the upper end of the frequency spectrum associated with the initiation of the reaction and the NAE couple to the charcoal matrix. A broad band of frequency may may make the necessary coupling more unlikely. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea The referenced article at the top of this thread as follows: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Which IE article regarding magnetism are you referring to? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea The item below is an idem of interest in the IE article regarding magnetism. an empirical model by Dennis Letts was used...“A Method to Calculate Excess Power”... predicts that the heat production is linearly proportional to the mass of the hydrogen-containing material and the magnetic field surrounding the mass. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death?
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
That should have said--Also did they measure H or H2? - Original Message - From: Bob Cook To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea Axi and Jones-- Thanks. That's sure seems to be an indication that magnetic fields are important in the control of the Cravens/Gimpel National Instruments Expo experiment. They believed that they were producing He. Like Jones said it would be nice to know if they measured He and, if so how and how much. Also did they measure HE or HE? Jones indicated that the energy spectrum is flat at the temperature that the test was run. That may be true, but the driving or resonate frequencies may be at the upper end of the frequency spectrum associated with the initiation of the reaction and the NAE couple to the charcoal matrix. A broad band of frequency may may make the necessary coupling more unlikely. Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea The referenced article at the top of this thread as follows: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Which IE article regarding magnetism are you referring to? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea The item below is an idem of interest in the IE article regarding magnetism. an empirical model by Dennis Letts was used...“A Method to Calculate Excess Power”... predicts that the heat production is linearly proportional to the mass of the hydrogen-containing material and the magnetic field surrounding the mass. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death?
RE: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
-Original Message- Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? The implication that Mizuno has apparently discovered about twice as many molecules of hydrogen, compared to the starting gas which was deuterium - is truly extraordinary. The claim is not replicated and many observers would prefer to wait until replication to discuss it. However, an exothermic conversion of deuterium to hydrogen (which can be called deuterium fission) is too important to completely ignore – even if it could be limited to the situation where nickel replaces palladium as the active metal. As the other Pope sez … “fools rush in” even if there are no angels to warn them off. For the record, one way that D-2H could happen via the Dirac sea involves the bare deuteron in interfacial contact with one atom of positronium. This could only happen at femtometer (Fermi) geometry. On paper, the deuteron and positronium atom could combine to form the molecular ion 2H- which is two bound protons with one electron. As Bob Cook opines, the cation would be expelled from the interface of 1-space at high velocity. However, the energy balance is problematic: Deuteron mass-energy is 1875.61 MeV, positronium is 1.02 MeV, for a combined 1876.63 while the proton is 938.27 MeV or 1876.54 for two. That gain is small, which would explain why there is no gamma, but… …the H2 cation is 1877.05 which makes the reaction endothermic if the electron is retained to balance the charge. Since exotherm is seen- how can it happen? One way is the DDL. The Deep Dirac Level is the lowest state of neutral monatomic hydrogen and it could also exist at the 1D interface. Here is the classic paper from 1993 which may have errors, but also has much accurate detail to build-on, insofar as providing a basis for explaining Mizuno’s finding of D-2H with slight gain. http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/359/Electron%20Transitions% 20on%20Deep%20Dirac%20Levels%20II.pdf Notice in the third paragraph, there is reference to positronium at the same scale. To return to the energy balance… if the deuteron is in a DDL, which is neutral in net charge, and reacts with positronium at the interface of the Dirac sea (Ps is also neutral) due to strong force dynamics, then the two protons which result can arrive back into 3-space with a small gain – which is consistent with no or low gamma radiation. The electrons can be retained in a negative “Sea” with not charge conservation problem. Therefore, it now appears that the DDL would be a necessary complication to any overall hypothesis which would try to explain “deuterium fission” with slight exotherm, and few gammas. Of course, we will henceforth label the DDL as a “feature” of the emerging hypothesis, instead of a stopgap measure. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Jones-- The stew thickens as the vapors come off and hence becomes more tasty. A little more salt and pepper and it will be ready. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea -Original Message- Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? The implication that Mizuno has apparently discovered about twice as many molecules of hydrogen, compared to the starting gas which was deuterium - is truly extraordinary. The claim is not replicated and many observers would prefer to wait until replication to discuss it. However, an exothermic conversion of deuterium to hydrogen (which can be called deuterium fission) is too important to completely ignore – even if it could be limited to the situation where nickel replaces palladium as the active metal. As the other Pope sez … “fools rush in” even if there are no angels to warn them off. For the record, one way that D-2H could happen via the Dirac sea involves the bare deuteron in interfacial contact with one atom of positronium. This could only happen at femtometer (Fermi) geometry. On paper, the deuteron and positronium atom could combine to form the molecular ion 2H- which is two bound protons with one electron. As Bob Cook opines, the cation would be expelled from the interface of 1-space at high velocity. However, the energy balance is problematic: Deuteron mass-energy is 1875.61 MeV, positronium is 1.02 MeV, for a combined 1876.63 while the proton is 938.27 MeV or 1876.54 for two. That gain is small, which would explain why there is no gamma, but… …the H2 cation is 1877.05 which makes the reaction endothermic if the electron is retained to balance the charge. Since exotherm is seen- how can it happen? One way is the DDL. The Deep Dirac Level is the lowest state of neutral monatomic hydrogen and it could also exist at the 1D interface. Here is the classic paper from 1993 which may have errors, but also has much accurate detail to build-on, insofar as providing a basis for explaining Mizuno’s finding of D-2H with slight gain. http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/359/Electron%20Transitions% 20on%20Deep%20Dirac%20Levels%20II.pdf Notice in the third paragraph, there is reference to positronium at the same scale. To return to the energy balance… if the deuteron is in a DDL, which is neutral in net charge, and reacts with positronium at the interface of the Dirac sea (Ps is also neutral) due to strong force dynamics, then the two protons which result can arrive back into 3-space with a small gain – which is consistent with no or low gamma radiation. The electrons can be retained in a negative “Sea” with not charge conservation problem. Therefore, it now appears that the DDL would be a necessary complication to any overall hypothesis which would try to explain “deuterium fission” with slight exotherm, and few gammas. Of course, we will henceforth label the DDL as a “feature” of the emerging hypothesis, instead of a stopgap measure. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
The Cravens experiment shows two important optimizations applied to LENR: direct application of magnetism and sizing particles based on dipole based black body temperature resonance. A powdered magnet is used to provide magnetic stimulation of LENR reactions on the surface of carbon micro particles. This experiment shows that the LENR reaction is scalable down to very low levels of magnetic strength. Carbon is a poor nanoplasmonic material and should be replaced with tungsten, a nonmagnetic metal to increase the power of the reaction. http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/MagneticType.html Tungsten is paramagnetic and has a negative coefficient of reflectivity which will greatly increase SPP confinement on its surface. Other paramagnetic metals including Titanium, Molybdenum, and Palladium will work just as well. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Here is a good writeup of the Cravens experiment/demo at NI week - which may go down as one of the most underappreciated experiments of the past decade in Physics - due to its simplicity, far-reaching implications and lack of a credible alternative explanation. If only it had been replicated by now. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf Actually, I think Dennis Cravens got one theoretical thing wrong - in his belief that this result indicates fusion to helium. In fact, it looks like the poster experiment for a Dirac sea explanation. It is even possible that the deuterium is fissioning to hydrogen - ala Mizuno. Has he analyzed the gases after the many-month long run? To quote from the article: So what is in that warm golden ball? It contains an activated carbon that holds metal alloy within its pores, some magnetic powder, some hydrogen storage material and some deuterium gas. It is thought that the heat is coming from the fusion of deuterium nuclei to go to helium. However, there are as many ideas of the exact reaction as there are theorists. What is clear is the mixture produces heat because the sample sphere in it is warmer than the control sphere containing a little sand. The two spheres are in a highly conductive bath of aluminum beads in a constant temperature bath designed to be uniform and to hold the temperature constant. If one could combine this experiment with the addition of Mu metal like the material used by Claytor, and raise the temperature of the bath to near the Curie point - the gain could be much higher. Actually there are a number of soft ferromagnetic alloys with a low Curie point which should be effective for this kind of side-by-side experiment in a thermal bath - while retaining the hard material (Sm). One in particular which I have seen is 86 C, so it should work very well in a similar experiment. _ Mu-metal is a nickel-iron alloy that is notable for its high magnetic permeability. The permeability makes mu-metal useful for shielding against static or low-frequency magnetic fields - but the same feature should make it an excellent lattice for LENR in the sense that shielding is a function of a material being able to internalize magnetic fields. And there is an emerging cross-connection between Rydberg states and magnetism, not to mention the binding energy of the Dirac sea is itself a whole fraction (1/2) of Ry which is the Rydberg unit of energy. Co-Netic AA, is a brand of Mu metal consisting of nickel(80%), iron(15%), and molybdenum(5%) with permeability of 30,000 or more. It was mentioned by Dr. Claytor recently at the MIT Colloquium as giving his best results. If this, or a similar alloy was to be converted into a slightly oxidized powder, with added potassium - it could be an interesting choice for the kind of LENR where magnetic oscillations are being optimized - as the way to use protons to cohere vacuum energy. There would be thermal gain, and no radiation. In terms of Rydberg multiples, this particular mix would have 10 unique Rydberg levels in the ionization potential of its various constituents or 12 if we count whole fractions. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
The item below is an idem of interest in the IE article regarding magnetism. an empirical model by Dennis Letts was used...“A Method to Calculate Excess Power”... predicts that the heat production is linearly proportional to the mass of the hydrogen-containing material and the magnetic field surrounding the mass. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death?
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Jones-- What happened to Case? Does anyone know? Sending the samples to Oak Ridge was questionable. My first question is whether they spiked the sample before testing. I would think the He may leak out of a porous sample pretty quickly. The Mizuno test seemed to have a more reliable method of monitoring the ash. However, I think that the NRL also claims He in its Pd experiments. What about SRI and He production? It seems there could be more than one reaction associated with lenr. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death?
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones-- What happened to Case? Does anyone know? He died of old age. Do you mean what happened to his experiment? McKubre replicated with Case's help. Ed Storms tried to replicate but he saw no excess heat. I do not know of anyone else who tried. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: … and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. I did not read that into Mizuno's recent slides. I doubt he is recanting any helium results he has reported in the past, effectively or in actuality. Eric
RE: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook What happened to Case? NEWFIELDS N.H. - Leslie C. Case, 79, died Thursday, July 15, 2010, at his home in Newfields. He was born Sept. 11, 1930, in Tulsa, Ok, Mr. Case received his doctorate of science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sending the samples to Oak Ridge was questionable. The Mizuno test seemed to have a more reliable method of monitoring the ash. Yes - far more reliable, at least in principle. However, I think that the NRL also claims He in its Pd experiments. What about SRI and He production? There is no doubt that helium does occur at some level. The two questions are proportionality and discrimination. It requires top level instrumentation and skill to distinguish D2 (mass 4) from Helium (also mass 4) and to also get any kind of a handle on proportionality. Since Mizuno saw very little mass 4 at all, that fact is extraordinarily important. It seems there could be more than one reaction associated with LENR. Bingo. Jones
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Axil-- Which IE article regarding magnetism are you referring to? Bob - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea The item below is an idem of interest in the IE article regarding magnetism. an empirical model by Dennis Letts was used...“A Method to Calculate Excess Power”... predicts that the heat production is linearly proportional to the mass of the hydrogen-containing material and the magnetic field surrounding the mass. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death?
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
Jed I assume you are talking about the Craven/Gimpel experiment at the Cold Fusion at National Instruments Week event in August 2013? I read it last Fall and was impressed. Those two seem to want to get the information out and provide their theory in an understandable manner. Their ideas nearly match mine as to a mechanism for coupling the lenr energy to the matrix of the surrounding material. See their discussion of the theory at pages 2 and 3 of their write-up ad the NI week event. Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
The referenced article at the top of this thread as follows: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Axil-- Which IE article regarding magnetism are you referring to? Bob - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 5:00 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea The item below is an idem of interest in the IE article regarding magnetism. an empirical model by Dennis Letts was used...“A Method to Calculate Excess Power”... predicts that the heat production is linearly proportional to the mass of the hydrogen-containing material and the magnetic field surrounding the mass. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell That is fun to read! Good experiment. Good write up. Yes it is a fabulous, simple experiment that is ripe for both replication and improvement. And it is somewhat poignant for those who have followed the field for a while, to mention Les Case – whose shadow looms over this experiment. Here is an old article from Gene: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEreproducib.pdf … showing the spherical reactor, which turns up once again. Notably Cravens (IIRC) purchased the Lab gear from Case’s estate. And he is still using carbon of some form, as did Case. Quote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. That is very low spectral radiance, and to say that there is any peak at all at this temperature is strange, as the “curve” is essentially flat. Plus the value seems to be off. Nevertheless, the proof is in the pudding… and the active sphere worked for months at substantial gain. That is the incredible part. The big question I have for Dennis, or his first replicator, is what gases turn up in the ash after a long run? As the active ball was cut open at the end of the Demo to show no battery was inside, the accumulated gases were not analyzed at NI Week. Les Case thought he was seeing helium but was he? Mizuno has presented a paradigm shift with his discovery of hydrogen showing up in place of deuterium. Is that a trend, of a sort, now that we have an appreciation that it is possible? Was past evidence of D-2H deliberately ignored, since that reaction seems so improbable that the experimenter ignored it for sake of his own credibility? If the Mizuno finding were to be validated in another type of experiment then it may finally be possible to approach an operating theory which will appeal to the more hard-headed of skeptics. The skeptics I know will never buy into the helium spiel without some show of strong gamma photons – due to helium’s ubiquity… and given the recent Mizuno results – where a former proponent of helium is now (effectively) recanting - we may be seeing a major change in outlook. Who will be the next to confirm this? Or will it die a slow death?
Re: [Vo]:RE: Co-Netic AA and the Dirac sea
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The bulk of the material inside the active sphere is activated charcoal (carbon). The charcoal has a mesh of between 1350 and 2000 (micro mesh screening of 6 to 10 microns)…. That was selected to match the 8.2 micron peak wavelength of black body radiation at 80°C [i.e. spectral radiance of about 0.02 W/(cm2)]. The charcoal’s pores holding the metal alloy are nominally 9 nm. IIRC, the source of Case's charcoal was coconut. The particular type of coconut was not stated and other sources of charcoal used in replication attempts did not work. At one time, coconuts were difficult to obtain and their source was frequently debated. TIC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIlW-ovx0Y
