Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Could we consider conversion of normal hydrogen orbitals to progressively smaller fractional values as a target for momentum sharing? I suspect h molecules opposes the motion between regions of different suppression geometry much more than h1 and may result in disassociation, like a Pd membrane, to get the atoms into the most confined spaces. When I first got interested in this effect I pictured the cavities like an ice packing plant powered by lock step motion in the motion to pump the orbitals down to progressively smaller orbitals and we still wonder if dihydrinos can hold their fractional value without the confinement or if they must immediately disassociate and return to normal hydrogen. Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:09:01 -0400 (EDT): Hi Dave, [snip] I agree with what you are saying, I'm just having a hard time making use of it to explain (the lack of) momentum sharing. >If you take an extreme example it makes the process clear. Suppose there >exists a large current loop located a mile away from an electron source. The >point where the electron exits the gun has a magnetic field that is measurable >arising from this source and at right angles to the path it will take. The >instant the electron leaves the source it become deflected by the magnetic >field that exists at that precise point in time. It does not have to wait >until its motion is detected at the loop to begin the curvature. > >In this case, the electron is subject to a right angle force immediately due >to the field being present and not after a few microseconds of delay. Notice >that there would be no deflection had there not been an existing magnetic >field. > >An electric field from a large charge at a mile would behave in a similar >manner. In that case, the electron would immediately begin accelerating >toward the positive charge source and actually gaining energy as well as >momentum. The field itself must be the source of the force being experienced >by the electron since the actual charge causing the field is not aware of the >existence of the electron for the same delay due to light having a finite >speed. > >I tend to think of these types of processes as being influenced by changes in >local time due to distance between objects. In this case the electron is >responding to the source fields associated with an earlier time of their >existence from the source frame point of view. From the electron's point of >view, it is responding to its real time environment. > >Dave > > >-Original Message- >From: mixent >To: vortex-l >Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT): >Hi, > >The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating >mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off" >with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else >(potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. > >We don't see this happen. > >>Robin, >> >> >>I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many >charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields >due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The >superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that >interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D >site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the >nearest ones would generally dominate. >> >> >>For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a >>moving >charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far off >source >of that field does not have to get information about the movement of that >particle before the force is felt. This type of thought fits into the concept >that local time is what counts for a reference frame. Distance makes the >local >times different between the "friend" nucleus and the interacting D's. >> >> >>If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the "friends" >nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required >for >light speed fields to reach them. After that period has elapsed, they would >be >subject to potentially large dynamic forces. >> >> >>Dave >[snip] >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I wrote: Another important parameter would be the energy. Perhaps if you multiplied > the normal d+d cross sections by the curve above you would get a suitable > function for σ(E,r). > I take that back. The distance parameter (r) already implicitly takes deuteron energy into account, since the deuterons require a lot of it to approach the nucleus to the distance of the palladium k-shell. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I wrote: It seems like the cross section would drop off with the square of the > distance from the spectator nucleus. Perhaps something like this: > > σ(r) = 1/(1 + A*r^2), > > where A is a constant that is empirically determined; e.g., > > http://i.imgur.com/eWu4K1i.jpg > Another important parameter would be the energy. Perhaps if you multiplied the normal d+d cross sections by the curve above you would get a suitable function for σ(E,r). Also, I seem to be treating σ as a 0-1 number probability, but I don't think that's how it generally is treated. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM, wrote: How far away does another nucleus have to be before the influence has > dwindled > to the point that it can no longer share in the momentum of the nuclear > reaction? > > According to Ron, a close nucleus can share, and according to you, one far > away > cannot. Where is the boundary line? > I see. We seem to need of an equation. ;) Here I am out of my depth, but I will improvise one, just for the fun of it. Since we're talking about the disposition of a quantum of energy, we're talking about a cross section. I'm going to assume that the quantum cannot be split between a gamma photon and kinetic energy -- the branching is an all or nothing thing. You get one of the usual branches, or you get the sharing of momentum. It is the probability of the sharing that we are concerned about. It seems like the cross section would drop off with the square of the distance from the spectator nucleus. Perhaps something like this: σ(r) = 1/(1 + A*r^2), where A is a constant that is empirically determined; e.g., http://i.imgur.com/eWu4K1i.jpg Since we're also assuming that the likelihood of the deuterons fusing is a function of their proximity to the nucleus, because of the delay in the rebounding time, perhaps the total cross section (purple line) would not be all that different from the cross section for the kinetic energy branch (blue line). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I understand what you mean Robin. It does seem strange that the force can originate in a field where the momentum must be shared. In the cases I used for my thought experiments the source is so far removed that it is apparent that the action occurs long before a signal can reach the source particles. We need to dig into this concept further to identify exactly how COM is achieved. In both of the cases the electron undergoes acceleration due to its interaction with the fields. This should result in the radiation of energy in the form of photons which also carry momentum. It is not obvious that the levels of radiation are adequate to complete the task, but they might be. If we extend the thought experiment by making the source have a larger magnitude at a longer distance resulting in the same field vector at the electron, then the momentum imparted upon the electron would be the same. This process can be extended indefinitely as the source of the field is moved further away and increased in magnitude with the same net effect upon the electron. The implication is that momentum must be shared with photons released by the accelerated electron. So, in the case being discussed, it seems that the friend nuclei would not actually be the thing sharing the interaction momentum and energy. This would seem to be true unless photons, in this case gammas, become directed toward the nearby nucleus and absorbed. Perhaps this is a consequence of a fusion reaction time frame that is extremely short. This is an interesting subject. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:09:01 -0400 (EDT): Hi Dave, [snip] I agree with what you are saying, I'm just having a hard time making use of it to explain (the lack of) momentum sharing. >If you take an extreme example it makes the process clear. Suppose there exists a large current loop located a mile away from an electron source. The point where the electron exits the gun has a magnetic field that is measurable arising from this source and at right angles to the path it will take. The instant the electron leaves the source it become deflected by the magnetic field that exists at that precise point in time. It does not have to wait until its motion is detected at the loop to begin the curvature. > >In this case, the electron is subject to a right angle force immediately due >to the field being present and not after a few microseconds of delay. Notice that there would be no deflection had there not been an existing magnetic field. > >An electric field from a large charge at a mile would behave in a similar manner. In that case, the electron would immediately begin accelerating toward the positive charge source and actually gaining energy as well as momentum. The field itself must be the source of the force being experienced by the electron since the actual charge causing the field is not aware of the existence of the electron for the same delay due to light having a finite speed. > >I tend to think of these types of processes as being influenced by changes in local time due to distance between objects. In this case the electron is responding to the source fields associated with an earlier time of their existence from the source frame point of view. From the electron's point of view, it is responding to its real time environment. > >Dave > > >-Original Message- >From: mixent >To: vortex-l >Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT): >Hi, > >The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating >mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off" >with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else >(potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. > >We don't see this happen. > >>Robin, >> >> >>I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many >charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields >due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The >superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that >interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D >site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the >nearest ones would generally dominate. >> >> >>For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a moving >charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far off source >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:09:01 -0400 (EDT): Hi Dave, [snip] I agree with what you are saying, I'm just having a hard time making use of it to explain (the lack of) momentum sharing. >If you take an extreme example it makes the process clear. Suppose there >exists a large current loop located a mile away from an electron source. The >point where the electron exits the gun has a magnetic field that is measurable >arising from this source and at right angles to the path it will take. The >instant the electron leaves the source it become deflected by the magnetic >field that exists at that precise point in time. It does not have to wait >until its motion is detected at the loop to begin the curvature. > >In this case, the electron is subject to a right angle force immediately due >to the field being present and not after a few microseconds of delay. Notice >that there would be no deflection had there not been an existing magnetic >field. > >An electric field from a large charge at a mile would behave in a similar >manner. In that case, the electron would immediately begin accelerating >toward the positive charge source and actually gaining energy as well as >momentum. The field itself must be the source of the force being experienced >by the electron since the actual charge causing the field is not aware of the >existence of the electron for the same delay due to light having a finite >speed. > >I tend to think of these types of processes as being influenced by changes in >local time due to distance between objects. In this case the electron is >responding to the source fields associated with an earlier time of their >existence from the source frame point of view. From the electron's point of >view, it is responding to its real time environment. > >Dave > > >-Original Message- >From: mixent >To: vortex-l >Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? > > >In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT): >Hi, > >The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating >mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off" >with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else >(potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. > >We don't see this happen. > >>Robin, >> >> >>I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many >charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields >due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The >superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that >interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D >site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the >nearest ones would generally dominate. >> >> >>For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a >>moving >charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far off >source >of that field does not have to get information about the movement of that >particle before the force is felt. This type of thought fits into the concept >that local time is what counts for a reference frame. Distance makes the >local >times different between the "friend" nucleus and the interacting D's. >> >> >>If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the "friends" >nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required >for >light speed fields to reach them. After that period has elapsed, they would >be >subject to potentially large dynamic forces. >> >> >>Dave >[snip] >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:05:24 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM, wrote: > >...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when >> not? >> How strong does the force have to be? >> >Maybe I'm misunderstanding a subtlety of your question. How far away does another nucleus have to be before the influence has dwindled to the point that it can no longer share in the momentum of the nuclear reaction? According to Ron, a close nucleus can share, and according to you, one far away cannot. Where is the boundary line? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
The blue light might not be coming from electrons orbiting a nucleus, but rather electrons caught in a soliton vortex. It seems to me that the determination of what is really causing the circular motion of the electrons is difficult to come up with. I wonder if such electrons orbiting in a vortex follow the same quantum rules as those that orbit an atom. * * On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > I wonder if the frequency of the light in the hot spot is about the same > as is seen in the deep blue light coming from *sonoluminescence.* > > I wonder if Miles has not guessed correctly at the proper source and cause > of the blue light. > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> Axil, I think the frequency of the light is a property of the >> fractional state but the plasmon resonance is causing larger and larger >> populations of fractional molecules to disassociate and recombine in the >> cavity, the end effect on measurement devices that average the spectrum >> from the bulk gas is to broaden the spectrum. >> >> Fran >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM >> *To:* vortex-l >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? >> >> ** ** >> >> *I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum >> reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to >> resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer.* >> >> >> >> The frequency of light in the hot spot is changed from infrared to the >> color blue in the range correspond to a blue spectral range with *hw* *≈ >> ** *3*.*13 eV. >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >> >> I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum >> reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to >> resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also >> wonder about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active >> environment. I am pretty sure we see only an average of the spectrum from >> the lattice and both sides of the active geometry - my posit is that >> fractional Rydberg h result in lower frequency while Rydberg h results in >> higher and that both can occur but the active geometry [cavity] favors >> fractional formations so I would expect to see the hydrogen spectrum >> broadened but more so on the low side. >> >> I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where >> f/h2 disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and >> that photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible >> for the spectrum spread claimed by Mills. I had a passing notion that the >> 20% metronome effect might even extend to favoring a specific pair of >> fractional states to oscillate between- the spectrum anomaly is caused by >> the slaved disassociations of fractional states and there may exist >> favored pairs. Does anyone know how consistent the Mill's claimed spectrum >> is? >> Fran >> >> >> >> ** ** >> > >
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Jones, I was speaking of IR affecting the Ni surface through the SS or Silicon Carbide tube - where the hi Q of the geometry could be slaved to PWM driving the heaters - counting on a weak Faraday reactor cage the plasmons would slowly synchronize like the metronome and then subsequently the fractional hydrogen states would also start to resonate as motion leads to change in geometry/casimir force.. I don't think redundant ground states are contained by the reactor - they are contained by the geometry and will cease to be redundant once the vacuum wavelength suppression [geometry] ceases to exist. I think this is why Mills can't show a hydrino - they only exist in situ and turn back into normal ground states as they exit the cavity. Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X > I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 > disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that > photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for the > spectrum spread ... This observation is interesting in the context of the HotCat and Casimir/plasmon effects on SiC, if I understand what you are suggesting with the molecular form (as opposed to other forms). We have mentioned several papers on plasmonics and SiC in the past: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1329919 ... but these studies usually involve nanoparticles of SiC, and the tube in the HotCat was simply said to be a generic carborundum tube. The leap of faith, therefore is that a typical SiC tube would have naturally occurring nanosized surface features, as the location where the Casimir-plasmonics effect could take place (when it is heated to an IR glow). In this version of events leading to gain, hydrogen embrittlement is not required. The (f/H)2 molecule would be the neutral fractional hydrogen molecule, as opposed to the atom or hydride. This species, even at the first redundancy level would have a reduced diameter but at the second level the species is difficult to contain by any non-magnetic material, since the volume is reduced by a factor of 27:1 over the normal hydrogen molecule. The grade of stainless being used in the HotCat is non-magnetic. Thus - if one wanted to invent a way to slowly release an active dense isomer of hydrogen as the fuel, then there is no better way than to seal up a metal hydride in a non-magnetic stainless steel tube, along with a Mills' catalyst and heat it until a population of f/H forms and is reduced to the (f/H)2 molecule. This could take many days to "prime" and once the (f/H)2 molecule forms it should be used immediately, or it will escape. If you are lucky, or inspired, in the design choices - and your (f/H)2 molecule forms slowly but preferentially at a regular rate, then it would disperse through the walls of the tube and interact with plasmon on the interface. If the interfacial layer between the stainless tube and the carborundum is plasmonic, with the very high electric fields, then the fields will capture and hold the (f/H)2 molecule in place for further reactivity. That reactivity could include the Storms hypothesis of fusion to deuterium, aided by the extreme electric field of the plasmon/polaritons; or it could include further levels of Mills' electron redundancy; or it could include RPF - reversible proton fusion; or several other forms of gain, OR any combination of these operating together. Jones
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I wonder if the frequency of the light in the hot spot is about the same as is seen in the deep blue light coming from *sonoluminescence.* I wonder if Miles has not guessed correctly at the proper source and cause of the blue light. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Axil, I think the frequency of the light is a property of the fractional > state but the plasmon resonance is causing larger and larger populations of > fractional molecules to disassociate and recombine in the cavity, the end > effect on measurement devices that average the spectrum from the bulk gas > is to broaden the spectrum. > > Fran > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? > > ** ** > > *I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum > reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to > resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer.* > > > > The frequency of light in the hot spot is changed from infrared to the > color blue in the range correspond to a blue spectral range with *hw* *≈* > * *3*.*13 eV. > > ** ** > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > > I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum > reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to > resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also > wonder about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active > environment. I am pretty sure we see only an average of the spectrum from > the lattice and both sides of the active geometry - my posit is that > fractional Rydberg h result in lower frequency while Rydberg h results in > higher and that both can occur but the active geometry [cavity] favors > fractional formations so I would expect to see the hydrogen spectrum > broadened but more so on the low side. > > I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 > disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that > photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for > the spectrum spread claimed by Mills. I had a passing notion that the 20% > metronome effect might even extend to favoring a specific pair of > fractional states to oscillate between- the spectrum anomaly is caused by > the slaved disassociations of fractional states and there may exist > favored pairs. Does anyone know how consistent the Mill's claimed spectrum > is? > Fran > > > > ** ** >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I have a strong suspicion that the plasmon resonances can be tuned by the surface features. There also may be interactions with the underlying atoms of the surface as well since atom resonances possess very high frequency stability and "Q". We may discover that real magic occurs when the two types of resonances couple strongly due to incidental surface features such as holes and projections. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jun 24, 2013 1:07 pm Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? Axil, I think the frequency of the light is a property of the fractional state but the plasmon resonance is causing larger and larger populations of fractional molecules to disassociate and recombine in the cavity, the end effect on measurement devices that average the spectrum from the bulk gas is to broaden the spectrum. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. The frequency of light in the hot spot is changed from infrared to the color blue in the range correspond to a blue spectral range withhw ≈3.13 eV. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also wonder about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active environment. I am pretty sure we see only an average of the spectrum from the lattice and both sides of the active geometry - my posit is that fractional Rydberg h result in lower frequency while Rydberg h results in higher and that both can occur but the active geometry [cavity] favors fractional formations so I would expect to see the hydrogen spectrum broadened but more so on the low side. I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for the spectrum spread claimed by Mills. I had a passing notion that the 20% metronome effect might even extend to favoring a specific pair of fractional states to oscillate between- the spectrum anomaly is caused by the slaved disassociations of fractional states and there may exist favored pairs. Does anyone know how consistent the Mill's claimed spectrum is? Fran
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Axil, I think the frequency of the light is a property of the fractional state but the plasmon resonance is causing larger and larger populations of fractional molecules to disassociate and recombine in the cavity, the end effect on measurement devices that average the spectrum from the bulk gas is to broaden the spectrum. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:52 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. The frequency of light in the hot spot is changed from infrared to the color blue in the range correspond to a blue spectral range with hw ≈ 3.13 eV. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also wonder about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active environment. I am pretty sure we see only an average of the spectrum from the lattice and both sides of the active geometry - my posit is that fractional Rydberg h result in lower frequency while Rydberg h results in higher and that both can occur but the active geometry [cavity] favors fractional formations so I would expect to see the hydrogen spectrum broadened but more so on the low side. I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for the spectrum spread claimed by Mills. I had a passing notion that the 20% metronome effect might even extend to favoring a specific pair of fractional states to oscillate between- the spectrum anomaly is caused by the slaved disassociations of fractional states and there may exist favored pairs. Does anyone know how consistent the Mill's claimed spectrum is? Fran
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
*I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer.* The frequency of light in the hot spot is changed from infrared to the color blue in the range correspond to a blue spectral range with *hw* *≈ *3 *.*13 eV. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum > reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to > resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also > wonder about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active > environment. I am pretty sure we see only an average of the spectrum from > the lattice and both sides of the active geometry - my posit is that > fractional Rydberg h result in lower frequency while Rydberg h results in > higher and that both can occur but the active geometry [cavity] favors > fractional formations so I would expect to see the hydrogen spectrum > broadened but more so on the low side. > > I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 > disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that > photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for > the spectrum spread claimed by Mills. I had a passing notion that the 20% > metronome effect might even extend to favoring a specific pair of > fractional states to oscillate between- the spectrum anomaly is caused by > the slaved disassociations of fractional states and there may exist > favored pairs. Does anyone know how consistent the Mill's claimed spectrum > is? > Fran > > >
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
-Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X > I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for the spectrum spread ... This observation is interesting in the context of the HotCat and Casimir/plasmon effects on SiC, if I understand what you are suggesting with the molecular form (as opposed to other forms). We have mentioned several papers on plasmonics and SiC in the past: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1329919 ... but these studies usually involve nanoparticles of SiC, and the tube in the HotCat was simply said to be a generic carborundum tube. The leap of faith, therefore is that a typical SiC tube would have naturally occurring nanosized surface features, as the location where the Casimir-plasmonics effect could take place (when it is heated to an IR glow). In this version of events leading to gain, hydrogen embrittlement is not required. The (f/H)2 molecule would be the neutral fractional hydrogen molecule, as opposed to the atom or hydride. This species, even at the first redundancy level would have a reduced diameter but at the second level the species is difficult to contain by any non-magnetic material, since the volume is reduced by a factor of 27:1 over the normal hydrogen molecule. The grade of stainless being used in the HotCat is non-magnetic. Thus - if one wanted to invent a way to slowly release an active dense isomer of hydrogen as the fuel, then there is no better way than to seal up a metal hydride in a non-magnetic stainless steel tube, along with a Mills' catalyst and heat it until a population of f/H forms and is reduced to the (f/H)2 molecule. This could take many days to "prime" and once the (f/H)2 molecule forms it should be used immediately, or it will escape. If you are lucky, or inspired, in the design choices - and your (f/H)2 molecule forms slowly but preferentially at a regular rate, then it would disperse through the walls of the tube and interact with plasmon on the interface. If the interfacial layer between the stainless tube and the carborundum is plasmonic, with the very high electric fields, then the fields will capture and hold the (f/H)2 molecule in place for further reactivity. That reactivity could include the Storms hypothesis of fusion to deuterium, aided by the extreme electric field of the plasmon/polaritons; or it could include further levels of Mills' electron redundancy; or it could include RPF - reversible proton fusion; or several other forms of gain, OR any combination of these operating together. Jones <>
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I know the resistive IR is much lower than the anomalous spectrum reported by Mills but if it causes the plasmons in the active material to resonate at a higher harmonic this would bring it much closer. I also wonder about the applicability of spectrum measurements to the active environment. I am pretty sure we see only an average of the spectrum from the lattice and both sides of the active geometry - my posit is that fractional Rydberg h result in lower frequency while Rydberg h results in higher and that both can occur but the active geometry [cavity] favors fractional formations so I would expect to see the hydrogen spectrum broadened but more so on the low side. I also wonder if resonance can occur between fractional states where f/h2 disassociates and recombines in synch with the plasmon resonance and that photons emitted from these fractional state hydrogen is responsible for the spectrum spread claimed by Mills. I had a passing notion that the 20% metronome effect might even extend to favoring a specific pair of fractional states to oscillate between- the spectrum anomaly is caused by the slaved disassociations of fractional states and there may exist favored pairs. Does anyone know how consistent the Mill's claimed spectrum is? Fran
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
If you take an extreme example it makes the process clear. Suppose there exists a large current loop located a mile away from an electron source. The point where the electron exits the gun has a magnetic field that is measurable arising from this source and at right angles to the path it will take. The instant the electron leaves the source it become deflected by the magnetic field that exists at that precise point in time. It does not have to wait until its motion is detected at the loop to begin the curvature. In this case, the electron is subject to a right angle force immediately due to the field being present and not after a few microseconds of delay. Notice that there would be no deflection had there not been an existing magnetic field. An electric field from a large charge at a mile would behave in a similar manner. In that case, the electron would immediately begin accelerating toward the positive charge source and actually gaining energy as well as momentum. The field itself must be the source of the force being experienced by the electron since the actual charge causing the field is not aware of the existence of the electron for the same delay due to light having a finite speed. I tend to think of these types of processes as being influenced by changes in local time due to distance between objects. In this case the electron is responding to the source fields associated with an earlier time of their existence from the source frame point of view. From the electron's point of view, it is responding to its real time environment. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 6:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT): Hi, The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off" with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else (potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. We don't see this happen. >Robin, > > >I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the nearest ones would generally dominate. > > >For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a >moving charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far off source of that field does not have to get information about the movement of that particle before the force is felt. This type of thought fits into the concept that local time is what counts for a reference frame. Distance makes the local times different between the "friend" nucleus and the interacting D's. > > >If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the "friends" nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required for light speed fields to reach them. After that period has elapsed, they would be subject to potentially large dynamic forces. > > >Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM, wrote: ...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when > not? > How strong does the force have to be? > I think it would be analogous to the pull of gravity by the sun on the earth, except in the opposite direction (a repelling force rather than an attractive force). Suppose the sun went supernova (for some unclear reason). My understanding is that earth would happily continue in its present orbit for 8 minutes and 20 seconds before taking into account that something bad has happened. So the boundary conditions would be something like this -- the geometry of the effect of the nucleus on the nuclear reaction underway would be the same as in the current calculations; i.e., a far-away nucleus would have a vanishingly trivial influence. Only the dimension of time would be relevant. If the nucleus was in the same location at some point prior to the reaction, and then for some reason disappeared, it would take the amount of time required for the travel of the speed of light before the effect would be felt by a series of fusion reactions. The earlier ones in the series would take the nucleus into account and the later ones would not. More likely, the nucleus would not disappear in a puff of smoke, and you would just get a "smearing" effect within the dimension of time of the influence of the nucleus that was for all practical intents indistinguishable from an instantaneous influence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding a subtlety of your question. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:36:17 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, wrote: > >The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating >> mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking >> off" >> with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else >> (potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. >> >> We don't see this happen. >> > >What about when Coulomb's law and a resulting drop-off in electrostatic >influence on the basis of distance is factored in? In that case I wouldn't >you see the usual d+d branches (e.g., t+p)? ...so what is the boundary condition? I.e. when does it happen, and when not? How strong does the force have to be? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:30 PM, wrote: The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating > mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking > off" > with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else > (potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. > > We don't see this happen. > What about when Coulomb's law and a resulting drop-off in electrostatic influence on the basis of distance is factored in? In that case I wouldn't you see the usual d+d branches (e.g., t+p)? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: If this is the idea, then it is useless out of the box. First of all, > X-rays are not normally applied, yet LENR occurs. > There is at least one other pathway by which the reaction can get started -- since Ron's mechanism is thought to be sustained by energetic alpha particles exciting k-shell levels in palladium atoms, it could be initiated by the alpha decay of a radioactive impurity atom in the lattice. This is just one example; there are no doubt many other pathways by which to achieve the same effect. I think you have more work to do to establish that the idea is useless on this particular basis. > Second, when X-rays have been applied to all kinds of materials, including > PdD, NO LENR is observed. > I would be very interested in any references to experiments in which 20+ keV x-rays were applied to loaded palladium deuteride. When high energy IS applied by ion bombardment, the result is HOT FUSION > not COLD FUSION. > There is obviously experimental evidence for the hot fusion branches in the ion beam experiments (e.g., branches leading to n, t and 3He daughters). But I think it is an assumption that only these branches are seen during ion bombardment and that LENR is not also taking place. This assumption could be mistaken. Cold fusion will occur without any energy being applied and become more > intense if applied energy is increased. Therefore, LENR is not started by > any applied energy other than normal temperature or small chemical effects. > Furthermore, this process simply CAN NOT occur in a normal material. Ron > ignores this fact. > None of these statements conflict with Ron's theory, except perhaps the very last two, which appear to import assumptions relating to Gibbs free energy and the establishment of an NAE, and so on, which are your ideas. They are no doubt very useful ideas, but I have yet to be convinced that they are hard and fast requirements in view of what might be different behavior in some gas phase experiments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:37:39 -0400 (EDT): Hi, The problem I have with this is that it would allow any energy liberating mechanism (even chemical reactions) to result in a particle simply "taking off" with the momentum later to be passed to some other particle somewhere else (potentially anywhere), after light has had a chance to reach it. We don't see this happen. >Robin, > > >I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many >charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields >due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The >superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that >interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D >site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the >nearest ones would generally dominate. > > >For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a >moving charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far >off source of that field does not have to get information about the movement >of that particle before the force is felt. This type of thought fits into the >concept that local time is what counts for a reference frame. Distance makes >the local times different between the "friend" nucleus and the interacting D's. > > >If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the "friends" >nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required >for light speed fields to reach them. After that period has elapsed, they >would be subject to potentially large dynamic forces. > > >Dave [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:15:27 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >OK Einstein. Sorry, I mean Robin. ;) I am on the fence about this one as >well, but there are many claims that it has been shown true. I guess >everything boils down to trust. > > >Dave I have yet to see a single entanglement experiment that can't be explained by assuming that the entities involved, simply "remember" the correlation they acquired when they were "entangled". Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a critique is difficult. The problem is made worse when the description is second hand. Many statements made in the first paragraph have no relationship to observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and collectively make the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to discuss his ideas, he publish them in a paper where they can be studied and evaluated, after which we can discuss what he means. If he has published a paper, please send it to me. Ron has only himself to blame for not writing up his thoughts in a paper that goes beyond the long physics.stackexchange.com post that he posted. But he did not ask me to be the unofficial booster for his theory on this list; I assumed that role voluntarily. Any errors in the discussion of it are mine. I personally do not care all that much about the completeness or polish of the presentation of idea -- obviously, a nice, professional presentation is desirable. But it's hardly a requirement, since truth can be lying anywhere, even in the remarks of someone who knows very little about a subject (which is not at all the case with Ron). That is were we differ, Eric. A well thought out paper is essential because otherwise a person can not know what is being claimed. Too often the ideas are simply word salads and make no sense. As for knowledge, are you suggesting that a person who has no knowledge about, say genetic theory, might actually suggest a useful idea to an expert? I find this possibility so unlikely that it should be treated the same way winning the lottery would be treated. Yes, someone will win, but I would not bet the farm or even a buck. My hunch is that the physics establishment failed to look into cold fusion largely for this reason -- it was not packaged in the way that they wanted, and the presentation of the evidence for the anomaly did not go through the proper channels. As a consequence, the delay in looking into it has been there loss, and ours as well. NO Eric. The physics community looked into CF very carefully. But when it failed to be replicated by the right people and the hot fusion people realized the threat, they came out strong against the idea. This reaction was not based on trivial marketing. It was based on well understood and rational self-interest. Most physicists are not fools. They know what will advance their careers and what will not. That self interest still stops support even though the experimental support is overwhelming. Now, most skepticism is driven by ignorance. There are few arbitrary ideas in Ron's theory, as far as I can tell. There are gaps that must be filled, but that's the nature of a theory in progress. One would prefer that there be gaps than that there be mistaken ideas that will derail further exploration of a possibility. I believe that one idea that is likely to be mistaken and that thereby risks derailing further exploration is that you can have a gradual release of mass-energy from a nuclear reaction -- when presented with evidence that leads to this hypothesis, I think one should first look at whether one's interpretation of the evidence might not be mistaken before coming back to it. This is what I'm trying to do. I have explained how this slow release works. My explanation is different from Ron's and from the many other efforts to explain the same thing. Each method has its limitations, mine included. We have to choose a method that has the fewest limitations and does not conflict with well understood behavior. Ron does not do this. His mechanism is filled with conflicts- too many for me to spend time describing. I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on Vortex. This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide variety of conditions. The description Ron gives (through you) simply does not fit with what I know to be true. For example, atoms DO NOT spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in normal material. I think you've misunderstood the hypothesis. Ron is not suggesting that atoms spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction. He posits an effect, similar to the Auger process, in which an incoming x-ray will lead to an impulse (~20 keV) being delivered to a nearby deuterium nucleus through the mediation of a palladium atom. If this is the idea, then it is useless out of the box. First of all, X-rays are not normally applied, yet LENR occurs. Second, when X-rays have been applied to all kinds of materials, including PdD, NO LENR is observed. When high energy IS applied by ion bombardment, the result is HOT FUSION not COLD FUSION. Cold fusion will occ
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Robin, I do not see a problem with what Eric is suggesting. Regardless of how many charges and moving charges reside in the universe, only the net vector fields due to all of them is present at the location of the D reactions. The superposition of all of the individual fields results in one final value that interacts. The various vectors of the total could arise far away from the D site, but their levels would drop off very fast with distance so only the nearest ones would generally dominate. For example, the total magnetic field vector at a point determines how a moving charged particle's path is curved at that point. The potentially far off source of that field does not have to get information about the movement of that particle before the force is felt. This type of thought fits into the concept that local time is what counts for a reference frame. Distance makes the local times different between the "friend" nucleus and the interacting D's. If you follow up on the momentum and energy pulses detected by the "friends" nearby, then they would not see any reaction forces until the time required for light speed fields to reach them. After that period has elapsed, they would be subject to potentially large dynamic forces. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:09:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of >nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster >than light in a sense. Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron >resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches. Suppose that >t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the >interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the >nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance. At that point in time >there will still be an "image" of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time >t' in the background. I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will >interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not >matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction >started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over >time and does not changing much. > >So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching >towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing >off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction? > >Eric What you are essentially saying is that momentum is exchanged with the field, rather than the particle itself. My initial reaction to this was to agree, however I am left wondering. There are always fields of all particles in the universe present at every point in the universe, so if such interaction were possible, then wouldn't it completely alter what we understand as Newton's laws? (or just explain them?) I suspect that your model would make it possible to "push off" against the entire universe, which clearly doesn't happen in reality, or we would never see the T / 3He reaction at all. I think that if you are correct, then the strength of the interaction must depend on the distance, as in Coulomb's law. BTW I think what you are talking about is the basis of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary ideas > without any connection to what is known that even starting a critique is > difficult. The problem is made worse when the description is second hand. > Many statements made in the first paragraph have no relationship to > observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and collectively make > the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to discuss his ideas, he > publish them in a paper where they can be studied and evaluated, after > which we can discuss what he means. If he has published a paper, please > send it to me. Ron has only himself to blame for not writing up his thoughts in a paper that goes beyond the long physics.stackexchange.com post that he posted. But he did not ask me to be the unofficial booster for his theory on this list; I assumed that role voluntarily. Any errors in the discussion of it are mine. I personally do not care all that much about the completeness or polish of the presentation of idea -- obviously, a nice, professional presentation is desirable. But it's hardly a requirement, since truth can be lying anywhere, even in the remarks of someone who knows very little about a subject (which is not at all the case with Ron). My hunch is that the physics establishment failed to look into cold fusion largely for this reason -- it was not packaged in the way that they wanted, and the presentation of the evidence for the anomaly did not go through the proper channels. As a consequence, the delay in looking into it has been there loss, and ours as well. There are few arbitrary ideas in Ron's theory, as far as I can tell. There are gaps that must be filled, but that's the nature of a theory in progress. One would prefer that there be gaps than that there be mistaken ideas that will derail further exploration of a possibility. I believe that one idea that is likely to be mistaken and that thereby risks derailing further exploration is that you can have a gradual release of mass-energy from a nuclear reaction -- when presented with evidence that leads to this hypothesis, I think one should first look at whether one's interpretation of the evidence might not be mistaken before coming back to it. This is what I'm trying to do. I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on Vortex. > This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide variety of > conditions. The description Ron gives (through you) simply does not fit > with what I know to be true. For example, atoms DO NOT spontaneously > initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in normal material. > I think you've misunderstood the hypothesis. Ron is not suggesting that atoms spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction. He posits an effect, similar to the Auger process, in which an incoming x-ray will lead to an impulse (~20 keV) being delivered to a nearby deuterium nucleus through the mediation of a palladium atom. This sets the deuterium nucleus on its way and leads to the other things that have been discussed. It is not difficult to imagine that there are plenty of x-rays of sufficient energy to kick off such events, whether coming from cosmic rays or from other noise in the background. The larger concept is that a palladium lattice is could be a lot like a pinball machine -- it is easy for the deuterium nuclei within it to be bounced around and approach lattice sites. Robin has clarified that because it takes time for the deuterons to rebound, there is an enhanced probability that they will overlap. All of this sounds pretty reasonable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
OK Einstein. Sorry, I mean Robin. ;) I am on the fence about this one as well, but there are many claims that it has been shown true. I guess everything boils down to trust. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving >many protons. These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as important. > > >Dave As I have already mentioned a few times, I don't believe is spooky action at a distance. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 00:25:43 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Very interesting. Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another >at 100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus. Something >tells me that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a >sufficient spread in the probability distribution of the reaction times to >make fusion non-negligible? > >Eric The light travel time for 100 Fermi is 3E-22 sec., which may be ok. (The figure of 1E-23 I mentioned before is a bit rubbery.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:59:23 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving >many protons. These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have >seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as important. > > >Dave As I have already mentioned a few times, I don't believe is spooky action at a distance. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:09:38 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of >nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster >than light in a sense. Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron >resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches. Suppose that >t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the >interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the >nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance. At that point in time >there will still be an "image" of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time >t' in the background. I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will >interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not >matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction >started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over >time and does not changing much. > >So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching >towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing >off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction? > >Eric What you are essentially saying is that momentum is exchanged with the field, rather than the particle itself. My initial reaction to this was to agree, however I am left wondering. There are always fields of all particles in the universe present at every point in the universe, so if such interaction were possible, then wouldn't it completely alter what we understand as Newton's laws? (or just explain them?) I suspect that your model would make it possible to "push off" against the entire universe, which clearly doesn't happen in reality, or we would never see the T / 3He reaction at all. I think that if you are correct, then the strength of the interaction must depend on the distance, as in Coulomb's law. BTW I think what you are talking about is the basis of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, David Roberson wrote: The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving > many protons. These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have > seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as > important. Now that I've argued myself into a faster-than-light electrostatic influence of nearby nuclei (I'm hoping Robin will show me my error if I'm wrong), it seems like there are at least two questions to be addressed in connection with distributing the electrostatic impulse across multiple nuclei, in contrast to requiring that it be limited to a single nucleus that is very close at hand: 1. Can a quantum of mass-energy be dumped instantaneously into multiple recipients, or must it be restricted to a single recipient (e.g., a single proton in a nearby nucleus)? 2. Does the influence of nearby nuclei reach far enough to influence a reaction underway, or does some kind of inverse square law effectively limit the influence of the electrostatic force to a single nucleus that is very close by? Being new to nuclear physics, I can ask these questions without feeling embarrassed or self-conscious. Perhaps you are arguing for an electrostatic analog of the Mossbauer affect? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Eric, that is an interesting way to consider the interaction. I think that your "ghost friend" could emit a magnetic or electric field that interacts at the location of the two D's in their local time. Any movement of a charged particle would be effected in that time frame and there would be no need to wait for a new response from the originating source. So, I agree with your statement. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 3:10 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote: In short, in order to make a difference, the "helping-hand" already needs to be "at hand" before the reaction begins. (unless momentum can be "tunneled", and the tunneling process itself is inherently FTL). Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster than light in a sense. Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches. Suppose that t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance. At that point in time there will still be an "image" of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time t' in the background. I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over time and does not changing much. So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote: In short, in order to make a difference, the "helping-hand" already needs > to be > "at hand" before the reaction begins. > > (unless momentum can be "tunneled", and the tunneling process itself is > inherently FTL). > Thinking about this a little more, I want to argue that the influence of nearby nuclei on a nuclear reaction that is underway is inherently faster than light in a sense. Consider a point in time t, at which a two-deuteron resonance is about to decay into one of the various branches. Suppose that t+dt is a point later in time, at which the decay will occur, and that the interval is shorter than the time required for light to travel from the nucleus to the unstable two-deuteron resonance. At that point in time there will still be an "image" of the nearby nucleus at some earlier time t' in the background. I'm guessing that the two-deuteron resonance will interact electrostatically with that earlier image and that it does not matter that the influence does not originate at time t, when the reaction started, as we are considering a force that is relatively constant over time and does not changing much. So I suppose this implies that the two-deuteron resonance, in branching towards kinetic energy for the 4He and the palladium nucleus, is pushing off of the ghost image of a nucleus that preceded the start of the reaction? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Jones, I believe most of the Sun's energy is expelled as ZPE making up our quantum gravity field. It is decaying on the way to Earth. I believe Roarty is correct. These energetic particles are in our jet streams and create our weather. They pull a vacuum and condense water vapor in our atmosphere. The Sun is a particle collider and collapser. It is the 95% dark energy and it is orbiting through and around us. Spacetime around the sun is not just warped, it is also collapsed around these particles in the solar wind. Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Terry Blanton > > > Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in > QM > > tunneling. > > Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF. > > > Roarty does this. And every so often, it is worth dredging up the RPF > hypothesis - Reversible Proton Fusion which can be made compatible with ZPE > as the energy source. > > This route to gain would consume no hydrogen, produce no radioactivity, and > could be compatible with a ZPE portal to mass-energy transfer. However, > doing so would imply that much of our Sun's output is related to ZPE as > well, since the RPF is the most common reaction on the Sun by far. > > The gain in RPF has been attributed to QCD mass-to-energy conversion via > magnon coupling (color change) of excess proton mass - in that fraction of > protons which is heavier than average. However, this mass depletion in > protons could be regained by ZPE exposure in a similar way Puthoff > suggests. > > Jones > > > >
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton > Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in QM > tunneling. Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF. Roarty does this. And every so often, it is worth dredging up the RPF hypothesis - Reversible Proton Fusion which can be made compatible with ZPE as the energy source. This route to gain would consume no hydrogen, produce no radioactivity, and could be compatible with a ZPE portal to mass-energy transfer. However, doing so would imply that much of our Sun's output is related to ZPE as well, since the RPF is the most common reaction on the Sun by far. The gain in RPF has been attributed to QCD mass-to-energy conversion via magnon coupling (color change) of excess proton mass - in that fraction of protons which is heavier than average. However, this mass depletion in protons could be regained by ZPE exposure in a similar way Puthoff suggests. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Eric, some theories, including Ron's, are so filled with arbitrary ideas without any connection to what is known that even starting a critique is difficult. The problem is made worse when the description is second hand. Many statements made in the first paragraph have no relationship to observed behavior. Consequently, they individually and collectively make the basic idea useless. I suggest if Ron wants to discuss his ideas, he publish them in a paper where they can be studied and evaluated, after which we can discuss what he means. If he has published a paper, please send it to me. I clearly have a different view of reality than many people here on Vortex. This is based on observing how materials behave under a wide variety of conditions. The description Ron gives (through you) simply does not fit with what I know to be true. For example, atoms DO NOT spontaneously initiate a nuclear reaction of any kind in normal material. Therefore, "the close proximity" in a lattice is irrelevant and starting with such an assumption is useless. Anything assumed after this initial assumption is made has no relationship to reality. You (Ron) need to start with an assumption that fits what is known. This is like starting with the assumption that the earth is flat and then proceed to explain earthquakes. Nothing after the original assumption would be real no matter how cleverly stated. Ed On Jun 22, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Eric Walker wrote: Ed, these are very good questions. At the risk of reiterating points made in older threads, I'll attempt to address each question as I am able. On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without particles being emitted? It's not my theory -- it's Ron Maimon's. He's saying that in a Pd/D system, specifically, there is a set of conditions in which two deuterons will approach a palladium nucleus simultaneously. The close proximity of the deuterons to the palladium nucleus will have two effects. The first effect is to "focus" their de Broglie waves in a way that will make it more likely for them to overlap. The second effect is to cause the d+d→4He+Q branch to become much preferred over the d(d,p)t and d(d,n)3He branches seen in plasma fusion. The reason it becomes preferred is that the "Q" is dumped as an electrostatic impulse that is shared between the daughter 4He and spectator palladium nucleus once the metastable [4He]* transitions to ground, rather than being emitted as a gamma ray. Electrostatic dumping happens quickly, and hence is more probable, while the emission of a photon takes a long time. This electrostatic dumping of the energy translates into kinetic energy, as might happen with an Auger electron in other contexts. The reason the other two d+d branches are competitively disfavored, as far as I can tell, is that the modified d(d,Q)4He branch becomes all the more likely. The reason it becomes very likely is that there are 46 protons in the palladium nucleus with which to interact via the electrostatic force. Ron talks about the Pd/D system, and I have graciously borrowed his ideas and attempted to apply them to other systems such as Ni/H. This account does imply the emission of particles. So an important question is under what conditions they are produced and whether we have done adequate work in ruling out prompt radiation when excess heat is underway. There are plenty of experiments showing only marginal levels of prompt radiation emerging from the substrate. There are paltry few experiments, as far as I can tell, showing that when there is excess heat there is no prompt radiation taking place at some depth within the substrate. How is momentum conserved? The momentum of a fusion reaction is shared between the daughter or daughters and the metal spectator nucleus. So in branches where a photon would normally be emitted, there is instead recoil of the metastable daughter during the transition to ground and no need for photon emission. Kinetic energy is defined as something moving with a velocity. How is this velocity created from initially still objects while momentum is conserved. In the case of Pd/D, this is understood to happen electrostatically with the decay of the metastable [4He]* daughter. The 4He is pushed off of the nearby palladium nucleus, like a bullet from the back of the chamber of a rifle. Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What rule makes this the easiest way? I'm not sure. This is one of the many questions I have. I have been trying to understand the system sufficiently to gain insight into these questions, but it's been a slow learning process. Just to anticipate an objection that this account implies energetic particles, and energetic particles and their side effects are not seen, I s
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
The other option that looks promising is for an entangled effect involving many protons. These couplings are instantaneous according to what I have seen, in which case the exact distance to a brother is not quite as important. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 3:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote: Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1 Angstrom. It takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance. Typical nuclear reaction times are order 1E-23 seconds. I.e. 3 times faster. In short, long before another atom at normal distances could help out (or even knew his brother was in trouble), either T or 3He would have been the result of D-D fusion. Very interesting. Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another at 100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus. Something tells me that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a sufficient spread in the probability distribution of the reaction times to make fusion non-negligible? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, wrote: Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1 > Angstrom. It > takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance. > Typical nuclear reaction times are order 1E-23 seconds. I.e. 3 times > faster. > In short, long before another atom at normal distances could help out (or > even > knew his brother was in trouble), either T or 3He would have been the > result of > D-D fusion. > Very interesting. Maimon proposes that the two d's encounter one another at 100 fermis (0.001 angstroms) from the palladium nucleus. Something tells me that is not close enough given this ratio; perhaps there's a sufficient spread in the probability distribution of the reaction times to make fusion non-negligible? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Nothing gets used; but, it gets cold somewhere. :-) 10^500 locations here: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/is-nature-unnatural/ :-) Then there's PAM Dirac to consider. Although, it could cause a retraction of Feynman's Nobel. ;)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:49 AM, wrote: > Actually it reminds me more of Fran's theory than Mills. However the H > wouldn't > get used up at all. That might be something to keep an eye on. Yeah, I love Fran's theory; but, it takes me a while to incorporate the relativistic effects being of simple mind. Nothing gets used; but, it gets cold somewhere. :-)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 23 Jun 2013 01:41:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] >On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote: >> I suspect that most of the people believe in COE which excludes any free >> energy from ZPF. Maybe one day someone will come up with proof that ZPF can >> be practically utilized, but until that time I will abide by COE. > >I have yet to see any refutation of: > >http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf > >Granted, Puthoff's paper is based on the Bohr model, however, that >only simplifies the complexity of the math. My conjecture minimizes >entities by stating that the hydrogen atom in a NAE experiences >distortion of the orbital field which causes additional drawing of >energy from the ZPF. Upon exiting the NAE influence, the electron >then radiates the energy upon restoration of the electron orbit to an >undistorted state. It's not totally unlike Randell's theory of >fractional states. > >Silly but extremely simple. Actually it reminds me more of Fran's theory than Mills. However the H wouldn't get used up at all. That might be something to keep an eye on. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Silly but extremely simple. Just want to add that the pulsing of energy and the mertranome principles also apply here; but, I don't always understand my "inspirations". :-)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:22:23 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >The fact that T and He3 are typical for the hot reaction and that there is >much space between reacting bodies tends to support the case that I am >floating. In LENR, there are always nearby bodies to share with. Typical separation distances within a lattice are on the order of 1 Angstrom. It takes light 3E-19 seconds to travel this distance. Typical nuclear reaction times are order 1E-23 seconds. I.e. 3 times faster. In short, long before another atom at normal distances could help out (or even knew his brother was in trouble), either T or 3He would have been the result of D-D fusion. In short, in order to make a difference, the "helping-hand" already needs to be "at hand" before the reaction begins. (unless momentum can be "tunneled", and the tunneling process itself is inherently FTL). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 12:46 AM, David Roberson wrote: > I suspect that most of the people believe in COE which excludes any free > energy from ZPF. Maybe one day someone will come up with proof that ZPF can > be practically utilized, but until that time I will abide by COE. I have yet to see any refutation of: http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRDv35_3266.pdf Granted, Puthoff's paper is based on the Bohr model, however, that only simplifies the complexity of the math. My conjecture minimizes entities by stating that the hydrogen atom in a NAE experiences distortion of the orbital field which causes additional drawing of energy from the ZPF. Upon exiting the NAE influence, the electron then radiates the energy upon restoration of the electron orbit to an undistorted state. It's not totally unlike Randell's theory of fractional states. Silly but extremely simple.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:47:15 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >Apparently a HotCat whichmay be more efficient - at a kW output with only 5 >grams of hydrogen availablein a sealed capsule could not run for over 30 hours >unless it was better thanthe 200:1. 30*kWh/5*mole (atoms) = 224 eV each. Which is approx. what Mills says. Note however that 200 eV is nowhere near the limit for Hydrinos, which can in theory deliver up to 255 keV each (i.e. up to a 1000 times more than required). This is without counting any fusion energy. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I suspect that most of the people believe in COE which excludes any free energy from ZPF. Maybe one day someone will come up with proof that ZPF can be practically utilized, but until that time I will abide by COE. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 23, 2013 12:41 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in QM > tunneling. Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in QM > tunneling. Interesting that almost no one attributes the energy to the ZPF.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Dave, Over the years - Robin, myself and a few others who regularly post here – although not being completely taken-in by Mills theory due to promises which are unfulfilled - yet in awe of what he has accomplished on paper (compared to others) and in the Lab – have suggested that the redundant ground-state is the one key concept which makes eventual fusion, or some other nuclear reaction, far more likely to happen statistically. Thus - it is really a matter of relative contribution, and “what happens after the redundancy.” Everything in LENR seems to begin with ground-state redundancy and end in QM tunneling. From: David Roberson Jones, thanks for taking the time to perform the calculation. Even though it is a back of the envelope attempt, I think you have answered the question. Subject to revision, it appears that fusion must be taking place in Rossi's device in order for it to operate for as long as he specifies. Actually I am relieved at this result since I am not convinced that hydrinos are real. Maybe one day I will come to accept them, but my hard head needs a large drill to penetrate. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I am not sure what life time limits are placed upon isomers. In this case I feel that a process which keeps energy stored in an excited nucleus for enough time to allow it to drain off instead of blowing the atom apart is special. My understanding is that most of these nuclear processes are reversible and that the only way to prevent the reverse action is to emit some of the energy so that too little remains for it to occur. Obviously the emission of a proton or neutron carries away a great deal of energy. A gamma can do it as well but I recall this takes much more time and may come too late to save the nucleus. Our best hope for LENR would be some form of rapid coupling to other bodies in the nearby region unless a reaction similar to the type hypothesized by Ed allows the energy to escape harmlessly. I need a better understanding of how quickly and effectively energy can be absorbed by "friends" nearby. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 10:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM, David Roberson wrote: Eric, you seem to be suggesting some form of isomer of He4. I suppose if that is possible, then it would allow the energy a temporary storage location before it becomes released. Is there any evidence that this happens? None on my part. I'll have to defer to more knowledgeable folks on this question, although it's a handy conceptual device for making sense of the different d+d branches. I know that in other nuclear reactions there are some branches that lead to metastable isomers that then go on to decay further, often emitting a gamma ray, although I don't know that that is what is happening in this instance. Since the proposed two-deuteron resonance is so unstable that it lasts for a very small amount of time, calling it an isomer might be a misnomer. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
You are allowed a few typos under those conditions. ;) We will miss him. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 10:28 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? Already see a couple oftypos – kW is power, not energy. Calculations, even with aidof Windows - are not recommend during a (Pinot Grigio fueled) wake for Sergio… From:Jones Beene Dave, In terms of kg of hydrogen per kW of energy, the rule of thumb isa gain of 200:1 (ratio) if the hydrogen goes to an average redundancy levelthat Mills apparently believes is correct. This would be on the low side - ifsome of that f/H then converts via a nuclear pathway. Thus, without redundancy compare to the 33 kWhr/kg or 33watt-hr/gm as energy density for regular hydrogen combustion, that becomesabout 6,600 kWhr/kg for f/H. Thus 1 kWhr requires ~ .15 g with f/H and nosecondary nuclear contribution. For 4000 hrs (half a year) for a continuous megawatt of thermaloutput (supposedly the big blue box) or 4 gigawatt-hrs - that would consumeover 600 kg. of hydrogen in half a year. This would be derived from 2,400 kg ofmethane. The energy density by weight of methane is published as 14 kWh/kg soif you merely burned the methane instead of removing the hydrogen for the ECatyou would face as much as a 500:1 deficit over the ECat. Apparently a HotCat which may be more efficient - at a kW outputwith only 5 grams of hydrogen available in a sealed capsule could not run forover 30 hours unless it was better than the 200:1. Caveat – this is a Saturday evening back of the envelopecalculation J and given that Robin is already Sunday morning, I was hoping hewould oblige. From:David Roberson I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated theamount of hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for themandatory 1/2 year.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM, David Roberson wrote: Eric, you seem to be suggesting some form of isomer of He4. I suppose if > that is possible, then it would allow the energy a temporary storage > location before it becomes released. Is there any evidence that this > happens? > None on my part. I'll have to defer to more knowledgeable folks on this question, although it's a handy conceptual device for making sense of the different d+d branches. I know that in other nuclear reactions there are some branches that lead to metastable isomers that then go on to decay further, often emitting a gamma ray, although I don't know that that is what is happening in this instance. Since the proposed two-deuteron resonance is so unstable that it lasts for a very small amount of time, calling it an isomer might be a misnomer. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Jones, thanks for taking the time to perform the calculation. Even though it is a back of the envelope attempt, I think you have answered the question. Subject to revision, it appears that fusion must be taking place in Rossi's device in order for it to operate for as long as he specifies. Actually I am relieved at this result since I am not convinced that hydrinos are real. Maybe one day I will come to accept them, but my hard head needs a large drill to penetrate. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 10:19 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? Dave, In terms of kg of hydrogenper kW of energy, the rule of thumb is a gain of 200:1 (ratio) if the hydrogengoes to an average redundancy level that Mills apparently believes is correct. Thiswould be on the low side - if some of that f/H then converts via a nuclearpathway. Thus, without redundancy compareto the 33 kWhr/kg or 33 watt-hr/gm as energy density for regular hydrogencombustion, that becomes about 6,600 kWhr/kg for f/H. Thus 1 kWhr requires ~ .15g with f/H and no secondary nuclear contribution. For 4000 hrs (half a year)for a continuous megawatt of thermal output (supposedly the big blue box) or 4gigawatt-hrs - that would consume over 600 kg. of hydrogen in half a year. Thiswould be derived from 2,400 kg of methane. The energy density by weight ofmethane is published as 14 kWh/kg so if you merely burned the methane insteadof removing the hydrogen for the ECat you would face as much as a 500:1 deficitover the ECat. Apparently a HotCat whichmay be more efficient - at a kW output with only 5 grams of hydrogen availablein a sealed capsule could not run for over 30 hours unless it was better thanthe 200:1. Caveat – this is aSaturday evening back of the envelope calculation J andgiven that Robin is already Sunday morning, I was hoping he would oblige. From:David Roberson I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated theamount of hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for themandatory 1/2 year.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Eric, you seem to be suggesting some form of isomer of He4. I suppose if that is possible, then it would allow the energy a temporary storage location before it becomes released. Is there any evidence that this happens? Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM, David Roberson wrote: Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up? I think it's considered something different than 4He -- I've heard the intermediate product called a "two-deuteron resonance." In my mind I imagine two deuterons spinning rapidly around one another, like a binary star system, but much closer, I suppose, so that they appear to be a single thing, but highly unstable. d+d → [2d]* [2d]* → 4He+ɣ (in free space) So there's really two "decays" here -- first to [2d]* and then to the final products. This is just the image in my head; I have no idea what the resonance actually looks or behaves like. I suppose it is like a highly energetic 4He, with 24 MeV that it wants to shed as quickly as possible. It is this that decays to 4He+ɣ, p+t or n+3He. Once a dried out 4He forms, it is a very stable entity. So much so that you can imagine it barreling like a bullet into a nearby lattice atom and causing an increase of four nucleons as it is absorbed rather than being broken up. We have been seeking a process that is able to extract the relatively large energy of the excited helium nucleus in a slower than normal manner. I suppose that I refer to normal as being what is seen in high energy physics as compared to LENR. I think Ron Maimon's model is at variance with the "slow release" family of models that have been discussed here. His involves a quick release of all of the energy in the reaction in the form of energetic particles. But this is balanced by the fact that it does not necessarily happen all the time; they would need to be discrete occurrences that happen occasionally (like popcorn before it really starts popping). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Already see a couple of typos - kW is power, not energy. Calculations, even with aid of Windows - are not recommend during a (Pinot Grigio fueled) wake for Sergio. From: Jones Beene Dave, In terms of kg of hydrogen per kW of energy, the rule of thumb is a gain of 200:1 (ratio) if the hydrogen goes to an average redundancy level that Mills apparently believes is correct. This would be on the low side - if some of that f/H then converts via a nuclear pathway. Thus, without redundancy compare to the 33 kWhr/kg or 33 watt-hr/gm as energy density for regular hydrogen combustion, that becomes about 6,600 kWhr/kg for f/H. Thus 1 kWhr requires ~ .15 g with f/H and no secondary nuclear contribution. For 4000 hrs (half a year) for a continuous megawatt of thermal output (supposedly the big blue box) or 4 gigawatt-hrs - that would consume over 600 kg. of hydrogen in half a year. This would be derived from 2,400 kg of methane. The energy density by weight of methane is published as 14 kWh/kg so if you merely burned the methane instead of removing the hydrogen for the ECat you would face as much as a 500:1 deficit over the ECat. Apparently a HotCat which may be more efficient - at a kW output with only 5 grams of hydrogen available in a sealed capsule could not run for over 30 hours unless it was better than the 200:1. Caveat - this is a Saturday evening back of the envelope calculation :-) and given that Robin is already Sunday morning, I was hoping he would oblige. From: David Roberson I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated the amount of hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for the mandatory 1/2 year.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
But no one would believe a skeptic. This has to be done by someone who has faith in the process. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:55:14 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] > >I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated the amount of hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for the mandatory 1/2 year. This has been done for fusion and adds up to a moderate requirement. I have a strong suspicion that the hydrino path would fall way short of the needed energy. Since I do not believe in hydrinos yet, I think I might be biased to perform that calculation. We need a volunteer. Oh, go ahead. Give your bias free reign, prove that it's impossible! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
The fact that T and He3 are typical for the hot reaction and that there is much space between reacting bodies tends to support the case that I am floating. In LENR, there are always nearby bodies to share with. The question that arises is whether or not energy can be quickly shared with the nearby objects to allow the relatively hard nut (He4)a chance to give off the fusion energy that would otherwise want to tear it asunder. (I like that word :-)) It is apparent that T or He3 are the major components released by fusion of D's when following the hot fusion path, but we need to come up with a good reason why the cold fusion case almost always yields He4 instead. I suppose that when two D's collide you can have three results. If one large nucleon is released you get T or He3. If two are emitted then I imagine you get back the two D's. If none are emitted, then He4 is a result with an associated energy release of some type. We expect for cold fusion to mainly follow the none emitted direction where the energy has to escape the cauldron in some form. If Coulomb coupling can allow that amount of energy to wind down fast enough, then we have a system. Eric has been discussing a nearby friend atom which would possibly achieve that goal, but it is quite early to know if the process has merit. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:29:00 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] > >I suppose He4 is a relatively tough little nut to crack, but it seems to >happen more often than not when D's fuse. Isn't that the reason that T or He3 tend to remain alive after a free space event? COM will always be achieved when two D's collide and remain stuck together. That isn't the momentum that's in question. It's all about the momentum of the final "bits" not the momentum of the initial bits. When a gamma is formed, it shares momentum with the 4He nucleus, thus allowing the 4He to remain in tact. However gamma production is usually a relatively slow process, and the T, 3He branches are much faster. In all cases two particles are involved. "4He + gamma" (counts as a particle because photons have momentum); "T + p"; "3He + n". Because there are two particles, momentum is conserved (i.e. always zero in CM frame). When a spectator nucleus is available, it can take the place of one particle resulting in "spectator + 4He". D + D + e (slow) => 4He + e (fast) here the "spectator" particle is an electron. This would essentially produce a 24 MeV electron. >COE suggests that they retain the amount of energy required to break apart immediately unless some of the fusion energy is released. I can not think of a better trick to pull off than for a nearby electro magnetically coupled "friend" to take away a portion of it. In hot fusion there is no one nearby to help out most of the time. I am suggesting that perhaps on those rare occasions when the He4 survives that a helper is close by. In LENR help is around the corner in most cases due to close quarters. Perhaps something like:- D + D + e (slow) => 4He + e (fast) ? here the "spectator" particle is an electron. This would essentially produce a 24 MeV electron. The problem with such an approach is that apparently a helper is almost *always* at hand, since the product is almost always 4He. If the de-energizing mechanism were independent of the Coulomb barrier penetration mechanism, and reliant upon chance, then one would expect to see much more T and 3He. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Dave, In terms of kg of hydrogen per kW of energy, the rule of thumb is a gain of 200:1 (ratio) if the hydrogen goes to an average redundancy level that Mills apparently believes is correct. This would be on the low side - if some of that f/H then converts via a nuclear pathway. Thus, without redundancy compare to the 33 kWhr/kg or 33 watt-hr/gm as energy density for regular hydrogen combustion, that becomes about 6,600 kWhr/kg for f/H. Thus 1 kWhr requires ~ .15 g with f/H and no secondary nuclear contribution. For 4000 hrs (half a year) for a continuous megawatt of thermal output (supposedly the big blue box) or 4 gigawatt-hrs - that would consume over 600 kg. of hydrogen in half a year. This would be derived from 2,400 kg of methane. The energy density by weight of methane is published as 14 kWh/kg so if you merely burned the methane instead of removing the hydrogen for the ECat you would face as much as a 500:1 deficit over the ECat. Apparently a HotCat which may be more efficient - at a kW output with only 5 grams of hydrogen available in a sealed capsule could not run for over 30 hours unless it was better than the 200:1. Caveat - this is a Saturday evening back of the envelope calculation :-) and given that Robin is already Sunday morning, I was hoping he would oblige. From: David Roberson I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated the amount of hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for the mandatory 1/2 year.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM, David Roberson wrote: Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess > energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up? > I think it's considered something different than 4He -- I've heard the intermediate product called a "two-deuteron resonance." In my mind I imagine two deuterons spinning rapidly around one another, like a binary star system, but much closer, I suppose, so that they appear to be a single thing, but highly unstable. d+d → [2d]* [2d]* → 4He+ɣ (in free space) So there's really two "decays" here -- first to [2d]* and then to the final products. This is just the image in my head; I have no idea what the resonance actually looks or behaves like. I suppose it is like a highly energetic 4He, with 24 MeV that it wants to shed as quickly as possible. It is this that decays to 4He+ɣ, p+t or n+3He. Once a dried out 4He forms, it is a very stable entity. So much so that you can imagine it barreling like a bullet into a nearby lattice atom and causing an increase of four nucleons as it is absorbed rather than being broken up. > We have been seeking a process that is able to extract the relatively > large energy of the excited helium nucleus in a slower than normal manner. > I suppose that I refer to normal as being what is seen in high energy > physics as compared to LENR. > I think Ron Maimon's model is at variance with the "slow release" family of models that have been discussed here. His involves a quick release of all of the energy in the reaction in the form of energetic particles. But this is balanced by the fact that it does not necessarily happen all the time; they would need to be discrete occurrences that happen occasionally (like popcorn before it really starts popping). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:55:14 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] > >I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated the amount of >hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for the mandatory >1/2 year. This has been done for fusion and adds up to a moderate >requirement. I have a strong suspicion that the hydrino path would fall way >short of the needed energy. Since I do not believe in hydrinos yet, I think I >might be biased to perform that calculation. We need a volunteer. Oh, go ahead. Give your bias free reign, prove that it's impossible! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:29:00 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] > >I suppose He4 is a relatively tough little nut to crack, but it seems to >happen more often than not when D's fuse. Isn't that the reason that T or He3 >tend to remain alive after a free space event? COM will always be achieved >when two D's collide and remain stuck together. That isn't the momentum that's in question. It's all about the momentum of the final "bits" not the momentum of the initial bits. When a gamma is formed, it shares momentum with the 4He nucleus, thus allowing the 4He to remain in tact. However gamma production is usually a relatively slow process, and the T, 3He branches are much faster. In all cases two particles are involved. "4He + gamma" (counts as a particle because photons have momentum); "T + p"; "3He + n". Because there are two particles, momentum is conserved (i.e. always zero in CM frame). When a spectator nucleus is available, it can take the place of one particle resulting in "spectator + 4He". D + D + e (slow) => 4He + e (fast) here the "spectator" particle is an electron. This would essentially produce a 24 MeV electron. >COE suggests that they retain the amount of energy required to break apart >immediately unless some of the fusion energy is released. I can not think of >a better trick to pull off than for a nearby electro magnetically coupled >"friend" to take away a portion of it. In hot fusion there is no one nearby >to help out most of the time. I am suggesting that perhaps on those rare >occasions when the He4 survives that a helper is close by. In LENR help is >around the corner in most cases due to close quarters. Perhaps something like:- D + D + e (slow) => 4He + e (fast) ? here the "spectator" particle is an electron. This would essentially produce a 24 MeV electron. The problem with such an approach is that apparently a helper is almost *always* at hand, since the product is almost always 4He. If the de-energizing mechanism were independent of the Coulomb barrier penetration mechanism, and reliant upon chance, then one would expect to see much more T and 3He. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I was hoping that you or someone else would have calculated the amount of hydrogen required to put out a reasonable amount of power for the mandatory 1/2 year. This has been done for fusion and adds up to a moderate requirement. I have a strong suspicion that the hydrino path would fall way short of the needed energy. Since I do not believe in hydrinos yet, I think I might be biased to perform that calculation. We need a volunteer. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 8:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:18:02 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >Have you performed the calculations of the amount of hydrogen that is required to run one of these devices for a half year with the relatively meager energy released by hydrino processes? That might be interesting to look into since we know that Rossi continues to insist that his ECAT will operate at least that long. Why don't you do the calculation yourself? Assume a shrinkage energy of a few hundred eV / atom. (Or work backwards, and determine what the average shrinkage energy would need to be.) > >The DGT guys apparently think that some from of Mills like hydrogen finds >their way into the reaction areas to fuse. I was speculating that the X-Rays or perhaps high energy UV would break apart the hydrogen molecules and allow them to behave somewhat like those resulting from spark discharge. Are you convinced that there is a form of electric field driven multiplication of ions occurring in the DGT device instead of individual reactions? I'm never convinced of anything, and I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at. The multiplication reaction is based on individual reactions, not electric field driven multiplication of ions. >If individual behavior is taking place, then Rossi might be borrowing a >similar process to obtain his power. Hence my questions about radiation assistance. Yes, if fast particles are being generated, they can assist the process. How much depends on several factors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:18:02 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >Have you performed the calculations of the amount of hydrogen that is required >to run one of these devices for a half year with the relatively meager energy >released by hydrino processes? That might be interesting to look into since >we know that Rossi continues to insist that his ECAT will operate at least >that long. Why don't you do the calculation yourself? Assume a shrinkage energy of a few hundred eV / atom. (Or work backwards, and determine what the average shrinkage energy would need to be.) > >The DGT guys apparently think that some from of Mills like hydrogen finds >their way into the reaction areas to fuse. I was speculating that the X-Rays >or perhaps high energy UV would break apart the hydrogen molecules and allow >them to behave somewhat like those resulting from spark discharge. Are you >convinced that there is a form of electric field driven multiplication of ions >occurring in the DGT device instead of individual reactions? I'm never convinced of anything, and I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at. The multiplication reaction is based on individual reactions, not electric field driven multiplication of ions. >If individual behavior is taking place, then Rossi might be borrowing a >similar process to obtain his power. Hence my questions about radiation >assistance. Yes, if fast particles are being generated, they can assist the process. How much depends on several factors. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I suppose He4 is a relatively tough little nut to crack, but it seems to happen more often than not when D's fuse. Isn't that the reason that T or He3 tend to remain alive after a free space event? COM will always be achieved when two D's collide and remain stuck together. COE suggests that they retain the amount of energy required to break apart immediately unless some of the fusion energy is released. I can not think of a better trick to pull off than for a nearby electro magnetically coupled "friend" to take away a portion of it. In hot fusion there is no one nearby to help out most of the time. I am suggesting that perhaps on those rare occasions when the He4 survives that a helper is close by. In LENR help is around the corner in most cases due to close quarters. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:46:49 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] > >Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess >energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up? Both. The momentum is shared equally between both nuclei, i.e. one is the opposite of the other, so that the sum is zero, in the CM frame. The energy is shared in inverse proportion to the masses of the nuclei. I.e. If 108Pd is the spectator nucleus, then it gets 4/(4+108) of the energy, and the 4He gets 108/(4+108) of the energy. I.e. the lighter nucleus gets the lion's share. >We have been seeking a process that is able to extract the relatively large energy of the excited helium nucleus in a slower than normal manner. I suppose that I refer to normal as being what is seen in high energy physics as compared to LENR. Good luck! ;) > >It seems likely that nearby Coulomb coupled nuclei or other particles would be able to suck up some of the spare energy thereby preventing the destruction of the He4. The 4He is in no danger of being destroyed. It's a very tough little nut! ;) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I see where you are going with this. If one does not yet accept that hydrinos are real then he looks for other methods of energy generation such as fusion. I am still in that camp, but one day might become convinced otherwise. Have you performed the calculations of the amount of hydrogen that is required to run one of these devices for a half year with the relatively meager energy released by hydrino processes? That might be interesting to look into since we know that Rossi continues to insist that his ECAT will operate at least that long. The DGT guys apparently think that some from of Mills like hydrogen finds their way into the reaction areas to fuse. I was speculating that the X-Rays or perhaps high energy UV would break apart the hydrogen molecules and allow them to behave somewhat like those resulting from spark discharge. Are you convinced that there is a form of electric field driven multiplication of ions occurring in the DGT device instead of individual reactions? If individual behavior is taking place, then Rossi might be borrowing a similar process to obtain his power. Hence my questions about radiation assistance. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 8:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:01:53 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin, > > >If UV is the type of radiation being released and is not capable of ionizing the nearby free gas then your point is valid. > > >I have a suspicion that we are speaking of low energy X rays instead due to >the magnitude of the energy released. How many atoms must share the MeV level of release to allow each to only emit UV? Woah, too many false assumptions! ;) 1) I'm thinking of a model in which most, if not all of the energy released is from shrinkage, and is not nuclear in origin, hence there is little of no MeV energy release. 2) It gets ever more difficult to shrink Hydrinos, as they get smaller. This is the primary reason that most of the energy release is from Hydrino formation. I.e. under ordinary circumstances very few actually get small enough to fuse. 3) For smaller "p" values (i.e. not much shrinkage), the energy of the UV photons is on the order of hundreds of eV or less, whereas the kinetic energy of electrons in a spark can easily reach thousands of eV. 4) The UV will readily ionize both H and H2. 5) Ionization is not the critical factor. 6) Breaking the Hydrino molecules apart, allows them to multiply, bypassing the shrinkage steps, thus vastly increasing the reaction rate and power output, hence the importance of using a spark. BTW this also gives much more control over the reaction. (You can vary the rate at which sparking occurs.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 19:46:49 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] > >Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess >energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up? Both. The momentum is shared equally between both nuclei, i.e. one is the opposite of the other, so that the sum is zero, in the CM frame. The energy is shared in inverse proportion to the masses of the nuclei. I.e. If 108Pd is the spectator nucleus, then it gets 4/(4+108) of the energy, and the 4He gets 108/(4+108) of the energy. I.e. the lighter nucleus gets the lion's share. >We have been seeking a process that is able to extract the relatively large >energy of the excited helium nucleus in a slower than normal manner. I >suppose that I refer to normal as being what is seen in high energy physics as >compared to LENR. Good luck! ;) > >It seems likely that nearby Coulomb coupled nuclei or other particles would be >able to suck up some of the spare energy thereby preventing the destruction of >the He4. The 4He is in no danger of being destroyed. It's a very tough little nut! ;) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:01:53 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin, > > >If UV is the type of radiation being released and is not capable of ionizing >the nearby free gas then your point is valid. > > >I have a suspicion that we are speaking of low energy X rays instead due to >the magnitude of the energy released. How many atoms must share the MeV level >of release to allow each to only emit UV? Woah, too many false assumptions! ;) 1) I'm thinking of a model in which most, if not all of the energy released is from shrinkage, and is not nuclear in origin, hence there is little of no MeV energy release. 2) It gets ever more difficult to shrink Hydrinos, as they get smaller. This is the primary reason that most of the energy release is from Hydrino formation. I.e. under ordinary circumstances very few actually get small enough to fuse. 3) For smaller "p" values (i.e. not much shrinkage), the energy of the UV photons is on the order of hundreds of eV or less, whereas the kinetic energy of electrons in a spark can easily reach thousands of eV. 4) The UV will readily ionize both H and H2. 5) Ionization is not the critical factor. 6) Breaking the Hydrino molecules apart, allows them to multiply, bypassing the shrinkage steps, thus vastly increasing the reaction rate and power output, hence the importance of using a spark. BTW this also gives much more control over the reaction. (You can vary the rate at which sparking occurs.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Is it the momentum that is shared with a spectator nucleus or the excess energy that wants to cause the He4 to break up? We have been seeking a process that is able to extract the relatively large energy of the excited helium nucleus in a slower than normal manner. I suppose that I refer to normal as being what is seen in high energy physics as compared to LENR. It seems likely that nearby Coulomb coupled nuclei or other particles would be able to suck up some of the spare energy thereby preventing the destruction of the He4. Perhaps that is what happens when a high energy collision results in the low probability path instead of the usual paths. I can imagine that occasionally three bodies or more might become closely coupled just as the two main D's begin to fuse. Some of the fusion energy might find its way into the spectators. At that point, less than enough energy remains to break up the He4. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 7:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:45:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] >> Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What rule >> makes this the easiest way? >> > >I'm not sure. This is one of the many questions I have. I have been >trying to understand the system sufficiently to gain insight into these >questions, but it's been a slow learning process. > I suspect, because 4He is very stable, making it the preferred result, whenever this is possible, all else being equal. In D-D hot fusion you get either T or 3He as the primary result, only because these reactions are much faster than gamma emission. However when the momentum can be shared with a spectator nucleus, there is no need for the 4He* to break up, and the reaction to 4He is just as fast (if not faster) than the reaction to T or 3He, hence it is the preferred path. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:45:33 -0700: Hi, [snip] >> Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What rule >> makes this the easiest way? >> > >I'm not sure. This is one of the many questions I have. I have been >trying to understand the system sufficiently to gain insight into these >questions, but it's been a slow learning process. > I suspect, because 4He is very stable, making it the preferred result, whenever this is possible, all else being equal. In D-D hot fusion you get either T or 3He as the primary result, only because these reactions are much faster than gamma emission. However when the momentum can be shared with a spectator nucleus, there is no need for the 4He* to break up, and the reaction to 4He is just as fast (if not faster) than the reaction to T or 3He, hence it is the preferred path. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Ed, these are very good questions. At the risk of reiterating points made in older threads, I'll attempt to address each question as I am able. On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Edmund Storms wrote: In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without > particles being emitted? > It's not my theory -- it's Ron Maimon's. He's saying that in a Pd/D system, specifically, there is a set of conditions in which two deuterons will approach a palladium nucleus simultaneously. The close proximity of the deuterons to the palladium nucleus will have two effects. The first effect is to "focus" their de Broglie waves in a way that will make it more likely for them to overlap. The second effect is to cause the d+d→4He+Q branch to become much preferred over the d(d,p)t and d(d,n)3He branches seen in plasma fusion. The reason it becomes preferred is that the "Q" is dumped as an electrostatic impulse that is shared between the daughter 4He and spectator palladium nucleus once the metastable [4He]* transitions to ground, rather than being emitted as a gamma ray. Electrostatic dumping happens quickly, and hence is more probable, while the emission of a photon takes a long time. This electrostatic dumping of the energy translates into kinetic energy, as might happen with an Auger electron in other contexts. The reason the other two d+d branches are competitively disfavored, as far as I can tell, is that the modified d(d,Q)4He branch becomes all the more likely. The reason it becomes very likely is that there are 46 protons in the palladium nucleus with which to interact via the electrostatic force. Ron talks about the Pd/D system, and I have graciously borrowed his ideas and attempted to apply them to other systems such as Ni/H. This account does imply the emission of particles. So an important question is under what conditions they are produced and whether we have done adequate work in ruling out prompt radiation when excess heat is underway. There are plenty of experiments showing only marginal levels of prompt radiation emerging from the substrate. There are paltry few experiments, as far as I can tell, showing that when there is excess heat there is no prompt radiation taking place at some depth within the substrate. How is momentum conserved? > The momentum of a fusion reaction is shared between the daughter or daughters and the metal spectator nucleus. So in branches where a photon would normally be emitted, there is instead recoil of the metastable daughter during the transition to ground and no need for photon emission. Kinetic energy is defined as something moving with a velocity. How is this > velocity created from initially still objects while momentum is conserved. > In the case of Pd/D, this is understood to happen electrostatically with the decay of the metastable [4He]* daughter. The 4He is pushed off of the nearby palladium nucleus, like a bullet from the back of the chamber of a rifle. > Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What rule > makes this the easiest way? > I'm not sure. This is one of the many questions I have. I have been trying to understand the system sufficiently to gain insight into these questions, but it's been a slow learning process. Just to anticipate an objection that this account implies energetic particles, and energetic particles and their side effects are not seen, I should mention that I'm reading the older papers and am trying to collect more data on this topic so that I can better understand this objection. Eric
RE: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Robin, Good point, The spark allows DGT to pool their f/h2 further from the disassociation threshold and then synchronize the release in packets with the spark where Rossi has to run hotter - actually into the threshold with a much heavier reliance on the heat sinking to counter the runaway - The suggestions by axil that the PWM resistive heating might synchronize plasmons through the reactor wall does appeal to me in that it would put Rossi's control loop at least on the map with the spark method while simple heating makes no sense and would not benefit from the wave shaping. Would the high Q of this geometry necessary to pick up IR thru the reactor wall still be suitable to broaden the spectrum down into the range claimed by Black Light? In electronics we normally associate hi Q with narrow bandwidth which as a subharmonic might be needed to produce any visible effects on the f/h . I think the widened spectrum is a function of the fractional value hydrogen but the Plasmon resonance can cause the f/h to change values more rapidly and to a greater extent Fran On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:50:40 -0700 Robin said "Because the sparks have enough energy to split Hydrino molecules, whereas the UV does not. ;>" In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:08:53 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs >for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from >the reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to >additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal run >away of their unit. Because the sparks have enough energy to split Hydrino molecules, whereas the UV does not. ;> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Robin, If UV is the type of radiation being released and is not capable of ionizing the nearby free gas then your point is valid. I have a suspicion that we are speaking of low energy X rays instead due to the magnitude of the energy released. How many atoms must share the MeV level of release to allow each to only emit UV? Then again, the lack of additional ionization might support the concept that UV is the radiation typically emitted. Perhaps there may be occasions when the higher energy radiation is emitted leading to run away conditions. Evidence might be there that is not taken into account. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 22, 2013 1:49 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity? In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:08:53 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from the reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal run away of their unit. Because the sparks have enough energy to split Hydrino molecules, whereas the UV does not. ;> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:33 PM, Axil Axil wrote: I don't see how a gram or two of nano-powder can produce 10 kilowatts of heat output. Without running any numbers, the power density is too high. Other atoms besides those in the powder must also be involved in the production of power. How does Ed's theory handle this? We have no way of knowing how much active material is in the e-Cat. Most of the initial powder would sinter to the wall and not be removed. Consequently, your original assumption of 1 or 2 grams is wrong. Ed On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There is a third suggestion being floated -- there's a bursty release of a large amount of energy in small little packets, here and there in the substrate, like popcorn popping. The release of any nuclear reaction in this type of operation would not be incremental at the microscopic level -- it would be all at once (e.g., 24 MeV), and possibly collimated, but the release would be as kinetic energy and, as a side effect, bremsstrahlung, rather than gammas. At a macroscopic level, it would be more homogenous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Eric, in any theory, a person has to ask how and why. In your theory, how is the energy released as kinetic energy without particles being emitted? How is momentum conserved? Kinetic energy is defined as something moving with a velocity. How is this velocity created from initially still objects while momentum is conserved. Also, why does the system choose to release energy this way? What rule makes this the easiest way? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There is a third suggestion being floated -- there's a bursty release of a large amount of energy in small little packets, here and there in the substrate, like popcorn popping. The release of any nuclear reaction in this type of operation would not be incremental at the microscopic level -- it would be all at once (e.g., 24 MeV), and possibly collimated, but the release would be as kinetic energy and, as a side effect, bremsstrahlung, rather than gammas. At a macroscopic level, it would be more homogenous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:08:53 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] >If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs >for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from >the reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to >additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal run >away of their unit. Because the sparks have enough energy to split Hydrino molecules, whereas the UV does not. ;> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
I don't see how a gram or two of nano-powder can produce 10 kilowatts of heat output. Without running any numbers, the power density is too high. Other atoms besides those in the powder must also be involved in the production of power. How does Ed's theory handle this? On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: > > Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form >> where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the >> material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission >> from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy >> as a group in parallel. >> > > There is a third suggestion being floated -- there's a bursty release of a > large amount of energy in small little packets, here and there in the > substrate, like popcorn popping. The release of any nuclear reaction in > this type of operation would not be incremental at the microscopic level -- > it would be all at once (e.g., 24 MeV), and possibly collimated, but the > release would be as kinetic energy and, as a side effect, bremsstrahlung, > rather than gammas. At a macroscopic level, it would be more homogenous. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form > where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the > material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission > from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy > as a group in parallel. > There is a third suggestion being floated -- there's a bursty release of a large amount of energy in small little packets, here and there in the substrate, like popcorn popping. The release of any nuclear reaction in this type of operation would not be incremental at the microscopic level -- it would be all at once (e.g., 24 MeV), and possibly collimated, but the release would be as kinetic energy and, as a side effect, bremsstrahlung, rather than gammas. At a macroscopic level, it would be more homogenous. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Rossi and DGT Similarity?
Remember this post? http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html Hot electrons do the impossible... A spark produces hot electrons and therefore fuel for the reaction. On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: > It has appeared that Rossi's ECAT and DGT's device are animals of a > different species. I have modeled the ECAT and find that the COP of 6 > seems to be a consequence of the fact that he uses heat to control the > generation of additional heat in a positive feedback manner. Attempting to > achieve a COP that is much higher would be difficult while maintaining > control and avoiding thermal run away. I have previously spoken of some > possible active cooling techniques that might enable better performance, > but it is not obvious how well they would work under the influence of the > positive feedback built into the device. > > DGT, on the other hand appears to be using some form of hydrogen > ionization by means of a spark to effectively starve the fuel supplied to > the active metal surface. I think of this as similar to a throttle in a > gasoline engine that adjusts the amount of fuel fed into the cylinders. It > seems logical to consider the control afforded by the DGT method as being > superior unless other issues arise that complicate the behavior. There has > been little data available from the DGT testing which can be analyzed in an > attempt to answer these concerns. For instance, does the spark process > lead to problems of operational lifetimes? Also, how much complexity is > forced upon the users of such a system when compared to one of Rossi's > design? Many additional questions can be asked since little has been > revealed. > > One issue came into my thoughts today as I pondered an idea. The concept > is based upon the way that energy is released during an LENR process. I > visualize it as being either a parallel or a series release of the total > energy for each net reaction. Ed's theory implies that the energy is being > released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from > the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation > suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active > components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There has not be > sufficient information available to determine exactly which process is the > main one at this point, but they all share one common ingredient which is > that energy is released in relatively large blocks. > > The common link is that each of the concepts end up generating a large > number of moderate level energy blocks. My questions surround the > interaction of these photons with the hydrogen gas that is always present > and in contact with the metal surfaces. Would we expect the energy quanta > being released to ionize the nearby gas in either of the systems? If it in > fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs for > their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from the > reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to > additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal > run away of their unit. > > Then, with Rossi's ECAT it is obvious to ask whether or not a > hydrogen ionization process might also be in effect leading to the thermal > runaway danger as well as the basic operation of his positive feedback > enhancement. Perhaps this is why the material gets into the act to such a > large degree with the ECAT design. Rossi may be modifying the behavior of > the ionization of the nearby hydrogen gas surrounding his active sites by > some form of tuning of the particle sizes or other accidental features. > Could his catalysis offer assistance in this manner? > > Do we detect a similarity between the ECAT and the DGT device that > demonstrates the level of energy being emitted that can be used to improve > our understanding of the processes? Do we expect hydrogen ionization to > occur as a result of internal radiation? Would energy released in the form > of heat of mechanical atom motion ionize the gas? What can be learned by > comparing DGT to Rossi? > > Dave >
