Can't remember, but it was either me or Axil. what's important is that someone (you) were able to see a place in the puzzle where that piece fit in!
The 64 trillion $ question is: Do we (Jones, Fran, Axil, some of you PhD newcomers) have enough of the pieces put together to 'see' what the picture is all about??? -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:16 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark - I thought you found the "entanglement" paper. Or . did you not make the possible inter-connection between 'entanglement' and 'tunneling'? Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all this is QM so prepare to be confused. This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control. I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi's prior results of the applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the quiescence cycle, at least in the short term - at the expense of using perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. Otherwise - why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 month run? I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely). And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure loss - it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the "depleted H2" can still be oxidized in a chemical reaction. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint Jones wrote: "Stated simply, quiescence involves "too much depletion" in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors." Re: the statement, ".and *you* have already found papers suggestive." I started LOL. that *I* found? This post touches on the element of 'meta-physics' that SVJ has mentioned recently. One of the things that I enjoy doing it 'serendipitous surfin'. which is hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across something that just says to me, "this is important". Don't know why, since many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics understanding that I don't have. I can usually narrow it down to specific phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it's the subconscious mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it's important. The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, paying the bills, etc., to make the 'connections'; to see how a given paper or discovery is important. That's where Vortex-l, 'The Collective', comes into play. it's as if the Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they go, and some can see where those pieces 'fit' in. Does that make sense??? It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that trolls don't understand, nor respect. -Mark From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance Mark, The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, just as are seen in traditional physics - then it is a thermonuclear theory. Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM based - if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability. The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling - where instead of a small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. Stated simply, quiescence involves "too much depletion" in the mass of the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors. Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT may be doing this already. Jones From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint If quiescence is a reality, and *if* it will require a scientific/QM understanding, the I don't think any amount of 'control engineering' is going to be much help. one will need to find out the cause of the quiescence, which is a physics problem. If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), or if it gives you adequate 'warning' that it has started, then one could have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is 'running'. When it begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the 'idle' cores. while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of solution, and wouldn't work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled in order to make it 'ignite' again. If reactive capability can be reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are engineering problems, not scientific ones. -m