Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Thank you, Robin. It seems we have to wait for reallly reliable analytical data in order to know what happens. And an answer to the great question- does CIHT work and what are the performances. Peter On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: > At 03:51 PM 5/16/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: > >> One other point bears mentioning. The output was much too low for a pure >> fusion >> reaction. That implies that Hydrogen was "consumed" while generating less >> energy >> that from a fusion reaction, or perhaps it was just absorbed by the Ni, >> and >> never reacted, or perhaps the uncertainty in the "0.11 gm" is much larger >> than >> has been implied. >> > > I doubt that much of the 0.11g of hydrogen was 'consumed' -- that's the > amount that gets into the reactor chamber. Only a very small amount would > be anywhere near the nickel (assuming it's on the wall : approx area of > wall * diameter of a nickel particle / volume of reactor) , only part of > that would get into the lattice (or whatever), and only part of THAT would > react. > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
At 03:51 PM 5/16/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: One other point bears mentioning. The output was much too low for a pure fusion reaction. That implies that Hydrogen was "consumed" while generating less energy that from a fusion reaction, or perhaps it was just absorbed by the Ni, and never reacted, or perhaps the uncertainty in the "0.11 gm" is much larger than has been implied. I doubt that much of the 0.11g of hydrogen was 'consumed' -- that's the amount that gets into the reactor chamber. Only a very small amount would be anywhere near the nickel (assuming it's on the wall : approx area of wall * diameter of a nickel particle / volume of reactor) , only part of that would get into the lattice (or whatever), and only part of THAT would react.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Mon, 16 May 2011 09:57:23 +0300: Hi Peter, [snip] >Dear Robin. > >in more practical terms- in your understanding how much >energy can be squeezed out of. say, a gram of hydrogen? >Compared to burning, or to what Rossi has suceeded to obtain in the February >demo at Bologna? That depends on whether or not the process is nuclear. If it is, then Hydrogen will deliver about 169000 kWh/gm. If it's only Hydrino formation energy being released, then the maximum you can get is about 7000 kWh/gm. From burning with Oxygen you get about 0.04 kWh/gm. (Which of course is also the minimum energy you would need to invest via electrolysis to extract it from water). In the Feb. test they produced at most 20 kW * 18 hr = 360 kWh with approx. 0.11 gm of Hydrogen, which equates to about 3300 kWh/ gm. That's 122 keV / atom. That means that if it came purely from Hydrino shrinkage, then the Hydrinos were shrunken on average to about level 94 (out of 137), which I would consider very well done. However I think a more realistic explanation would be that some of the Hydrinos underwent a fusion reaction, and the resultant energy is a mixture of Hydrino shrinkage and fusion energy. When Hydrinos shrink, you usually get a mixture of levels some small, and some not so small. The very smallest are FAR more likely to undergo fusion than the larger ones, and the smallest are harder to make. One other point bears mentioning. The output was much too low for a pure fusion reaction. That implies that Hydrogen was "consumed" while generating less energy that from a fusion reaction, or perhaps it was just absorbed by the Ni, and never reacted, or perhaps the uncertainty in the "0.11 gm" is much larger than has been implied. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Dear Robin. in more practical terms- in your understanding how much energy can be squeezed out of. say, a gram of hydrogen? Compared to burning, or to what Rossi has suceeded to obtain in the February demo at Bologna? Peter On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:57 AM, wrote: > In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 16 May 2011 07:38:22 > +1000: > Hi, > > Oops, clicked on wrong button in spell checker! That should have been:- > > "(The square of the fine structure constant times the mass energy of the > electron is exactly equal to 1 Hartree)." > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 16 May 2011 07:38:22 +1000: Hi, Oops, clicked on wrong button in spell checker! That should have been:- "(The square of the fine structure constant times the mass energy of the electron is exactly equal to 1 Hartree)." Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 16 May 2011 07:38:22 +1000: Hi, [snip] >I'm not sure what you want the source of. As I said, the "200 times" is only a >rough average because it varies from one experiment to the next (read any of >Mills' experimental papers). The 255 keV is just the ionization energy of the >ground state of Hydrogen divided by the square of the fine structure constant, >which is the maximum energy that can extracted from a Hydrino. [snip] BTW note that this also equates to exactly half of the mass energy of the electron. (The square of the fine structure constant times the mass energy of the electron is exactly equal to 1 Chartered). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sun, 15 May 2011 07:45:57 +0300: Hi, [snip] >Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas >is Randy Mills himself. >This is science, not religion, so orthodoxia and heterodoxies can discuss >freely and peacefully- based on experimental facts. I think it is both fair >and interesting. [snip] I have tried this in the past. I gave up when Randy said (after some discussion) "the model is correct". IOW he retreated to an entrenched position. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 13:23:57 +0300: Hi Peter, [snip] >please source, Robin! Thanks- I was referring to the practical results I'm not sure what you want the source of. As I said, the "200 times" is only a rough average because it varies from one experiment to the next (read any of Mills' experimental papers). The 255 keV is just the ionization energy of the ground state of Hydrogen divided by the square of the fine structure constant, which is the maximum energy that can extracted from a Hydrino. > >Peter > >On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, wrote: > >> In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested >> >at all in Rossi's technology. >> >Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino >> >energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is >> >only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. >> >> This is only a rough average attained so far, not the theoretical maximum >> which >> is about 10 times burning (255 keV / atom). >> [snip] >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
The reason is, in my opinion, that is very difficult to achieve a CONTINUOUS generation of energy- see my paper http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html what conditions are necessary for a new source of energy. But I think this year (good for new energy, it seems) Randy will be on the market with his CIHT technology. His theory is OK, verified by experiment. Technology is more difficult than scientific experiments. Peter <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/04/questions-preparing-swot-analysis-of-ni.html> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: > I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after > 20 years and $60M, is because his theory is flawed... > > -Mark > > -- > *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM > > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? > > Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills > himself. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
I would wager that the reason Mills hasn't got a commercial device, after 20 years and $60M, is because his theory is flawed... -Mark _ From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Perhaps the best person to discuss your hydrino ideas is Randy Mills himself. This is science, not religion, so orthodoxia and heterodoxies can discuss freely and peacefully- based on experimental facts. I think it is both fair and interesting. On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:16 AM, wrote: > In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 13:27:20 +0300: > Hi, > [snip] > >not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again > >practical data not limits of theory > [snip] > Randy doesn't think Hydrinos can penetrate the electron shells of other > atoms. I > think he may be wrong, particularly for very small ones. Note also that if > my > variation on his model is correct, then my smallest Hydrinos are much > smaller > than his (about the size of an atomic nucleus). > > Furthermore there are also other possibilities, i.e. > > 1) The Hydrino may acquire an additional electron becoming Hydrinohydride, > then > it might displace an inner electron of another atom, analogous to a > negative > muon, except that it is much heavier, and would try to take up a closer > orbit. > > 2) Hydrinos have a strong magnetic field, hence they may bind magnetically > to > bare nuclei of other atoms that have a magnetic moment. This would keep > them in > close proximity until such time as they tunneled into the other nucleus. > > 3) Hydrino molecules are also neutral entities, and these may also be able > to > pass through the electron shells of other atoms. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 13:27:20 +0300: Hi, [snip] >not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again >practical data not limits of theory [snip] Randy doesn't think Hydrinos can penetrate the electron shells of other atoms. I think he may be wrong, particularly for very small ones. Note also that if my variation on his model is correct, then my smallest Hydrinos are much smaller than his (about the size of an atomic nucleus). Furthermore there are also other possibilities, i.e. 1) The Hydrino may acquire an additional electron becoming Hydrinohydride, then it might displace an inner electron of another atom, analogous to a negative muon, except that it is much heavier, and would try to take up a closer orbit. 2) Hydrinos have a strong magnetic field, hence they may bind magnetically to bare nuclei of other atoms that have a magnetic moment. This would keep them in close proximity until such time as they tunneled into the other nucleus. 3) Hydrino molecules are also neutral entities, and these may also be able to pass through the electron shells of other atoms. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Life is full of surprises. Sometimes even good ones. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > From Peter: > > > Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted > directly > > in the most valuable electric energy. > > Do you anticipate that Mills is about to release additional "news" updates? > There hasn't been much out of BLP lately. > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
>From Peter: > Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly > in the most valuable electric energy. Do you anticipate that Mills is about to release additional "news" updates? There hasn't been much out of BLP lately. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
not so close, perhaps. Is Randy speaking about something like this? Again practical data not limits of theory peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM, wrote: > In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 10:00:17 +0300: > Hi, > [snip] > >Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? > > Because very small Hydrogen atom can get closer to the nucleus of another > atom, > thus reducing the separation distance between nuclei and vastly increasing > the > likelihood of tunneling. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
please source, Robin! Thanks- I was referring to the practical results Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:11 AM, wrote: > In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300: > Hi, > [snip] > >Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested > >at all in Rossi's technology. > >Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino > >energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is > >only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. > > This is only a rough average attained so far, not the theoretical maximum > which > is about 10 times burning (255 keV / atom). > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 10:00:17 +0300: Hi, [snip] >Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? Because very small Hydrogen atom can get closer to the nucleus of another atom, thus reducing the separation distance between nuclei and vastly increasing the likelihood of tunneling. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 02:02:27 -0400: Hi, [snip] > How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in >exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should. It wouldn't explain anything not involving Hydrogen. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Sat, 14 May 2011 08:55:06 +0300: Hi, [snip] >Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested >at all in Rossi's technology. >Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino >energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is >only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. This is only a rough average attained so far, not the theoretical maximum which is about 10 times burning (255 keV / atom). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Why should the hydrino theory explain a nuclear phenomenon? Hydrino energy is hyperchemistry see e.g. my paper http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i10/html/10vp.html Different levels. The first principle of the world is infinite interestingness see my blog Ego Out, you cannot dictate to Nature what to do and how. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in > exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should. > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested >> at all in Rossi's technology. >> Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino >> energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is >> only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. >> Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted >> directly in the most valuable electric energy. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote >>> >>> [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis >>> for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. >>> The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied >>> manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new >>> ones going forward. >>> >>> [/snip] >>> >>> Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT >>> only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice >>> loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to >>> rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous >>> heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in >>> atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas >>> circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods >>> fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories >>> however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE >>> driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH2<>2FH1 as I suggest occurs >>> in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I >>> think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino >>> is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already >>> understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like >>> you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the >>> difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in >>> smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out >>> the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent >>> negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry >>> caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have >>> people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons >>> that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that >>> cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid >>> when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is >>> based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to >>> occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and >>> shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really >>> exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian >>> contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this >>> case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the >>> cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for >>> “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time >>> quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded >>> contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially >>> displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to >>> the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it >>> has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have >>> occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this >>> environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the >>> constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps >>> dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states >>> and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Fran >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the f
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
How does the hydrino technology explain the occurrence of transmutation in exploding metal foils? A generalized cold fusion theory should. On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested > at all in Rossi's technology. > Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino > energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is > only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. > Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly > in the most valuable electric energy. > > Peter > > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote >> >> [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis >> for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. >> The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied >> manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new >> ones going forward. >> >> [/snip] >> >> Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT >> only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice >> loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to >> rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous >> heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in >> atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas >> circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods >> fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories >> however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE >> driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH2<>2FH1 as I suggest occurs >> in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I >> think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino >> is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already >> understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like >> you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the >> difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in >> smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out >> the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent >> negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry >> caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have >> people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons >> that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that >> cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid >> when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is >> based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to >> occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and >> shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really >> exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian >> contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this >> case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the >> cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for >> “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time >> quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded >> contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially >> displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to >> the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it >> has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have >> occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this >> environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the >> constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps >> dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states >> and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? >> >> Regards >> >> Fran >> >> >> >> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? >> >> >> >> The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common >> denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. >> >> >> >> In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas >> like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion >> mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be >> the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and F
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
Mills has told many times that he has nothing to do, and is not interested at all in Rossi's technology. Otherwise take in consideration that in case of the hydrino energy, the heat released per unit of weight of hydrogen is only approx. 200 times greater than by burning. Watch the news re. Mills CIHT technology- hydrino energy converted directly in the most valuable electric energy. Peter On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote > > [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis > for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. > The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied > manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new > ones going forward. > > [/snip] > > Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT > only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice > loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to > rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous > heat in the 20’s with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in > atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas > circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods > fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories > however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE > driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH2<>2FH1 as I suggest occurs > in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I > think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino > is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already > understand from Casimir geometry –It is changing energy density just like > you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well –the > difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in > smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out > the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent > negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry > caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have > people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons > that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that > cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid > when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is > based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to > occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and > shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don’t really > exist from their own local perspective – It is the same sort of Lorentzian > contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this > case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the > cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for > “spatial” displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time > quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded > contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially > displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to > the stationary twin –so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it > has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have > occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this > environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the > constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities – Perhaps > dihydrinos can “parallel park” when they are in different fractional states > and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? > > Regards > > Fran > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? > > > > The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common > denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. > > > > In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas > like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion > mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be > the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and Fleischman D-Pt > reaction. > > > > Even though Larsen & Windom theory is invalid, their attempt to describe > cold fusion using a single causative mechanism is true to the mark. > > > > Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold > fusion because that basis only ad
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62?
On Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM Axil wrote [snip] Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going forward. [/snip] Axil, I agree that a single causative mechanism is true to the mark BUT only for the qualifying environment. That environment is the solid lattice loaded with migratory gas atoms. There may be numerous different methods to rectify and extract energy from this environment. Langmuir had anomalous heat in the 20's with just tungsten electrodes and hydrogen fuel he used in atomic welding. Haisch and Moddel have a patent for a method using noble gas circulated thru a synthetic catalyst tunnel, All the Pd-D and Ni-H methods fit the same form of gas motion inside a catalyst. The extraction theories however, are all over the map, from Lamb-Pinch proposed by H-M, to ZPE driven ashless chemistry where relativistic fH2<>2FH1 as I suggest occurs in the MAHG, and numerous Nuclear theories. When all the dust settles I think they will discover that Jan Naudts nailed it when he said the hydrino is relativistic. It means the catalytic environment is doing what we already understand from Casimir geometry -It is changing energy density just like you get when you accelerate to near C or park in a deep gravity well -the difference is that it reduces density instead of increases it and results in smaller time quanta instead of larger. Some of the COE restrictions go out the window when you can have different inertial frames caused by equivalent negative acceleration in close proximity to each other (actually a tapestry caused by variation in Casimir geometry). The end result is that you have people like Naudts and Bourgoin using math normally reserved for photons that can occupy the same spatial position being used for electrons that cannot. This remains controversial but my posit is that such math is valid when the electrons are in different inertial frames and the equation is based on our perspective outside of the catalyst. The electrons appear to occupy the same spatial position from our perspective outside the cavity and shrink into deuterium ice or other condensed formations that don't really exist from their own local perspective - It is the same sort of Lorentzian contractions and time dilations we see in spatial accelerations but in this case we are suppressing the intersection rate of the time axis inside the cavity instead of variations on the spatial axis. There is little need for "spatial" displacement because we outside the cavity have a much larger time quantum and are being rapidly displaced on the time axis from the shielded contents in the catalyst. We are effectively equivalent to the spatially displaced paradox twin while the contents of the cavity are equivalent to the stationary twin -so when the hydrogen returns from the cavity we find it has aged greatly and accomplished many more reactions than could have occurred if it stayed in our inertial frame. My point being that this environment provides multiple novel opportunities to extract energy from the constant motion of gas thru the changing energy densities - Perhaps dihydrinos can "parallel park" when they are in different fractional states and the columbic barrier is reduced by a gamma factor? Regards Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 1:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi bets the farm on Ni62? The cause of the cold fusion reaction must be universal as a lowest common denominator among all the various varieties and instances of its occurrence. In the same way that a solid like coal, a liquid like petrol, and a gas like methane can each burn through a common hydrocarbon combustion mechanism so to will cold fusion manifest in a single cause whether it be the mills reaction, the Rossi reaction or the Ponds and Fleischman D-Pt reaction. Even though Larsen & Windom theory is invalid, their attempt to describe cold fusion using a single causative mechanism is true to the mark. Neither Mills nor Rossi has discovered the true theoretical basis for cold fusion because that basis only addresses their particular reaction. The universal truth of cold fusion must explain all of its varied manifestations that have been observed so far and accurately predict new ones going forward. On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: The reason that Andrea Rossi is so desperate to frame his E-Cat as "nuclear" is no mystery among patent attorneys who have looked into the various filings. Here is the first reason (priority date 2000): http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=1rHHEBAJ&dq=20090146083 Rossi's side may counter this broad application - and t
