Yes Jones, I did miss this paper and wonder if it even has Astro implications wrt to the unexpected discovery of near C molecular hydrogen accelerated by intense magnetic field of a black hole. Fran.. that is once again the space time being modified and local gas in a plasma cloud blissfully unaware of it’s velocity from our perspective just as I have been arguing for in the case of gas atoms inside an NAE. Fran
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:RE: Hydrofill and LaNi5 Since we are trying to cover all of the bases in looking closely at the (extremely important) Cravens NI-Week experiment, and since we have talked from time to time about the known route for chemical thermal gain, which can be called “H/D exchange” – then lets refocus on that route. It would be most relevant now that we realize that there has been a change in the gas mix to H/D by Cravens. This exchange reaction is similar to a form of phase change and preferential reordering, and it be seen in the usual one-way form (conservative) or as sequential (a thermal anomaly). It is surprisingly energetic but is chemical – non nuclear. In papers such as those of the Colorado group - Dmitriyeva, Moddel et al. wherein the obvious is stated: “studies have shown that a hydrogen-deuterium (H/D) exchange chemical reaction can account for at least some of excess heat observed during gas-loading experiments…Our calculations on the energy available from H/D exchange show that all the excess heat observed during our experiment can be accounted for by this chemical reaction…” Thus the true message here is that we need to take a closer look at, which is what is “not said” and overlooked by researchers (who should not have overlooked this major detail). A “chemical reaction” supplying all the energy to a reaction – that essentially means almost nothing negative when excess thermal gain can be documented. The two are not mutually exclusive. When excess heat is actually documented, one route to that gain can indeed be sequential “H/D exchange” which is implemented chemically but the source of energy gain (to reset the system) is presently unknown, and probably related to nanomagnetism instead of nuclear energy. For instance, there can be an anti-entropy “reset of the H/D ratio” within the experiment which is implemented by superparamagnetism. In short, chemical routes to gain can easily suffice to produce substantial excess energy, which would only be permissible under LoT and CoE to the extent that a hidden source of energy from OUTSIDE the experiment has been harnessed. In the case of NI-Week the proximate cause of the gain can certainly be H/D exchange, but that label (and over-simplification) does NOT mean there is no excess heat – simply that the ultimate source of thermal gain is not obvious and is hidden. In fact over a decade ago, a “Magnetic Casimir Effect” was written up, and then languished… http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0207153 This route for bringing in outside energy is not only possible in a dynamic way (DCE) but could be long overdue in application to LENR, and especially relevant to NI-Week. (did you miss this paper, Fran ?) It can be easily expanded to cover the chemical reset function of this experiment. From: Bob Higgins Dennis did not explicitly say that an H & D mix was required, but I believe that his theory and his own experiments have led him to mostly use a 50:50 mix in his present experiments. This could be a new wrinkle. At NI-Week, he was apparently using only D, and was quoted as saying that he thought the gain was coming from D+D fusion to Helium (as in the Les Case line of experiments). A move to a HD mix would indicate something else… but I’m not sure what it indicates. IIRC Mitchell Swartz uses a 50:50 mix, but that experiment is electrolytic.
