Here I will record some notes regarding my current research studies -- as well as some salient historical notes.
Note added June 2017: To find the wiki article regarding my research, please google "wiki dr byu" - should be about the second entry.
Or go directly here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Reading the first paragraph, click on reference [9] to get the latest paper, published in EuroPhysics News on Aug. 24, 2016, and now with over 547,000 reads/views!
To find my web page, please google "dr byu", should be the first entry (even though I was early-retired ten years ago!) ENDNOTE
I'll begin with:
QuoteBRIEF HISTORY OF COLD FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
Secondary title: PIEZONUCLEAR FUSION AT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
By BYU Professors Jae Ballif, William Evenson, and Steven Jones
Compiled in 1989 by the three of us with minor edits since then.
I. Scientific Team
II. History
Quote
I. Scientific Team
A. Brigham Young University Faculty Members - Department of Physics and Astronomy
Steven E. Jones (PI) E. Paul Palmer J. Bart Czirr Daniel L. Decker Gary L. Jensen
B. Brigham Young University Faculty Members - Department of Chemistry James M. Thorne
C. Brigham Young University students
Stuart F. Taylor Rod Price J. W. Wang David Mince Eugene Sheeley Paul Dahl Paul Banks S. Seth Jones David E. Jones
D. University of Arizona Faculty Members - Department of Physics Johann Rafelski
II. History
A. Scientific paper published March 1986 (submitted June 1985)
The roots of our work regarding piezonuclear fusion are described in a scientific paper published in the Journal of Physics G: Nuclear physics, 12: 213-221. This paper was received by the journal on 12 June 1985 (over three years before we heard of Pons and Fleischmann, or of Andrei Lipson in Russia, or of their related work) and published in March 1986.
A1. Theory proposed which presages Brigham Young University experiments
The detailed mathematical framework given in the paper was worked out primarily by Dr. Clinton Van Siclen, author on the paper with Dr. Steven E. Jones. The paper discusses fusion at room temperature and how this might be enhanced by increasing the density of hydrogen isotopes. The paper discusses the transition of hydrogen to the metallic state under high pressures and other technical points. One significant concept explored in this paper is that a hypothetical particle "with mass twice that of the electron" could lead to room temperature fusion at a rate of approximately one fusion per minute per kilogram of deuterium. This is close to the actual rates observed in later experiments at Brigham Young University by Jones and colleagues, and the theoretical framework given in this early publication continues to be a possible explanation for the cold/piezonuclear fusion effect. Indeed, this paper is referred to in our later papers on the Brigham Young University experiments since it provides a theoretical, mathematical foundation for cold fusion.
A2."Piezonuclear fusion" used by Steven Jones of Brigham Young University to describe cold fusion
In addition to initiating the 1985 study, Steven Jones (one of the authors) coined the term "piezonuclear fusion" in analogy to the term "thermonuclear fusion," to indicate that the proposed approach is to induce fusion by "squeezing" the hydrogen nuclei together at near room temperatures rather than by heating them to very high temperatures. (The prefix "piezo-" comes from a Greek work meaning to squeeze or compress.) Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986.
B. Brigham Young University Physics Colloquium 12 March 1986
E. Paul Palmer suggested geophysical applications
The paper was published in March 1986, and on March 12, 1986 many of the concepts in the paper were described by Dr. Jones at a Colloquium of the BYU Physics Department. BYU Physics Professor Paul Palmer was present and associated these ideas with geological data on heat and helium-3 which are correlated in volcanoes and other thermal regions of the earth. Both heat and helium-3 are released in fusion reactions (proton-deuteron and deuteron-deuteron reactions). Dr. Palmer suggested that rock, lava, or crystals in the earth might help to catalyze the fusion reaction. This creative leap is recorded in Dr. Palmer's logbook, dated March 13, 1986 in some detail (copies available on request to BYU Physics Department).
C. Report to DOE 13 May 1986
Our work on cold piezonuclear fusion was reported to the DOE in the 1985-86 Annual Performance Report, dated 13 May 1986, along with three related documents: the Van Siclen/Jones paper on piezouclear fusion, a note entitled "Experiments in Cold Fusion" dated 28 March 1986 by Paul Palmer; and "Comments on Catalyzed Fusion," a note by Steven Jones dated 1 April 1986. It was at this time that Prof. Jones received permission from the DOE funding agent R Gajewiski to pursue research on this aspect of cold nuclear fusion under an already existing DOE grant to Brigham Young University for muon-catalyzed fusion research.
D. Brigham Young University's experimental program D1. Planning began in March 1986
As a result of discussions generated by the Physics Department colloquium by Dr. Jones on March 12, 1986, an experimental program was worked out to test these new ideas. An important discussion meeting was held at BYU on April 7, 1986, involving Profs. Czirr, Jones, and Palmer of BYU, and Johann Rafelski of the University of Arizona, along with student researchers. Plans for the research were extensively developed at the meeting. Prof. Rafelski had been very active in theoretical work on piezonuclear fusion since late 1985 and strongly urged the active pursuit of this experimental effort at BYU.
D2. Use of Pd, Li, Al, Cu, Ni, Pt under non-equilibrium conditions, was outlined 7 April 1986 - notarized lab notebook page.
Prof. Jones's brief notes from the April 7, 1986, meeting record that the metals aluminum, copper, nickel, platinum, palladium (because it "absorbs hydrogen readily"), and lithium were discussed as prime candidates for the process. The importance of non-equilibrium conditions was discussed; in particular, "shocked hydrides" and "electric discharge" were considered. These notes were notarized that day by Lee R. Phillips, a notary and BYU attorney, showing the importance attached to these ideas by the physicists present.
D3. Geophysical evidence for cold fusion was sought in the scientific literature as early as April 1986
On April 13, 1986, Prof. Palmer noted in his logbook a number of fusion reactions to be studied, including the deuteron + lithium reaction. (On March 18, he had noted the high amounts of sodium and lithium in magmas; these later became ingredients in our electrolyte solution, commonly known as "Mother Earth Soup".) On April 16, he records the findings of a paper by the Russian physicists B.A. Mamyrin, L. V. Khabarin, an V. S. Yudenich [Dokl. Adad. Nauk. SSSR, 237: 1054 (1987)] in which they report excess helium-3 found in various metals. This paper was encouraging to us, but we were surprised that no follow-up work was recorded in the literature.
D4. Electrochemical cell built and measurements taken beginning May 1986 On May 22, 1986, our first electrochemical cell for "electrolytic infusion of hydrogen into metals" was
built (see Prof. Palmer's logbook) and on May 23, D2O (heavy water) was added. Using a sodium-
iodide detector, we looked first for gamma rays from proton-deuteron fusion, and found on May 27 that the foreground rate when the cell operating was slightly higher than the background rate when the cell was not operating, but the result was not statistically significant. In June, we developed another means of loading hydrogen isotopes into metals, using pressurized gases, and added a neutron detector.
D5.. Work on a highly sensitive, energy resolving neutron detector was begun in 1986, since neutrons of the correct energy are a sure indicator of nuclear fusion
Throughout the summer of 1986, work was done on the neutron detector, while different electrolytes were tried, including the addition of NaOH or H2SO4 to D2O and the addition of "impurity salts" of
various metals. We also tried loading the cathode with deuterium gas before beginning the electrolysis (see, e.g., 10 September 1986 entry). By September 3, 1986, we saw a foreground minus background
rate of about 5x10-3 in the neuron counter, but the result was neither not consistently repeatable. However, this rate proved to be consistent with the rate obtained in later work when the neutron counter system had been dramatically improved. As the Fall 1986 school term began anew, we concluded that in order to make progress in our work we had to first improve the neutron detector. Bart Czirr and Gary Jensen continued this work. Some of the effort went into trying to find suitable hydrogen-rich, inorganic scintillator. While this work continued, Dr. Jones pursued muon-catalyzed fusion research.
D6. Student papers presented on piezonuclear fusion experiments in March and April 1988
In January, 1988, Prof. Jones organized a student research class along with Prof. Palmer and Prof. Larry Rees. Cold or piezonuclear fusion was one of the principal research topics, pursued by students Paul Dahl and Paul Banks. Both wrote term papers on the topic. On 12 March 1988, Paul Dahl presented an oral paper at the Spring Research Conference of the BYU College of Physical Sciences and Mathematics; his paper was entitled "An Experimental Investigation of Piezo-nuclear Fusion." On 25 March 1988, we prepared some deuterided metal samples, which we sent to Harmon Craig of the University of California at San Diego, for helium and tritium analysis. These examples were later sent to Al Nier of the University of Minnesota, but analysis had not been completed as of 30 March 1989 as our paper for Nature neared completion.
D7. Further experiments planned, research program set out and pursued vigorously from August 1988
More after some sleep.
D7. Further experiments planned, research program set out and pursued vigorously from August 1988
In August 1988, the decision was taken by the scientific team to vigorously pursue experimental cold fusion research. In particular, Prof. Jones' logbook records that a fusion group meeting took place on 24 August 1988, and that this matter was aired. We decided that both gamma and neutron detectors would be used.
Since energy applications for muon-catalyzed fusion appeared remote, we decided to place particular emphasis on our cold/piezonuclear fusion research program. This decision followed work in early August by Prof. Jones in which he outlined a paper on the subject. His intent was to include a discussion of piezonuclear fusion research in his paper, for publication in the proceedings of a muon-catalyzed fusion workshop previously held in Florida in May 1988, as recorded in his logbook entry dated 9 August 1988. (Prof. Jones is an editor of this Proceedings, which is publication no. 181 of the American Institute of Physics.) However, during a visit to Provo on 15-16 August 1988, Prof. Rafelski dissuaded Jones from including this work in his paper but rather encouraged more experimental studies first. Dr. Jones also discussed the BYU work on this fusion process and his intentions to emphasize cold/piezonuclear fusion studies with Dr. Alan Anderson and Dane Chapman in August and early September 1988. Our group has vigorously pursued its experimental cold fusion research at BYU since May 1986.
D8. Publishable results obtained in 1988-1989
In August 1988, we did gamma-ray studies, using the sodium-iodine detector easiest set up. As before, we saw only non-significant hints of gamma production in our 3 inch sodium iodide counter, so we decided to concentrate on using the neutron spectrometer, which was fully conditioned for use in late 1988. Our first studies with this spectrometer were done using titanium, palladium, tantalum, nickel, aluminum, iron, and lanthanum. We also used several methods of loading deuterium into metals, including the original electrochemical method. Thus, we performed anew the experiment which we had started in May 1986, namely electrolytic infusion of deuterium into metals, but with a much-improved neutron detector. Of these experiments,
Paul Palmer records: "Steve [Jones] and Bart [Czirr] have set up experiments exactly as we did a year or so ago and looked for fusion-generated neutrons in Bart's liquid-scintillator, low-resolution spectrometer.....As in the previous work, the results were tantalizingly positive." Within a few weeks, the results had reached a statistical significance of over five standard deviations. We also found correlations between tritium detected in Hawaii and volcanic eruptions there, in agreement with expectations that piezonuclear fusion occurs in the earth. We decided in early February to publish our results.
E. Discussions with scientists at other institutions (1986-1988)
Our work in this field has been communicated to a number of scientists outside of BYU in the 1986-1988 period, to name a few : Harmon Craig (University of California, San Diego geophysicist), Al Nier (University of Minnesota), Alan Anderson (Idaho Research Software), Gus Caffrey (Idaho National Engineering Laboratory), James Cohen, Mel Leon, Jim Bradbury, Richard Maltrud, Mike Paciotti (all of Los Alamos National Laboratory), Russell Kulsrud (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory), Archie Harms (McMaster University), and Mike Danos (National Bureau of Standards).
III. Scientific Contacts with University of Utah Researchers A. Steven Jones reviews proposal by Pons and Fleishmann at request of DOE, 20 September 1988
According to Prof. Jones' logbook, he reviewed a proposal by Profs. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann on 20 September 1988, entitled "The Behavior of Electrochemically Compressed Hydrogen and Deuterium." The proposal was sent to Prof. Jones by Ryszard Gajewski, director of the Division of Advanced Energy Projects of the Department of Energy. Dr. Gajewski had funded Jones' work on cold nuclear fusion (including muon-catalyzed fusion) since 1982, and his specific work on electro-fusion since May 1986. For his part, Dr. Jones has reviewed about eight to ten proposals relating to cold nuclear fusion, his primary field of research. The cover letter with the proposal said nothing about declining to review the proposal if the reviewer was doing related work. Indeed, most of the proposals which Dr. Jones is asked by the DOE to review related closely to his active research on cold nuclear fusion, including muon-catalyzed fusion. The cover letter did specify that the reviewer agrees to "use the information contained in the proposal for evaluation purposes only." This Jones accepted and acknowledges that he has abided by this agreement.
The development of the project at BYU outlined above, including the use of electrochemical cells since May 1986, shows that Brigham Young University was conducting research in cold fusion, including the use of electrolytic cells and deuterium-gas loading, long before the review of the University of Utah's proposal at the request of the Department of Energy. We adhered to our on-going program in a straightforward way, despite the unfounded accusations which circulated in the media in 1989 following the press conference of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann.
B. Jones offered to cooperate with Pons and Fleischmann
Prof. Jones recommended that the University of Utah's proposal be approved, despite his unresolved reservations about the theoretical underpinnings. He also suggested to R. Gajewski that he inform Pons and Fleischmann that Jones has been doing possibly related work on cold fusion since 1986 and that perhaps a cooperative effort between the nearby universities (BYU and University of Utah) would be desirable. Jones pointed out that the techniques of the two efforts (e.g. neutron detection at BYU and calorimetric measurements at the University of Utah) were complementary and that the research effort could be benefited by cooperation.
B1. Pons responded with telephone call December 1988
Dr. Gajewski did inform Pons of the proposed cooperation, who in turn called Jones in (about) December 1988 to discuss the matter. B2. Jones offered use of neutron detector. In ensuing contacts, Pons requested written information regarding the neutron spectrometer which had been developed at BYU. Jones mailed him this information and offered to allow Pons to use the operating neutron spectrometer at BYU. Pons seemed pleased with the offer.
B3. Pons and Fleischmann visited Brigham Young University laboratory, 23 February 1989
Finally, on 23 February, 1989, Pons and Fleishmann came to BYU to visit Jones and his colleagues in the BYU Underground Laboratory. Pons and Fleishmann were shown the neutron spectrometer and the neutron-energy spectra which it produced, including calibration and actual data distributions. In particular, we openly pointed out the significant fusion neutron signal observed in our data. We also discussed some of our geological evidence for cold fusion (tritium in volcanic gases). In the exchange of information, Fleischmann showed us one of their electrochemical cells, although he indicated that this particular one was one that did not work. We invited them to bring their (working) apparatus to BYU to verify its operation with our neutron spectrometer. They agreed, and the date of 26 February was set for the test.
B4. Researchers agreed to work toward simultaneous publication
Over lunch at BYU that day (23 February 1989), Jones told Pons and Fleishmann that the BYU group was preparing to publish their data and offered to let them publish simultaneously. Dr. Jones reports that when he made the offer to allow the University of Utah researcher to publish simultaneously with the BYU report, he was attempting to establish an open and cooperative relationship. The University of Utah researchers did not come back to the BYU laboratory to test their equipment on 26 February as agreed. Rather, they explained that morning (via telephone) that a graduate student had had to travel to a funeral, and said that they would plan to come at the end of the week. But they did not come then, either. Subsequently, a meeting was proposed by University of Utah President Chase Peterson for 6 March 1989, to be held at BYU with the chief scientists and Presidents of the two universities present.
IV. Contacts Between University Administrators
A. Telephone discussion between President of University of Utah and Provost of Brigham Young University, 3 March 1989
On Friday, March 3rd, the President of the University of Utah called the Provost of Brigham Young University. He made some observations about the significance of cold fusion research going on at both universities, and some of the complexities surrounding the project. He then asked for a meeting with top university administrators and chief scientists involved in the projects as soon as possible. A meeting was scheduled for the following Monday.
B. Meeting between Brigham Young University and University of Utah administrators and principal scientists at Brigham Young University, 6 March 1989
On Monday, 6 March, University of Utah president (Chase Peterson), his vice-president for academic affairs (Joseph Taylor), and the two principle scientists (Drs. Pons and Fleischmann) involved in the cold nuclear fusion experiment at the University of Utah, arrived at 9:00 A.M. to begin the scheduled meeting. Brigham Young University participants in the meeting were the president of the university (Jeffrey R. Holland), the Provost and academic vice-president (Jae R. Ballif), the associate academic vice-president responsible for research (LaMond Tullis), and the principal scientist who directs Brigham Young University's cold fusion experiments (Dr. Jones).
Before the meeting, the president of the University of Utah met separately with the president of BYU and his provost to discuss the agenda. It was agreed that the University of Utah's president could pursue his agenda
so long as it included a brief historical summary of the research done at BYU. President Chase Peterson of the University of Utah first explained how wonderful an invention practical cold nuclear fusion would be. He also said that the large monetary proceeds from said invention could be extremely valuable to the University of Utah. Dr. Jones then held up a small flashlight and stated a strong cautionary note that he would be extremely surprised if enough power could be generated by this fusion process to power even a flashlight in the foreseeable future, and that he could not see in any case how the proceeds from the invention could be vouchsafed for the University of Utah. Jones then reviewed the history of the BYU research on cold fusion (at the request of Academic Vice President Ballif). He described much of the history given above. In particular, Jones showed a notarized page from his own logbook dated (and notarized) 7 April 1986, demonstrating that the metals palladium, platinum, nickel, lithium, copper, and aluminum were particularly enumerated for the BYU research on cold/piezonuclear fusion on that date.
He also showed copies of pages from Paul Palmer's notebook that demonstrate unequivocally that experimental research using electrolytic infusion of hydrogen into various metals began at BYU on 26 May 1986, 2+ years before we learned of the University of Utah work in this area, with the first positive hints of cold nuclear fusion by this process presenting themselves on 27 May 1986.
None of these dates were questioned, nor were there any questions about the proposal-review process involving Dr. Jones. They did not allege at that time that the BYU group had pirated any ideas from their research. After Dr. Jones' review of detailed documents showing the BYU research over the years, Utah
President Peterson turned to BYU President Holland and commented on the remarkable coincidence that such similar research had sprung up independently at the two universities. This met with general agreement. Then the meeting shifted to a discussion of releasing the information to the public. The University of Utah researchers stated that they would prefer to have up to eighteen months to quietly pursue their research before announcing it. Dr Jones stated that he had been funded on the research in question since May 1986, that he had positive results, that he felt obliged under DOE grant to publish his results. Furthermore,
the DOE funding agent (Dr. Gajewski) had encouraged him to go ahead with a publication on the experimental work to complement his earlier theoretical paper. In particular, Jones displayed his abstract for an Invited Paper to the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society of 2 February 1989, which states in Part: "We have shown that nuclear fusion between hydrogen isotopes can be induced by binding the nuclei closely together for a sufficiently long time, without the need for high-temperature plasmas.....We have also accumulated considerable evidence for a new form of cold nuclear fusion which occurs when hydrogen isotopes are loaded into various materials, notably crystalline solids (without muons). Implications of these findings on geophysics and fusion research will be considered."
The University of Utah contingent expressed great concern about Jones' speaking at the May meeting in Baltimore. In particular, University of Utah President Peterson suggested strongly that it would be desirable for Jones not to give the talk. Dr. Jones replied that he was shocked that Pres. Peterson would suggest that he give up
an invited APS-meeting talk on the BYU work, and Pres. Peterson finally agreed that he would not ask Jones to cancel his talk. Instead, it was agreed that the two groups would submit papers SIMULTANEOUSLY and quickly (in about three or four weeks time) in order to have the papers accepted and hopefully published before Jones' scheduled talk on May 4, 1989. It was also agreed by all that no public disclosure of the research would be made by either group prior to the simultaneous submission of the papers. In keeping with this understanding, Jones said that he would cancel a previously scheduled physics department colloquium at BYU, set for 8 March (two days later), and he did so. Jones also cancelled a talk by a graduate student (Stuart Taylor) on the BYU cold fusion research scheduled at the BYU Spring Research Conference on 11 March 1989, in order to strictly adhere to this agreement.
In subsequent discussions between Jones, Pons, and Fleischmann, it was agreed that the precise day for the joint submission would be on 24 March 1989.
On 21 March Dr. Pons called Dr. Jones and the joint submission date of 24 March was re-confirmed. Dr. Pons indicated that the University of Utah paper was ready but assured Jones that it would not be submitted earlier than 24 March. No mention whatsoever was made of the University of Utah press conference held on 23 March 1989, one day prior to the agreed date for releasing the information jointly, or of the University of Utah paper on cold fusion already submitted on 11 March 1989, to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry by Pons and Fleischmann.C. Agreements from 6 March 1989 meeting
After an extended discussion of what might be done to accommodate the interests of the University of Utah delegation, it was agreed by all present that:
C1. Simultaneous publication Scientists at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah would prepare and submit
simultaneous publications to the same journal.
C2. Publication prior to APS meeting (May 1989) where Jones was scheduled to speak
Every effort would be made to submit simultaneous publications prior to the American Physical Society Meeting, even though this would be difficult in the short time available. It was agreed that publication in the most prestigious physics journals would be pursued first, but if that could not be accomplished in time, the papers would be submitted to another journal. It was agreed that if necessary journals outside the field of physics would be considered including simultaneous publication in a chemistry journal.
Dr. Jones contacted George Miley regarding possible publication on this topic (of these two papers) in Fusion Technology as well as contacting an editor of Nature, for he had previously published papers on muon-catalyzed fusion in these major journals.C3. Exchange of preprints The scientists would exchange papers after they were completed.
C4. No further public comments on results of research until papers submitted
No further public announcements of the results of either teams' research would be made until after the papers were submitted for publication. Brigham Young University scientists had a department colloquium scheduled later in the week to discuss their research. Jones volunteered to cancel the presentation and did so following the meeting at BYU on March 6, 1989.
V. University of Utah Press Conference and Subsequent Events
On 22 March 1989, the BYU group had calls from people at the Department of Energy about a press release announcing a 23 March University of Utah press conference. It stated that
net energy-producing cold nuclear fusion had been achieved at the University of Utah, and that a reviewer of the proposal had confirmed the result! We were shocked and disappointed by the announcement and communicated these feelings to Chase Peterson and James Brophy at the University of Utah. For example,
on 22 March BYU Professor Grant Mason, Dean of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, spoke to Dr. James Brophy, University of Utah Vice President for Research, and expressed to him that if the press conference were held, we at BYU would interpret this as a violation of the agreements between the two universities. His words were that we would interpret such a press conferenceQuote"as a stab in the back."
[/b]
More soon.
The University of Utah press conference was held (despite our protestations) on 23 March 1989. No mention was made of the cold fusion research at BYU. In fact, a question was asked at the University of Utah press conference: "Is this going on any place else, or is this the kind of process that is currently being developed by anyone else?" to which University of Utah Vice President of Research James Brophy replied:
Quote"Let's see, I'll answer it and then perhaps you can . We're not aware of any such experiments going on."
It was also stated that the University of Utah paper on their work had already been submitted, although they did not say to which journal. This was also a great shock to us at BYU.[/b] After learning of this, we could not see why we should wait until the next day to send our paper to Nature, so, after the press conference at the University of Utah, we sent our paper to Nature. We have received considerable criticism from University of Utah persons for not going to the airport to meet them on 24 March, to send our papers off together. However, it was verified to us on 24 March that Pons and Fleischmann had indeed submitted their paper prior to 23 March; their preprint entitled "Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium" contained this statement on the title page: "Submitted to Journal of Electroananalytical Chemistry March 11, 1989." Thus, the University of Utah paper was submitted prior to 24 March, although we are given to understand that a paper on the subject was also submitted on 24 March to Nature. It is noteworthy that our paper to Nature was published (April 1989, 338:737), while the P/F paper was not published in Nature after all.
Prof. Jones spoke at the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore, MD, in May 1989 as planned. During a panel discussion, Jones opened a question to the panel as to whether or not the "excess heat" claimed by Pons and Fleischmann was really due to d-d cold fusion (given the paucity of nuclear fusion products in their data). He and all but one physicist on the panel answered in the negative.
There remains one final area to be recorded in this effort to lay out the facts. Numerous allegations and insinuations have been made to the effect that Dr. Jones pirated the idea of cold fusion in an electrochemical cell or some unspecified ideas from the University of Utah work based on his review of their proposal. For example, such insinuations appeared in a front page article of the Deseret News on 2 April 1989, quoting persons from the University of Utah. Similar accusations were made to officials at the Department of Energy and to scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
On or about 14 February, University of Utah attorney Norm Brown spoke to the BYU attorney Lee Phillips and suggested that Jones had pirated ideas from his review of the University of Utah proposal. This was reported to Jones who reported the allegation to the DOE funding agent Dr. Ryszard Gajwski. Dr. Gajewski then questioned Dr. Pons about this.
Dr. Pons apologized for the insinuations of the lawyer both to Dr. Gajewski and directly to Dr. Jones on or about 21 February 1989. We know of no further accusations or insinuations of wrongdoing against Dr. Jones until 10 March 1989, when Dr. James Brophy made allegations of this kind to Prof. John Lamb of BYU. During the week of 14 March 1989, Dr. Pons made general accusations against Jones to Dr. Gajewski, as reported to Jones by Dr. Gajewski.
We have provided evidence from logbooks and other sources that demonstrates that these unsubstantiated allegations are false. When the University of Utah proposal becomes available through the Freedom of Information Act, it will be completely clear, if it is not already, that our work was conducted independently of theirs. (According to agreement with the Department of Energy, BYU retained no copy of the proposal following the evaluation.) Meanwhile,
we have opened our logbooks and other documents to public view; copies are available upon request from the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Prof. Jones reported:
Quote"A few weeks after the press conference at the University of Utah, I saw Martin Fleischmann in Erice, Italy for the first time since the March 6 meeting. He took me outside the breakfast room and acknowledged that the March 23rd press conference had been "unfair" to us at BYU. He did not suggest that we had driven him to this action. Rather, he told me that administrators at the University of Utah had pressured him to have the press conference. Note that no press conference on "cold fusion" was ever held at BYU. "
We had not agreed to join in a media circus with the University of Utah, which is one of the main reasons we declined to go on March 24 to the SLC airport to send off our paper with the P/F paper (we were told that the press would be there). In addition, at the March 23rd press conference at the University of Utah, it was announced that P/F had recently submitted a paper, before their press conference. So we simply faxed our paper to Nature without fanfare,
in such a way that it would have a March 24 submission date. That
someone from the U. Utah did go to the airport and indeed waited for BYU to show up - with the press there - shows clearly that they had understood that there was an agreement for parallel submission of papers and that they knew very well of the BYU work. However, they had already submitted their paper on March 11 without informing us. And at the press conference, Dr. Brophy of the University of Utah answered a question about whether any such research was going on elsewhere thus: "let's see, I'll answer it and then perhaps you can. We're not aware of any such experiments going on."
It would be grossly unfair to cast blame on the BYU group these actions by persons from the University of Utah or for the press conference held there, or for the public statement made by Brophy a few days later that the BYU research "confirmed" the P/F work, which statement we feel was terribly misleading.
Prof. Jones reported:Quote"During the May 1989 meeting at Sante Fe on Cold Fusion, I approached Dr. Brophy of the University of Utah and expressed my disgust at his allegation (made to BYU Prof. John Lamb, BYU research director, in early 1989) that I had stolen the P/F idea based on my review of their proposal. He told me he no longer believed that."[/b]
More of the early history of cold/piezonuclear fusion to come.
Addenda - Extracts from early BYU publications on cold fusion.
The following is extracted from a
peer-reviewed paper submitted in 1985 and published in 1986, on cold/piezonuclear fusion, by Clint Van Siclen and Steven E. Jones:
Quote
"It is interesting to consider whether piezonuclear fusion within the liquid metallic hydrogen core of Jupiter can account for the excess heat radiated from the planet. This excess is equal to about one and a half times the energy received from the sun. . . Assuming a metallic hydrogen core of radius 4.6 X 109 cm, 189 fusions per cm^3...."
C.D. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear Fusion in Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules," Journal of Physics G. Nucl. Phys. 12: 213-221 (1986)
The following is extracted from a proposal submitted in 1986 by J. Bart Czirr of Brigham Young University, who performed research on cold fusion with BYU Professors Paul Palmer and Steven E. Jones:
Quote"The present [neutron] detector with improved resolution will find application in several diverse fields, including:
Magnetically confined fusion plasma temperature measurements for d-d and d-t reactions, muon-catalyzed fusion experiments, other cold-fusion experiments, low intensity source measurements requiring good discriminating against background radiation, radioactive source spectrum measurements utilizing (alpha, n) reactions or spontaneous fission, and measurements of the neutron-neutron cross section through the negative-muon/deuteron reaction. Experiments are currently in progress at Brigham Young University to search for evidence of electron- catalyzed fusion in metals containing deuterium atoms. A neutron spectrometer would provide an important diagnostic tool for the detection of 2.5 MeV neutrons from d-d reactions taking place in these experiments. [emphasis added]
This detector is designed to fill a gap in existing technology for neutron spectrum measurements and permit a broad range of future experiments. The list above only represents a portion of the potential applications. (J.B. Czirr, SBIR Phase II Proposal, May 14, 1986. See also, DOE SBIR grant, number DE-AC02-85-ER80289.
The following is a published abstract for a talk presented publicly by BYU student Paul Dahl at a conference held at BYU in March 1988. It demonstrates our active research in this research area a year before the Pons/Fleischmann press conference, and long before we heard of them or their research:
Quote"AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF PIEZO-NUCLEAR FUSION. P.A. Dahl, P.S. Banks, E.V.Sheeley, E.P. Palmer, S.E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602.
Excess helium-3 and tritium gases have been observed in volcanic emissions as well as in some metals. Independently of these results, theorists Rafelski and Muller suggested to us that excited HD ( and by inference D2) molecules might undergo fusion without the need for stellar temperatures to form 3He (and tritium), in analogy to the muon-catalyzed fusion process. We are therefore motivated to study the possibility that fusion may occur at a measurable rate in the earth's crust and in metals wherein the fusion of hydrogen isotopes is facilitated by their dense packing amongst surrounding ions. To test this piezonuclear fusion hypothesis, we will prepare deuterated metal foils, subjecting some to high pressures as found deep in the earth. Then the growth of helium-3 and tritium in the foils will be evaluated."
Finally, see attached from a copy of the original log book kept by BYU Prof. Paul Palmer to demonstrate early work on cold fusion at BYU; in particular, these log book entries show that the first cold fusion experiments at BYU were performed in May 1986, long before we heard of Pons & Fleischmann and their ostensibly related work.
A team at NRL observes anomalous heat accompanied by RF generation but (so far) no nuclear products.
To be reported on at the upcoming ICCF-18 in nine days...
Quote
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research at the Naval Research Laboratory
D.A. Kidwell1, D.D. Dominguez1, A.E. Moser2, J.H. He2, K.S. Grabowski1, G.K. Hubler1 C.A. Carosella1, C. Cetina2 and D.L. Knies1 1Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375 USA 2NOVA Research, Inc., Alexandria, VA
We have explored the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) for about eight years focusing on transmutation, electrochemistry, and gas loading with the latter two being the most fruitful. In electrochemistry, palladium foil is loaded with deuterium in a closed electrochemical cell contained in a calorimeter. Occasionally, excess energy is produced that is much larger than can be accounted for by chemistry or the electrical input into the system. Unfortunately, the poor reproducibility (<6%) prevented discovery of the trigger for this excess heat. In gas loading, palladium nanoparticles are pressurized with deuterium. While the resultant heat is very reproducible, it is much lower than from electrochemical experiments and therefore harder to characterize as unconventional chemistry. In both approaches to LENR only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established.
Science is data driven. Once a hypothesis is formed, the most important scientific task is to disprove the hypothesis. Only after failure to find conflicting data is a hypothesis accepted as likely correct, but that acceptance can change on a moments notice when new data arises. Although simple in concept, LENR experiments have subtle pitfalls to trap the more casual researcher, and much of our effort has gone into uncovering these pitfalls. Through a historical perspective, I will discuss the application of the scientific method to selected results and how incorrect conclusions could have been easily made. In contrast, we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention.
What do you think of this?
Quote"only energy (as heat) is produced – neither nuclear products nor transmutations have been firmly established..... we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention."
I have communicated (over a year ago) with one of the co-authors (Graham Hubler) and he has shared data with me that looks compelling - even their earlier data looks very solid! Just wait a few more days.
Attached is a small portion of the schedule of talks for the ICCF-18 conference next week. I will be giving a poster-talk starting Monday morning, 22 July 2013, entitled: Empirical Evidence for Two Distinct Effects: Low-level d-d Fusion in Metals and Anomalous Excess Heat
I just noticed today that DEFKALION has a scheduled presentation of some sort - "DEFKALION reactor start-up" on Tuesday 23 July 13 at 9:00 am.
Should be exciting!
Hi PP
Exciting stuff, I hope everything goes well for you there, Good Luck O0
Peter
Thanks, Peter.
For the record, I dug up the 1945 (application year) PATENT obtained by Peter Daysh Davey in New Zealand.
Davey's device used electrodes immersed in water and other liquids, so electrolysis was going on. He simply patented a "water heater"; but claimed that it produced heat super-efficiently. At least one of the electrodes was mounted such that it was free to VIBRATE -- a feature DAVEY felt crucial to his invention (shades of Keeley?).
For my poster-talk at ICCF-18, I plan to have this 1945 patent at the fountainhead of the "light-water/hydrogen anomalous heat" path. Then at that conference, I will try to find out WHO is claiming anomalous heat today on this path.
In 2006, I gave a talk at the University of California at Berkeley and discussed recent results in the field of cold fusion. The attached paper is based on that talk.
Quoting from it, to give you some idea of the contents:
QuoteI came to the conclusion in 1989 that the two groups were simply observing two different phenomena. I used an analogy of trains on separate tracks, trying to help people understand. It is quite possible for different effects to take place when one loads a metal with deuterium or hydrogen.
Now, were we wrong in our own claims of low-level neutron production in d-d cold fusion? I suppose I wouldn't be standing before you today if my colleagues and I had been wrong. Please consider the DATA Tables below summarizing experimental results from several independent experiments.8 Please note the publication dates – it took approximately nine years to get this low-level "cold d-d fusion effect" verified. ...
I encourage researchers in the anomalous heat field to keep seeking – just don't call it "cold fusion" unless you start seeing the corresponding fusion products! That has been my concern from the outset.
As many of you are aware, I've been studying anomalous effects in H2O and D2O since 1986 (see for example, my post #3 above). Others have been studying this at a much earlier date -- for example Peter Daysh Davey whose work I have (with others) attempted to replicate. See for example, this thread (where I participate as PhysicsProf): http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8999-peter-daysh-davey-water-heater-query-51.html
And Mike Nunnerley has been at this for a long time also, likewise independent of Pons and Fleischmann and so-called "cold fusion". You understand that Peter Daysh Davey applied for a patent on his electrolysis system in 1945.
I hope Mike doesn't mind, I was very impressed by his posted ideas several years back (attached) in which he discusses using RF to dissociate water. Very clever, and shades of more recent work in which "cold fusion" researchers are finally checking for RF in their electrolytic cells -- and seeing it! (E.g., Kidwell et al. at NRL, and also people studying plasma electrolysis in H2O.)
You see, it appears that finally the "cold fusion" researchers, such as Mizuno and Cirillo and Biberian are seeing "excess heat" anomalies light-water H2O electrolysis previously seen by "freedom energy" researchers in H2O electrolysis. Of course, they give zero credit to Peter Daysh Davey or Michael Nunnerley -- it is doubtful they have even heard of these and other researchers studying H2O-electrolysis anomalies WITHOUT claiming any "low-energy nuclear effects." But probably the anomalous heat they see is NOT due to LENR after all! (OK, that is my opinion based on data I've studied - any nuclear products are NOT commensurate at all with the heat observed, not in the same ball park.)
I will be interested to see if there is a confluence of ideas (if not recognition) between the two fields. It is as if "cold fusion" and "freedom energy" researchers are in different camps, hardly communicating or even aware of each other's work.
How many of you, for example, know of Mizuno's excess heat claims in H2O-plasma-electrolysis? And is Mizuno aware of Peter Davey's work or of this community? I'll find out.
I'm hoping this will change at the ICCF-18 meeting which I will attend. I will talk about Davey and Nunnerley and my own H2O electrolysis experiments following the anomalous energy path -- independent of the P&F coalition.
It is quite a remarkable situation, two sets of researchers, hardly communicating yet both pursuing the same goal with some success I might add.
As I was seeing evidence for anomalous heat in H2O electrolysis a year ago (and before), I followed the ideas of Davey, then Daemonbart (Swedish researcher) and Nunnerley and others (including Chet). Not following P&F D2O experiments -- in which H2O is used generally as a CONTROL!
Well, H2O is far from a control for us -- it is where we are seeing anomalous heat and anomalous H2 production effects.
Biberian will speak at this conference, re: H2O anomalous heat. Also Defkalion and Celani I think will speak to light-hydrogen effects.
Enhanced communications? We will see.
Comments welcomed.
I attended ICCF-18 today - and enjoyed it immensely! Everyone that I knew from before and that I talked to was very pleasant and happy to see me again, just as I was very pleased to see them. It was a great experience for me. O0
I talked to smiling Francesco Celani, who was mentioned by several speakers as having inspired them to try his idea of constantan wire in H2 or D2, seeking anomalous heat.
Jean Paul Biberian, who said he agrees with me that the heat may not be nuclear in origin;
Yeong Kim said that was quite possible also.
As did David Nagel - I was pleasantly surprised how pleased he seemed to see me at ICCF-18; ditto for Tom Passel. The last ICCF I attended was TEN years ago, in 2003.
Peter Hagelstein, who didn't say much though; seemed kind of sad, and I hope he's OK.
Xing Zhong Li - who sees charged particles from cold fusion experiments.
George Miley -- whose autobiography I'm reading. I meant to bring it so he could sign it -- he said he'd do a note on a paper for me and I could simply put it into my copy of his book!
Tom Claytor is looking a bit older (aren't we all?) but doing well.
Graham Hubler is a friend from way back also, and was also a co-author with me on a paper years ago. Great to see Graham also.
Mike McKubre said hi, and introduced me to his lovely companion attending the conference.
Likewise Michael Melich -- great to see him again.
Srinivasan was overjoyed to see me, that was fun. He's a good friend from way back.
Even Mitchel Swartz and Jed Rothwell said they were happy to see me. OK, we did not necessarily get along very well ten years ago; but they welcomed me back today.
Dr. Mark Prelas of Univ of Missouri has done experiments with D2 loading into titanium -- basically a replication of our old experiments from about 25 years ago -- and he and team see bursts of neutrons! Fun to see this work continuing on...
I was glad to personally meet Prof. Robert Duncan, to whom I'd before spoken by phone. Very nice fellow and the conference organizer.
Iwamura - whose data on Cs + d --> Pr transmutation is by now quite compelling. Great to talk to him again and to hear from him.
OK, a few sparks flew (not from me) between Ed Storms and Takahashi over theory matters and between David Kidwell and Iwamura over Cs + d --> Pr transmutation. I noted that several commented that the THEORY regarding "cold fusion" is in disarray, with very little agreement or consensus on theory. I spoke to several -- and in my POSTER talk -- about the idea that the anomalous heat is real but is probably NOT NUCLEAR at all!
More talks tomorrow... looking forward to it!
-- Steven Jones
Physicsprof said:
QuoteI talked to smiling Francesco Celani, who was mentioned by several speakers as having inspired them to try his idea of constantan wire in H2 or D2, seeking anomalous heat.
I have lots of Constantan wire of many sizes on hand. Do you have more info on the suggested setup or form of the experiment? Point me to any papers on this?
Hi Steven
no problem on the paper, use as you will, there is a lot more but moves into a newer area, SMD. I am in France at the moment, but on my return I will post more, I hope all goes well, speak when I return
Mike 8)
I look forward to talking to you, Mike.
ION -- will find out and let you know later... need to hurry to the conference now.
I did take some video from the Defkalion demonstration and uploaded it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lPnUt4cNzM&feature=youtu.be
Published on Jul 24, 2013
During this Q&A, the Defkalion spokesperson discloses that they have observed a huge "magnetic anomaly," which does not surprise me. I expect it.
Hello. I'm attending the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion - ICCF-18 at the University of Missouri this week. Yesterday, a European company called Defkalion gave a live demonstration of their "anomalous excess heat" device via internet. They are using light-hydrogen (H2) and nickel in their apparatus, so this is NOT d-d cold fusion, but something else.
But as I have said repeatedly (including during my poster talk at this very conference), the anomalous heat can indeed be a REAL effect, but that does not mean that the source of the energy is necessarily nuclear. We were permitted to ask questions of the Defkalion staff. I asked what products and emanations had been looked for/observed, along with the anomalous excess heat. My question and their response begins at about the 3m 45s mark.
From my observations, this is a project well worth paying attention to - interesting work and the team is showing admirable courage to open the project to scientific scrutiny in this manner.
-- Steven Jones
Thank you Steven for the video, and the magnetic emission is not surprising from my end either
Mike 8)
Thanks, Mike.
Join the tour of the "anomalous heat" (aka "cold fusion")
SKINR laboratory at the University of Missouri. Constantan Ni-Cu wire (based on Dr. Celani's research) and glow-discharge-plasma experiments are underway, parts 1 and 2. These experiments use hydrogen (not deuterium) loaded into metals and look for anomalous heat effects. Lots of people taking photos... Part 3 shows electrolytic cells being tested, and results. Someone quipped that Pons and Fleischmann would not allow photos like these!
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhoH1_mLGAU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt9_2c9CdyY
Part 3: http://youtu.be/-v5K1FXSvGg
Thanks for the update Steven, I presume they are using Ni and Cu electrodes with a high voltage pulse in an atmosphere of H2, I personally would use a none thermal plasma, that is one electrode is totally insulated "Cu" with borasilic glass. I do not think the copper electrode is part of the reaction, only the Ni and H2 ionised.
Mike 8)
Correct as I understand it, Mike-- just the Nickel electrode and the hydrogen gas are directly involved in the reaction.
From the conference today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKgUinHLvuo
"Tough questions on Defkalion demo by Dr Kidwell at ICCF-18".
This is a report earlier this year by a friend, Jeane Manning
http://changingpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defkalion-2-page-JM-Article-100-3.pdf
Mike 8)
ION: the Celani expt using constantan wire is described here by Celani et al: http://www.francescocelanienergy.org/iccf-17.html
Notes from the conference -
1. Celani showed his constantan wire + hydrogen gas (not deuterium) in S. Korea at ICCF-17 last year and several have attempted replications. From reports, nothing much has come of replications (unfortunately) but replicators are still trying.
2. I heard over and over that the "theory is weak" -- no consensus on how the anomalous heat (of "cold fusion") is achieved. See for example attached from the concluding panel discussion of experts - both Park of S. Korea and Kitamura of Japan ("yet to be explained") emphasize the lack of theoretical explanation -- and the lack of SUFFICIENT nuclear products to accompany the anomalous heat observed.
3. My poster paper addressed this problem. My proposal was that people consider "non-chemical" and "non-NUCLEAR" explanations for the anomalous heat. That is, get away from LENR notions/fetters and consider "currently unknown/untapped" sources of energy. When asked, I spoke of dark energy and its unknown coupling to visible matter, and of Casimir forces -- as EXAMPLES of what COULD account for the anomalous energy seen. I also spoke of "freedom energy" as we discuss on these threads. Some were receptive to this "broadening of outlook".
4. I learned that Dr. Mitchell Swartz had received a "security order" on one of his patent applications. Swartz is a friend, studying hydrogen loading in metals -- and the impact of B fields on anomalous heat. He works generally in the mW to hundreds of mW with his small NANOR devices (no deuterium), but sees rather dramatic effects, particularly when he CHANGES the strong external magnetic field on his devices.
Now why would the USPTO place a security order on his patent application? (He was ordered not to TALK about his device or findings, due to "possible national security issues.") I find this an intriguing situation, and a concern. He could not talk about this while the security order was in effect -- but after FOUR months following his complaint about this order to the USPTO, the security order was lifted!
This suggests to me that my friend was on to something, something about changing magnetic fields perhaps... ;) I hope to pursue this further.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.07.27, 14:50:33
This is a report earlier this year by a friend, Jeane Manning
http://changingpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defkalion-2-page-JM-Article-100-3.pdf
Mike 8)
Excellent article, thanks, Mike. I'd like to meet Jeanne some time. From the article:
Quote
"Defkalion's terminology makes sense;
instead of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
(LENR), the company would prefer to say Heat
Energy from Nuclei Interactions (HENI). The
words "nuclear reaction" in LENR could raise
red flags in many countries' nuclear regulatory
agencies. Representatives of industries in 70
countries have contacted Defkalion about po-
tential licenses to manufacture Hyperion prod-
ucts in their home country."
I would take it a step further and say - anomalous heat from a non-chemical source -- and not pin it to "nuclei interactions" at all. It may be that the heat is from a non-nuclear source as well!
It was their insistence that the excess heat was due to "cold fusion" of deuterons that caused P&F such grief and resistance early on. "Its too large to be chemical so it must be fusion" -- wrong! And I think most would agree with me now that the heat was not due to d-d FUSION (I've been saying this for decades).
Now I'm saying let us broaden our viewpoints even further -- the anomalous heat may be non-nuclear as well as non-chemical in origin! And P&F join a long list of people who have observed NOT fusion but rather "freedom energy" aka "new energy" aka "unknown source of energy" - as seen by Dr Henry Moray -- and I think Peter Daysh Davey in light-water electrolysis cells in the 1940's -- and many others since then.
Now I may be wrong and it really is cold d-d fusion that P&F saw with their "excess heat", in which case they get the credit... But if non-fusion and non-nuclear, then many others deserve pioneering credit for work in this field. And there I would include Peter Daysh Davey and our own Michael Nunnerley!
Why can't we leave it at "anomalous heat" and not try to constrain the field to one theory at this time? Until we learn more about it? I found many at the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion having a hard time understanding what I was saying about this in my poster paper, however... perhaps they did not want to stray so far from "cold fusion" notions.
Bottom line: Set the "theory" to one side for now; and focus on the empirical results and making the effect larger and useful to humankind!
Yes Jeane is a good reporter, well it is her job. I met her in Washington state a few years back, she's of our age ;) ;) ;D I mean from the point of view she keeps her feet on the ground, she lives in Canada and knows a lot of people in the new energy field, she wanted to do a report on my work but told her it is too soon, lets get it right first or I might get shot down.
Mike 8)
So much going on now with H2 and H2O (rather than D2 and D2O) -- see for example my conversation with woopy here:
http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/new/#new
So I am continuing work there as well as on the Tesla coil (where I just used a bifilar primary -- worked well!)
Best wishes to all.
Steve
PS -- photo below with Dr Francesco Celani who is doing H2 + constantan-wire experiments with good results. Photo taken last week at ICCF-18 at Univ of Missouri. We've been friends for decades!
Quote from: ION on 2013.07.23, 13:29:19
Physicsprof said:
I have lots of Constantan wire of many sizes on hand. Do you have more info on the suggested setup or form of the experiment? Point me to any papers on this?
Note Celani abstract:
http://www.iscmns.org/work10/Abstracts.pdf
The group speaks of "thermal and/or nuclear anomalies" -- Showing the beginnings (at least) of a noble effort to separate the two phenomena, distinct nuclear (small) and thermal (large) effects, and probably UN-related. Also note the use of "anomalies" - which I appreciate. Scientific humility is the advisable approach when the source of the energy is not yet known.
This from ICCF-17 contains further information:
http://www.francescocelanienergy.org/iccf-17.html
interesting stuff! Thermal anomalies aka anomalous heat while using hydrogen and constantan wires...
Note this comment by Celani et al.
QuoteAN OLD ALLOY USED FOR NEW PURPOSES
-Because theoretical considerations, and thank also to some sentences reported in a paper (on catalysis) not related to LENR studies (Ref.1: S. Romanowski et al.; Langmuir 1999, 15, 5773), we decided to explore the possibility to use the "large family" of CONSTANTANS alloys as starting material that could fit our purposes.
-One of the merit factor was, according to us, the ability to decompose H2. One of the Constantans (Ni37Cu63), among the materials studied in the Ref.1, has the highest value (i.e. 3.2eV; in comparison, pure Ni and Pd have respectively values of 1.74 and 0.42eV) of such decomposition. Moreover, even with large changes (factor of about 2) in the relative atomic amounts of Ni in respect to Cu (i.e. from 0.37 to 0.62), the decomposition values remain almost constant (from 3.16 to 2.86eV).
9
-We focused on a commercial (low cost) material, called ISOTAN 44, nominal atomic composition Cu55Ni44Mn1, developed many years ago by Isabellenhutte Heusler, GmbH, KG-Germany. The ISOTAN 44 was selected according to the following, overall, considerations (as pointed out by us at the "X International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen-Metal Systems", Pontignano-Italy, April 10-14, 2012; Ref. 2):
One can see numerous distinctions between that present work and the Pd/Pt electrolysis in LiOD claims back in 1989! They are getting best results with H2 (not D2), no Palladium, no heavy water, no LiOD, indeed - no electrolytic cells here at all. And inspired by a paper " not related to LENR studies" - just as my/our work with Tesla coils powered by joule-thief circuits and Davey-bell devices (etc) are inspired by work " not related to LENR studies".
I've been thinking about the pointed and very visible public challenges by David Kidwell of Naval Research Lab to several at the conference. He attacked the transmutation claims of Iwarmura et al. (as he has done at conferences before). He stood and asked demanding questions of Dr Yeong Kim who was defending some of the anomalous-heat claims of the Defkalion group, casting doubt on the Defkalion demonstration.
I should also note that between sessions he came and and sat down and spoke to me personally regarding my results with Davey-bell variation-experiments I discussed during my poster-talk and in my abstract. That's all right, but perhaps a little odd that I should be singled out in this way?
Steven Krivit notes this experience:
QuoteNew Energy Times - Issue #35 Special Report: NRL 2009 - The LENR Null Results Laboratory, Again
"For foreground experiments, we have positive praseodymium," Iwamura said. "But if we have only cesium and no [deuterium gas] permeation, we never get praseodymium. Also, [if we] only use [deuterium gas] permeation without cesium, we have no praseodymium for six cases ... So I can't understand why, if praseodymium originated from the balance contamination, then praseodymium should have been detected every time."
After Kidwell's public presentation in Rome, New Energy Times asked Kidwell whether he could explain the temporally correlated decrease of cesium with any of his hypothetical scenarios. He started to respond, but Grabowski interrupted the conversation, instructed Kidwell to stop talking and referred New Energy Times to the Navy's office of public affairs.
Grabowski is also of the Naval Research Lab in Washington D.C., under the US Navy and thus under the US government.
"
Grabowski interrupted the conversation, instructed Kidwell to stop talking and referred New Energy Times to the Navy's office of public affairs." Referring a questioner to the
" to the Navy's office of public affairs" rather than answering a scientific question is hardly normal science.
Is the government interested in our energy work, perhaps not to support it? You may draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.08.01, 03:21:34
I've been thinking about the pointed and very visible public challenges by David Kidwell of Naval Research Lab to several at the conference. He attacked the transmutation claims of Iwarmura et al. (as he has done at conferences before). He stood and asked demanding questions of Dr Yeong Kim who was defending some of the anomalous-heat claims of the Defkalion group, casting doubt on the Defkalion demonstration.
I should also note that between sessions he came and and sat down and spoke to me personally regarding my results with Davey-bell variation-experiments I discussed during my poster-talk and in my abstract. That's all right, but perhaps a little odd that I should be singled out in this way?
Steven Krivit notes this experience:
Grabowski is also of the Naval Research Lab in Washington D.C., under the US Navy and thus under the US government.
" Grabowski interrupted the conversation, instructed Kidwell to stop talking and referred New Energy Times to the Navy's office of public affairs." Referring a questioner to the " to the Navy's office of public affairs" rather than answering a scientific question is hardly normal science.
Is the government interested in our energy work, perhaps not to support it? You may draw your own conclusions.
Very valid points as far as this guy is concerned. I think the government are
VERY interested in all this, and would like to tie it all down and claim rights to it so as no other person or entity can use it. If you can't shoot it down, control it by claiming it is yours and lock it up "patent" under the department of energy or Navy, like many before.
Mike 8)
@centraflow: thanks.
At the ICCF-18 conference I attended, Prof Yeong Kim gave his theory behind the Defkalion Ni - hydrogen claims, as demonstrated during ICCF-18. He was strongly challenged (as were others) by Dave Kidwell of NRL, who got up and asked the tough questions.
I have found that Prof Kim's power point slides are available to all, here: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1
Others have their slides available at the same Univ of Missouri site now. great stuff.
Below are summary slides from Prof Kim's Defkalion talk -- note his strong enthusiasm for the Defkalion work, using terms like "breakthrough" and "revolutionary."
In his talk, Prof Kim suggests that p+d and d+d FUSION reactions are the primary reactions for the anomalous HEAT seen by Defkalion (see above post). Some people think the proton-Nickel reactions are most important in the Defkalion "reactor", but Prof. Kim says these may be "much weaker secondary reactions" (see below).
(My guess - he is wrong on both points, but we will see.)
He does have some theoretical explanation related to the Ni-61 lack of reactive heat, when that isotope was tried. Only even isotopes of nickel produced anomalous heat according to Defkalion experiments (an intriguing result).
With all due respect, I don't put too much stock in his theory at this time, but I congratulate Prof. Kim for his efforts to understand these phenomena.
Other presentations and abstracts for the International Conference on Cold Fusion 18 (including mine) are available for download, at this link: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/35424/browse?type=author
--Steven E Jones
A significant paper on fusion was published today in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n10/abs/nphys742.html
Particularly important to me because Prof. Johann Rafelski (Univ of Arizona) is a good friend, and is one of the co-authors of the paper.
A decent write-up is given here:
http://www.livescience.com/40246-new-boron-method-nuclear-fusion.html
Quoting from the article:
Quote"Here we propose and implement a means to drive fusion reactions between protons and boron-11 nuclei, by colliding a laser-accelerated proton beam with a laser-generated boron plasma. We report proton-boron reaction rates that are orders of magnitude higher than those reported previously. Beyond fusion, our approach demonstrates a new means for exploring low-energy nuclear reactions..."
Note particularly the reference to
"a new means for exploring low-energy nuclear reactions". That's what we call LENR.
Exciting stuff.
That is fantastic news O0
"low-energy nuclear reactions..."
Possibly the source of reported RF radiation?
Yes, WW, possibly.
It was fun to have a journalist come to our home in Albany, Missouri, from St. Joseph to do an interview. And today he published an article -- see what you think... IMO, not bad.
http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_3c2ae1c1-423d-576e-9d54-10ef13b6c131.html
Yes, I'm still actively researching alternative energy and enjoying it - as the article indicates. Thanks for your support.
Looking great Professor! i enjoyed reading the article. O0
Thanks, EMD - surprisingly open-minded article, I would say, as I talked about novel energy sources.
Among other things, I'm also looking into this - based on a 12 Nov 2013 article in a German journal:
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2013/11/german_inventor_solves_permane.html
Quote
German Inventor solves permanent magnet motor puzzle - wants to 'give away' the discovery...
engelmotor1.jpg
Thomas Engel is a successful German inventor with more than a hundred patented inventions to his credit. He - like many of his peers - does not look back at a successful school education, but evidently that is not necessary for success if you are smart and, as some say it might even be counter productive, stifling creativity.
Engel has figured out the working principle of a type of motor many inventors and tinkerers have been working on - so far unsuccessfully. He found a way to make permanent magnets do actual work, transforming their attractive and repulsive power into the true motive action of rotary motion.
A recent article in the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12 November 2013) recounts a visit of the paper's technology editors to the inventor's home and their impression of the new motor Engel says he wants to 'give away'.
While the article is carefully written to avoid trouble and while it quotes the obligatory university experts saying why such a motor is impossible, it does give enough detail to allow us to understand the concept. If you want to start experimenting, be warned: There is a lot of force in those rare earth magnets, they can be dangerous to the unprepared.
Here is a translation of the article...
It just keeps running and running...
QuoteOriginal published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (November 12, 2013)
The inventor Thomas Engel demonstrates a motor to us that never runs out of fuel, because it works with the strength of neodymium magnets - leaving us a bit disoriented.
by Lukas Weber
translation: Sepp Hasslberger
Technical editors sometimes have to be impolite. There is a constant stream of people who want to save the world with their inventions - all they are missing is public support and the cash to further develop their idea. One has to tell those people that either no one needs their creation or that it won't work.
But what if it's different this time? There is a man who is seeking to contact us. He is going through a freelance photographer and says he's got a motor at his home that has been running since April without pause and that needs no fuel to do that. The photographer has seen it and is all enthusiastic. We have heard about such motors before, but have never seen a demonstration. Normally, you wouldn't even have to bother to read beyond this point, because something like this can't truly exist. But this time we're not talking about some crank with an idea. This one was honored in 1972 with the prestigious Rudolf Diesel Medal for inventors, he has well over a hundred patents to his name and has been lecturing at universities all over the world.
In the nineteen-fifties Engel developed a new procedure for the production of polyethylene making plastic pipes resistant to hot water. The Munich Olympia stadium has a lawn heating system based on this invention. He became a millionaire before the age of 30. He never even took the A-level school exam as in 1944 he was drafted into military air defense. After that, he did not have time any more. Our journal reported at length about his carreer as a diswasher exactly 13 years ago (on November 22, 2000). That is not the biography of a charlatan. The inventor lives in Baden-Baden and he has a place in Lucerne, Switzerland, where the motor is located. So we drive off with mixed feelings to beautiful Switzerland.
Engel's motor is running. During the three hours we are there, it is chugging along quietly, interrupted only by some experiments we will be talking about later. There is no noticeable development of heat. The seems familiar, the motor obtains its power from neodymium (NdFeB) magnets. Those are the strongest permanent magnets known, a disk as little as a one-Euro coin can hold about kilograms of weight. Neodymium is a rare earth element, much used in electronics. Magnets made out of this material are used in nuclear spin tomography and in wind generators, they drive water pumps of heavy trucks and keep tools steady.
The magnets are manufactured using a mixture of neodymium, iron and boron which is pressed into form and sintered. They are then magnetized with a strong electric impulse. The energy used for magnetization, however, is not what keeps the magnet working. Several suppliers of those magnets have assured us that the power of the magnets doesn't diminish - even after years of use. So it seems that the magnets can do work constantly without getting degraded. The only thing those magnets don't like is great heat.
Engel's idea was that it should be possible to convert that power of the magnets into rotary motion. He built a machine made of brass, resembling a miniature lathe. The rotor is a disc with magnets fixed to it. The shaft turns in ceramic bearings. A disc magnet fixed at the correct angle and distance from the rotor but which itself is able to rotate (Engel calls it the mirror) can affect the rotor magnets. There is attractive and repulsive force, depending on the orientation of the poles: the rotor can thus be set in continuous motion, as long as the mirror keeps rotating. The mirror's rotation regulates the speed of the rotor.
engelmotor2.jpg
The inventor and his motors. The older version on the left
was constructed from an old watch maker's lathe.
The exact form and disposition of the parts is difficult to ascertain, Engel had to experiment at length with those parameters. If the mirror is a tad too distant, the magnetic field breaks down. On the other hand, if it is too close, the neodymium magnets will rip the construction apart. The mirror hangs in a kind of outrigger. Two electric wires connect to the lower end with crocodile clips. There is a tiny electric motor that rotates the mirror. So it isn't possible to do without electricity altogether? The inventor signals his disagreement. "Eight milliamperes at nine volts", he says. That is only a control mechanism. The power at the shaft is much greater. Engel also thought about a mechanical drive for the mirror directly from the rotor shaft, but opted against this as it would considerably increase mechanical complexity.
We wanted to know more. The rotation is about 400 RPM. We don't have an instrument to measure mechanical power. So we are having to use the finger brake. It is difficult to stop the rotation by grabbing the shaft. The motor only comes to a standstill after considerable heat developed on the calluses of our hands. A little hand made propeller out of plexiglass doesn't impress the motor at all; we would really like to know how much power the machine turns out. With a bit of dexterity, one can turn the mirror by hand and set the rotor in motion. There is hardly any resistance when turning the mirror. We therefore hazard an assertion: The output felt at the shaft is clearly greater than the input needed to give the impulse. Of course measurement was only done with human sensors.
It would be possible to put a second rotor on the opposite side, to be addressed by the same mirror. Holding a screwdriver between the mirror and the rotor in operation results in an oscillating motion of the screwdriver between the magnets, without however touching them. Mr. Engel would like to do more experimentation with the number of magnets and their form, but he says he lacks the strength for further development.
Science is skeptical. A motor which produces more energy than it uses up is impossible, says Markus Münzenberg, a professor for experimental physics at Göttingen University. Because in closed systems, the sum of energy is always equal. The apparently high torque at the shaft could be a consequence of inertial mass of the machine which, once in motion, is difficult to stop. Professor Ludwig Schultz, the director of the Institute for Metallic Materials in Dresden agrees. While it would be possible to imagine magnet configurations that periodically attract and then repel other magnets, but in that case the potential energy would periodically bleed off without there being a gain in energy.
The inventor's reaction to the question whether his motor is a perpetual motion machine is somewhat resentful: "That is rubbish", he says. "There is no such thing". Mr. Engel is convinced that his machine uses the enormous energy which is inherent in quanta, those inconceivably small components of atoms which were first described by the physicist Max Planck in the early part of the last century. He therefore calls his machine an "quantum deviation apparatus". Somethings are still unclear, also for the inventor himself. Somewhere in Germany, a businessman has a second such motor at his company, which runs with 1200 RPM. The man called some days ago he says, and recounted that, when the motor was covered with an acrylic hood, its rotational speed diminished. Engel does not know the reason for this.
The expression "quantum motor" brings some bad associations with it, since some cheats, about a decade ago, used that name to collect money for a machine which never materialized. Engel's motor is quite different from that, apart from a similarity in the description. The inventor does not need money. He says he wants to give away the motor because mankind needs affordable energy. It has to be further developed until some years in the future, we will be making electricity with it in the basements of our housing units.
What is the next step now? Engel wants to attach a small generator to the shaft and show that his motor delivers more electricity than is needed for its control. If he could do that, we'd really have some sensational news.
Yes Steven I think using a small motor for moving the "stator" magnet is the way to go, and I am sure it will self generate to run that motor and a lot lot more.
Very interesting, thanks
regards
Mike
You're welcome, Mike. And thanks for your work!
Recently I was asked about my work on the reverse-JT circuit and claims that the circuit produced "evidence for" COP >1. As I've noted repeatedly, the claim was "evidence for", not "proof of". We worked on this approach for several months, particularly Nul-pts and myself. Keep in mind the effect was rather hard to reproduce...
After some development, I suggested that we place the device in a sensitive calorimeter to measure total output heat/energy, converting all electrical energy into heat using resistors etc. Input energy would be determined using a known capacitor charged initially to a known voltage and running the device to reach a lower voltage. The test was arranged with a professor/friend of mine Dr Hansen, who had the necessary equipment. However, on the day for the test as I visited him in his lab, he balked and declined to do the test in the calorimeter he had use of (he did not explain why really). And then he was very busy.
This setback was a severe blow to the project.
Nul-pts suggested that we try to achieve a self-runner. One of his variations to this end of self-looping is shown in the attached, which was called the 4everlight. He ran a flashing LED as the load and IIRC placed the whole thing in a metal box as a Faraday shield -- and still the battery rose from 1.20V to over 1.3V over an 11-month period. Unfortunately, Nul-pts indicated rather abruptly he would leave the freedom energy field and I have lost contact with him.
Today Lasersaber shows a significant advancement with the joule-ringer-type circuit we've been discussing (for a few years at least!):
http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=5o7go8DlYbY&u=/watch%3Fv%3DXk35CpCFg1w%26feature%3Dem-uploademail
He notes:
Quote"Testing energy recycling with the SJR circuit combined with an Akula type transformer"
So, perhaps the key to energy-recycling/self-running is in the Akula-type transformer -- as he notes, more work is needed.
Oh, bother that he had a circuit running two LED's as he notes seemingly "indefinitely", showing very low current draw (less than 1/2 micro-amp), but he took the transformer apart and mounted on a board - then the device would no longer run so long... sigh
So the goal is to replicate, achieve self-running if possible - and then LEAVE IT ALONE - and record on video running for a long time.
Share the design (as he is doing) and let others replicate, and lets get this out to benefit mankind!
I'm enthused by his progress with the joule-ringer circuit and the Akula-type transformer. Congratulations, Lasersaber! Very clever to take the Akula-type transformer and couple it to the joule-ringer circuit (much simpler than the Akula circuit, IMO).
Of course, I'm working on a replication also!
For updates, see also: http://laserhacker.com/?p=396
I like this comment earlier today by Lasersaber, below his video cited in my last post:
QuoteI do not expect to reach an infinite run time. On the video I said that when it was running perfectly it had an "indefinite run time". With a current draw of less than 1/2uA it would be a very, very long run for sure. I will try to get it running again like that later tonight after work. Even though it's my personal belief that a closed system cannot ever achieve overunity, I love seeing my current meter start hovering around zero while I try my very best to hammer through the impenetrable door to the impossible world that lies on the other side of that zero. The logical side of my mind knows that it is impossible while the artistic dreamer side of me feels that somewhere in this world there are still keys that lead to new places. If the needle ever does crash through that door it will be because the system somehow tapped into a alternative source of energy not an excess from within the system itself. Forgive my ramblings.
Right. As I've noted numerous times, we seek NOT a violation of the laws of physics, but rather a NEW source of energy, i.e., a hitherto-untapped energy source.
Excellent
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.04.29, 05:56:00
I like this comment earlier today by Lasersaber, below his video cited in my last post:
Right. As I've noted numerous times, we seek NOT a violation of the laws of physics, but rather a NEW source of energy, i.e., a hitherto-untapped energy source.
And I think to get there it will take a deeper understanding of some particular area we thought we understood and took for granted was complete. The deeper we dig into some phenomena, the closer we will get to the real fundamental behavior; from there we can engineer it to work for us instead of against us.
Hi Prof. Jones,
It sounds like we had the same "supplier"(Null Point(s(?)) aka Sandy from UK). No?
(http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/Sandy_4Ev-L-1.jpg)
(http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/Sandy_4Ev-L-2.jpg)
Mine is still working but is temperature dependant.
Now, from: http://laserhacker.com/?p=396 (http://laserhacker.com/?p=396)
I extracted and commented this picture:
(http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/Laser_Saber_Coils.jpg)
This copper foil is not a "shield" but a capacitor plate.
The second plate is the coil itself.
I keep on experimenting on this. Very simple experiments.
I got strange results.
To detect any 'OU' I would need a good 4 traces scope, with maths functions.
I have not such a thing.
Bien le bonsoir,
Jean
Yes, Nerzh, quite possible that NulPts was/is on the same trail. Strong similarities IMO. (I miss our friend's correspondence as he seems to have gone silent.)
Quote
I keep on experimenting on this. Very simple experiments.
I got strange results.
Can you share more details on:
1. the Akula coil - I see now the copper plates, but how positioned?
and
2. the schematic LSaber is using for his latest? (w/o the DC-to-DC converter)
Hi PhysicsProf,
Yes, sadly, Null Point(s(?))-aka-Sandy-from-UK seems no more interested in 'OU'.
But, I bet that if you or me dispatched him a small Akula Like "Eternal" Lamp
that his motivation and creativity would be aroused. No?
For a 2014 Christmas Gift, perhaps?
-------
How the metallic (copper/or alum) foil(s) is/are positioned? I really dunno but, please, consult my last PM.
-----------
About the last LSaber's shematic, I have "derived" the April 2012 LaserSaber Joule Ringers
V2 and V3 circuits to get the New April 2014 Joule Ringer Looped one.
It is on: http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/LS-JR/ (http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/LS-JR/)
This, for avoiding to saturate this forum with a load of pictures.
I'm far from an Electronic Guru but I'm wondering why LaserSaber is using a second cap to feed
this LM2596 DC-DC step down extra circuit that itself re-charges the main (driving) cap?
Would not a mere Zener diode do the trick?
Yes, this Zener diode would, perhaps, dissipate more NRG that the LM2596 extra circuit.
But, why do we need to step down any voltage?
Now, I have not done any tests and the LaserSaber, apparently complicated, circuit should be the
right one.
All the Best,
Jean
Good points, Jean.
1 May 2014 update - lasersaber posts a video with new developments on his end, still with the Joule Ringer type circuit + Akula-type transformer. Very interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=s-CuARDjNiE&u=/watch%3Fv%3D8dq9NQhzdw0%26feature%3Dem-uploademail
I'm studying the video now -- he promises an updated circuit. Real time progress! I have the cores he recommends coming...
Lasersaber's updated ckt is given here: http://laserhacker.com/?p=401
with screen copy of his latest open-sourced ckt below.
From his video of 1 May, I get that the system with the LED bulb runs from 4:18 to 15:32, that is, for 11min14sec on a 10,000uF electrolytic cap. My experience is that the cap itself leaks...
Jean et al -- note the presence of THREE coils on his Akula-type transformer.
Let's build!
Hi PhsysicsProf,
Thanks for the picture and for pointing out this LaserSaber's new Web page.
Very very interesting simple circuit.
Yes, 3 coils, I did not, firstly, notice that. :-X
In his video, LaserSaber is showing 2 copper (non-shorted, I guess) foils.
The second copper foils seems not be connected anywhere.
I have made a more simplistic schema.
(http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/LaserS_3_Coils.jpg)
Did I get it straight?
Yet others strange -and apparently useless- metallic foils around and between some coils?
Is the plot thickening or is it some very big clue :o
All the Best,
Jean
Hi Jean,
i think both foils are connected to their own coils, see picture:
Regards Itsu
Faraday Shields are used in certain transformer applications:
What is a Faraday Shield? (http://www.canadatransformers.com/faraday-shield/)
Patent utilizing Faraday Shield
(http://www.google.com/patents/US6420952)
Winding a transformer with Faraday Shield (http://users.on.net/~endsodds/tx.htm)
Who woulda thunk that the Faraday Shield may
serve other purposes?
Hi Itsu,
Thanks. Your eyes are sharper than mine!
So, the corrected version would be?:
(http://freenrg.info/4OUR_F/LaserS_3_Coils-Mod.jpg)
I have to 'rewrite' this circuit to try to figure out how it could work.
What amaze me is its simplicity. He also uses a 'common' diode bridge. No?
Not these fast schottky diodes.
IMHO, LaserSaber (LS) should had a very hard time to design his coils and, also, to choose
the right transistor. Not all the 2N2222A transistors are created equal. Not to speak to
others models (2N3055, for ex).
So, if anybody try to reproduce this LS circuit and is not getting good results,
it will not mean that the LS circuit is not working.
Regards,
Jean
Quote from: Dumped on 2014.05.02, 20:09:31
............................
Who woulda thunk that the Faraday Shield may serve other purposes?
Answer: I am strongly suspecting that
non shorted metallic foil(s) covering a coil or betwen coils
can provide other effects ;D
More effect, indeed, than da revr gant al laboused bihan.
If configured properly, foils can be used to supply a electric field in a particular direction.
Here is a video where Akula (himself) takes apart his coil, showing two copper foils. There is an English translation, but a bit hard to follow. Sounds like the capacitance provided by the two copper foils is important to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpx1SJdXnmo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m10s
The core (sitting in the background) looks the same (or nearly so) to that specified by Lasersaber.
Our colleague Mark (Slider) has done a near-replication of the LaserSaber circuit, and provided a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIcvbRzhdzo
It's late, so I will comment more tomorrow -- looks good so far -- Thanks, Mark!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.05.03, 06:06:51
....................
Sounds like the capacitance provided by the two copper foils is important to him.
.............
To me, too ;D
(http://www.freenrg.info/4OUR_F/Explanations.jpg)
(http://www.freenrg.info/4OUR_F/Exp_Two_Leds_Bulbs.jpg)
SJR + Akula 3-coil transformer circuits by Groundloop and TROS (latter from video); some differences.
@Groundloop -- do you have any recent results to share?
Mark V (Slider) is also working on this, I spoke to him today and he is building, learning, making progress.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.05.08, 04:42:05
SJR + Akula 3-coil transformer circuits by Groundloop and TROS (latter from video); some differences.
@Groundloop -- do you have any recent results to share?
Mark V (Slider) is also working on this, I spoke to him today and he is building, learning, making progress.
PhysicsProf,
Non other than my version of the circuit works OK with a 12 Volt LED. I'm using a normal
ferrite toroid. I have a 1:10 coils number of turn ratio. So when the circuit is run from 1,5 AA
battery, then I get approx. 15 Volt over the L1 coil. There was a strange effect when I did
put a wire from top of L1 to the heat sink. The light output was much stronger. But the
current usage also did increase. All in all, it is a very simple circuit to build and have only two
parts, the transistor and the coil. So as a LED lamp driver, great circuit.
Groundloop.
Thanks, Groundloop!
I've started a new thread on another research path, and wish to record this important research path here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2647.msg42146#msg42146
Not sure what is going on with this experiment, but it is a confirmation of earlier results. Perhaps call it "Anomalous Heat accompanied by Anomalous Transmutation". (AHAT)
In particular, the evidence for p-7Li nuclear reactions is quite striking...
See also anomalous transmutation experiments by Iwamura et al. in Japan, reported here:
http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/
(I attended that conference at the University of Missouri and delivered a paper.)
Senator Ted Cruz on the Repub victory, Nov 2014. At the end, he speaks of the need to embrace an "ENERGY RENAISSANCE"! Less than a minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3SkziIxbJI&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3SkziIxbJI&feature=youtu.be)
I hope this includes embracing novel, alternative energy sources and not just fossil fuels on American soil.
Let's support the drive for a truly liberating Energy Renaissance, EnRen - an End Run around fossil-fuel domination!
Just before the new year begins, I'll stick my neck out a little and prognisticate that 2015 will be a banner year for breakthrough experiments, and that at least one of these areas will "breakthrough" with repeatable experiments (note that I did not say "non-controversial"):
1. Transmutation/geofusion (along with anomalous heat production in some cases) in experiments involving hydrogen isotopes (p, d, t) and various elements, such as Ni, Cs, B, and lithium.
See talks given here (including one of mine): http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/
Talks on the subject are anticipated at ICCF-19 to be held in Padua, Italy, April 2015.
2. EmDrive - thrust produced by microwaves in a shaped resonant cavity; apparently violating conservation of momentum (according to conventional physics). See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive#cite_note-newscientist-3 which references recent and planned experiments by NASA.
Note intriguing comments on the New Scientist publication regarding the EmDrive and the apparent violation of conservation of momentum:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html
3. And/or anomalous heat/energy production demonstrated in devices employing changing magnetic flux or other electro-magnetic means. One example:
http://www.3universo.com/3universo/slavek/ttf2/fields10.htm
I wrote to my colleague Mark ("slider") today about an idea to use inexpensive, mass-produced pancake coils in the "EZ-spin" motor+generator designed by Lasersaber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m73MaNoSIM
and developed by Lidmotor-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjL4dadcvkA .
Well, Mark was already doing just that! Evidently our "minds run in the same channels." Here's his video from yesterday; significant progress is being made in this arena:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ia6tBf6hsU .
Note that his motor+generator runs for over 3 hrs on a 1F capacitor starting at 0.75V and it quits at 0.66V. Keep an eye on this path...
Update 15 Jan 15 -- 11 hour run on the 1F cap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOxltHeMeSM&feature=youtu.be
Good work, Mark!
"Y CHALLENGE" I suppose a guy could look at it as a slap in the face, but I choose rather to consider it as a challenge.
You see, the BYU Physics Dept. had me scheduled to give a colloquium talk on September 5, 2012, on "Alternative Energy: History and Prospects." I had been invited to speak and the talk was publicly announced; see screen-copy below.
All winter long, I was so looking forward to speaking to the students, once again to see them and share some exciting news.
However, I was later told that the BYU physics faculty had met apparently some time in March and voted that I would not be allowed to speak after all! What the heck!?!
Actually, they did not tell me they were going to reconsider nor did any in the BYU physics department inform me afterwards of their decision – until a fellow in Nevada noticed that someone else was scheduled for my day, and then I emailed the department chair to ask what was going on. Curiously, the chair declined to email an answer even that my colloquium had been cancelled, but would only speak to me verbally.
Bizarre, I thought, to cancel a BYU Physics colloquium scheduled by a Full Professor of Physics (Emeritus at the time) who had served for over 21 years at BYU, and not even tell him you had canceled it!?
OK, so I went to the Chair's office and he informed me that indeed my colloquium had been canceled by vote of the BYU Physics Department faculty.
Wow! What is so controversial about alternative energy? Especially by a full Professor of Physics Emeritus who had researched alternative energy for decades! I taught at BYU for over 21 years, yet they reject my colloquium behind my back?
Whoa! I take that as a challenge to spur research.
I was going to talk about over three DECADES of research regard muon-catalyzed fusion and its daughter "cold fusion" aka "geo-fusion"/ along with other non-conventional alternative energy approaches. After all I had published in Scientific American (July 1987) and the British journal Nature (May 1986 and April 1989) as well as Physical Review Letters on these topics – and indeed I have devoted my career to exploring alternative energy. (Web-page http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ )
Undaunted, I gave the talk I was planning to give at BYU a few weeks later at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri. Yes, they allowed me to speak! Sure, I discussed muon-catalyzed fusion and geo-fusion/cold fusion and all those supposedly weird yet exciting topics. I explained that the BYU geo-fusion results, published in Nature in1989, had been put on firm footing in subsequent experiments, with 100% reproducibility in research conducted in Japan and Europe. [E.g., Czerski, K.; Huke, A.; Biller, A.; Heide, P.; Hoeft, M.; Ruprecht, G. (2001). "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments". Europhysics Letters 54 (4): 449–455. Quote: "...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper]."
These researchers at the University of Missouri did not call it "bad science" at all, but listened and commented in scientific fashion. One of the professors then invited me to speak at the next International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to be held at that University of Missouri the following summer. I accepted and spoke and greatly enjoyed meeting with colleagues in this ongoing research.
[Jones, Steven E. "Empirical Evidence for Two Distinct Effects: Low-level d-d Fusion in Metals and Anomalous Excess Heat". 18th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. University of Missouri.]
To be fair, some of this research is cutting-edge and therefore controversial. I noted that Dr Harvey Fletcher, another BYU graduate, had puzzled over Henry Moray's device, and admitted he could not deny it nor explain it. Cutting-edge research is often "out of the box."
I welcome the challenging nature of research that can benefit humanity with a NEW untapped energy source. And I see nothing wrong with openly discussing these studies with students, at BYU and the University of Missouri and elsewhere. Students are sharp and can decide for themselves what lines of research to pursue. They don't have to be "protected" from research colloquiua as if they cannot think for themselves.
After my talks at the University of Missouri, the St. Joseph News-Press covered my alternative energy research responsibly: http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_3c2ae1c1-423d-576e-9d54-10ef13b6c131.html
I asked a member of the BYU physics faculty about the vote against letting me speak. He replied that
Quote"I initially advocated for your presentation but changed my mind."
And, he explained further,
Quote"I read about Moray device online at http://thmoray.org/ . The information there is not encouraging. The Radiant Energy device looks like bad science: sworn affidavits, anecdotal evidence, affirmations mixed with religious sentiment, a devoted band of true believers, a plea for financial support, assertions of powerful entities trying to suppress information, and no credible scientific explanation, no access to experimental details, and a secret key component that no one can reproduce in spite of "millions" spent in that effort."
Of course,
one of the affidavits was by Dr. Harvey Fletcher, a famous physicist with BYU connections, who gave considerable details about the Moray experiment, hardly "anecdotal evidence." True, Fletcher could not explain the Moray device even after inspecting it, but that does not invalidate his carefully recorded observations of the Moray device. And my talk would cover MUCH more than this one example anyway!
I wrote back to this BYU physics professor:
Quote"1. Did you think that my talk was about the Moray device only? ...
A simple email or phone call would have clarified ...
To me, the goal is to get this into the hands of families in third-world countries, as I did with the solar cooker. It is apparent that you and the department majority are not interested. Sigh."
The BYU Professor declined to answer my question.
To me, this is not a game, but an opportunity for cutting-edge research and a sought-for breakthrough which may benefit humanity for centuries! I do not claim we are "there" yet – but I do claim there are evidences, "anomalies" I call them, which should be studied out and pursued.
OK, I could be offended I suppose – but instead I choose to view this as a challenge, to FIND OUT. Working to actually show the BYU guys and others that they are missing something and there IS some real (if "anomalous") science here. We certainly have some observations by good scientists that this is the case. Perhaps students at BYU and around the world will be allowed to view for themselves, and ponder the evidence in front of them. It is their world that may be transformed by a game-changing novel energy source.
And so I accept the rejection of my scheduled BYU Colloquium as a challenge: Can I/we demonstrate conclusively the existence of a new (untapped) source of useful power and energy? That is the central issue. I will be working with colleagues around the globe, such as Professor Jirohta Kasagi of Tohoku University and Dr. Francesco Celani (see photos below, taken at ICCF-18, Univ. of Missouri) and many others including Chet Kremens, Russ Gries, and Mark Vaughn.
As I have repeatedly stated, we are not looking for "perpetual motion machine" which would be considered "bad science." Rather, we are looking for a novel, presently-untapped source of energy - like uranium used to be (before 1900 certainly). We are talking about pursuing an unusual effect that a serious scientist can observe and replicate and study in the laboratory. We are approaching a light that glows "forever" (BYU faculty will be familiar with the Brother of Jared and his glowing solid-state devices).
I will leave it that – Stay tuned!
I admire your fortitude and perseverance Professor!
Could you explain how Earth ground has negative electricity ? It is the main key to understanding free energy.
"My present application is based upon a discovery which I have made that when rays or radiations of the above kind are permitted to fall upon an insulated conducting body connected to one of the terminals of a condenser, while the other terminal of the same is made by independent means to receive or to carry away electricity, a current flows into the condenser so long as the insulated body is exposed to the rays, and under the conditions hereinafter specified an indefinite accumulation of electrical energy in the condenser takes place."
"The second terminal or armature of the condenser may be connected to one of the poles of a battery or other source of electricity or to any conducting body or object whatever of such properties or so conditioned that by its means electricity of the required sign will be supplied to the terminal. A simple way of supplying positive or negative electricity to the terminal is to connect the same either to an insulated conductor, supported at some height in the atmosphere, or to a grounded conductor, the former, as is well known, furnishing positive and the latter negative electricity. "
Tesla patent US 685,958
"Could you explain how Earth ground has negative electricity ? It is the main key to understanding free energy."
Forest, "negative electricity" has not even been mentioned in this thread - and departs TOO FAR from the present topic, and so I would ask that you take your question to a separate thread. Perhaps start a new thread or find another thread on that topic.
Thanks.
Quote from: Dr Jones
The Professor's Response:
Quote
"Please don't play games with me. I will not respond to your two numbered questions."
Wow... I'm not sure what games he was referring to, since my questions were sincere and straightforward. But he refused to respond. Just wow. Never had a colleague do that to me before, utterly refusing to respond to two straightforward questions.
He's obviously become a very unpleasant man as he
obeys the orders of his Masters. Their power over the
institutions of academia is a sorry thing to behold.
You're on their 'List' because of your integrity and your
love of truth. Any who deviate from the 'Official' story
of 9/11 will be the recipients of their wrath.
I agree with Room3327. Your fortitude and perseverance
are admirable as are your level-head and your humility.
@PhysicsProf
QuoteOf course, one of the affidavits was by Dr. Harvey Fletcher, a famous physicist with BYU connections, who gave considerable details about the Moray experiment, hardly "anecdotal evidence." True, Fletcher could not explain it, but that does not invalidate his carefully recorded observations of the Moray device. And my talk would cover MUCH more than this one example anyway!
I have reviewed all of T.H.moray's work and believe it was credible, moreso concerning the fact the Correa technology is a variation of Morays work. It also took me a few weeks to track down geographically exactly what his "swedish stone" detector was, it was a quite rare form of quartz.
http://www.rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm
I should note the Correa's have decades of what I would call top notch research under their belt. We have to connect the dots here and they mention T.H.Moray by name in their documents. Correa's work is a continuation of Moray's work and I think they have nailed it down fairly well.
AC
Wish there was a "thank you" button - I appreciate your remarks muDped and AC.
Mark Dansie posted this at OU.Com
his Link
http://revolution-green.com/lenr-research-italy/.
he is looking for more info on this from anyone that can share.
LENR aka geo-fusion remains a viable approach IMO - thanks, Chet.
I'd like to return to an experiment that I've described before; now working to refine it and accomplish the test..
Consider the two small pancake coils shown in Fig1 (attached). We apply a short-pulse current to COIL 1 on the left, such that a north pole emanates to the right (south pole to the left).
If a permanent magnet were sitting just to the right of the coil 1 as the current flows, with north pole facing the coil, both coil1 and the magnet would be repelled and would move apart (if free to move). This is in keeping with Newton's 3rd law, with the forces on coil1 and the permanent magnet equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. They would move apart and momentum would be conserved. (Indeed, Newton's 3rd Law is basically a re-statement of the law of conservation of momentum.)
But there is no permanent magnet in this experiment. Instead we have COIL2 a distance L from COIL1 and both are fixed on a platform which platform is free to move.
Given the finite time for the B field from COIL1 to propagate, it reaches COIL2 at time
t (at 2) = L/c, where c is the speed of light.
Now as the "magnetic pulse" reaches COIL2 it is energized with north pole to the left, so that its north pole REPELS the incoming north pole "wave" and COIL2 is nudged to the right, and I find that the whole system will then be pushed to the right. This impulse to the right results in a velocity Vs to the right of the whole system, which as I said is free to move.
(As coil2 is switched on, coil1 is turned off, so it will not be pushed by the field arriving later from coil2.)
What is the north pole of coil2 pushing against? I see it as pushing against whatever is carrying the magnetic-field pulse which was generated near COIL1, namely the vacuum. Thus, the experiment probes the interaction of two magnetic fields, one generated earlier by COIL1 and traveling to the right, and one generated by COIL2 as this B-field arrives, such that COIL2 is pushed to the right.
Question: Will the system indeed move to the right? And if so, is momentum conserved? Stated in another way, is Newton's 3rd law violated?
Note that if this 2-coil system were mounted on the circumference of a wheel which was free to rotate, the impulse on COIL2 would cause the wheel to rotate, IMO. And if so, is angular momentum conserved?
Note also that since the speed of light is approximately 1 foot/nanosecond, the trailing edge of the current pulse in COIL1 needs to be very sharp - it should be off (or largely off) in about 2 ns if coil2 is (say) 1 foot away. This is a technical challenge. A single loop of wire could be used in each coil. This would reduce the magnitude of each impulsive push, but then the rep rate could be many times per second.
Note that COIL1 can start ON and coil2 OFF, but COIL1 needs to be turned off sharply (and coil2 on sharply about that same time) - also coil2 can stay on after the pulse arrives, it doesn't much matter as long as COIL1 is turned off sharply.
OK - tear this apart, or show me how momentum is conserved.
PhysicsProf,
You can make exactly the same argument for two conducting spheres and get an overall force. I think the answer comes down to exactly what is an electric or a magnetic field? Are we dealing with some form of virtual particle emanating from the sphere or coil? When we have static fields is there a continuous stream of virtual particles coming from the source? IMO there has to be such particles and they exist everywhere flowing through space. And they are truly particulate, what we recognize as waves travelling through space are really the result of many particles moving in a certain direction and having a wavelike spatial distribution of one of their parameters, like spin direction wrt travel direction. Spins transverse to the travel represent transverse waves. Spins aligned with the travel direction represent longitudinal waves. You can also have particle number-density distribution along the travel direction giving wave-like properties. If the emanating particles have an effective energy and momentum, which they can have even though their rest mass is zero, then you have the answer to your question.
What we see as an external force acting on a body (in this case your RH coil) is actually the result of an imbalance in the momentum of these virtual particles. That imbalance has to take account of all the virtual particles being continually absorbed and emitted, and of course that includes not only those arriving from the nearby previously energized coil, but also those arriving from all directions of the background continuum of space. Without that nearby coil, your test coil is being battered by that background continuum, but of course that all integrates to zero in such a large object. But replace that coil with a single spinning electron and that game of ping-pong becomes obvious. Your nearby coil is supplying the necessary conditions to alter the ping-pong game.
Smudge
Thanks for your reply, Smudge. I'd like to pursue this a bit:
QuoteI think the answer comes down to exactly what is an electric or a magnetic field?
Right... and how does the "vacuum" carry an E or B field? Scientists used to speak of the ether, now its vacuum - but make no mistake, the vacuum has definite properties such as mu-nought and epsilon-nought; it is NOT "nothingness."
QuoteAre we dealing with some form of virtual particle emanating from the sphere or coil? When we have static fields is there a continuous stream of virtual particles coming from the source? IMO there has to be such particles and they exist everywhere flowing through space. And they are truly particulate, what we recognize as waves travelling through space are really the result of many particles moving in a certain direction and having a wavelike spatial distribution of one of their parameters, like spin direction wrt travel direction. Spins transverse to the travel represent transverse waves. Spins aligned with the travel direction represent longitudinal waves. You can also have particle number-density distribution along the travel direction giving wave-like properties.
If the emanating particles have an effective energy and momentum, which they can have even though their rest mass is zero, then you have the answer to your question.
So let's say these particles have an effective momentum. Then when the LH coil1 is energized, particles carrying momentum are emitted left (carrying south-pole-ness) and right (carrying north-pole-ness) -- momentum all balances out so far = there is no net force yet, but
how do the particles moving right carry "north pole" information? how do they do that? (You agree that they somehow do that?)I'd like to start there, if anyone has any comments. Then move on to more Q's (below).
MORE: when this north-pole-field hits the north-pole-field coming from the RH coil2, then there is repulsion, right?
The question remains -- how can it after THIS interaction, that momentum is conserved?? - since the RH coil is pushed to the right by "the north-pole-field" and it seems nothing "real" gets pushed to the left...
Addendum - finally, I'm an experimenter and I'd like to see whether the mount holding the two coils moves to the right, or not (when free to move).
Hi Physics Prof,
This is a big controversy that's been going on in electrodynamics for more than a hundred years.
Observations of deformations in railguns have been used by Graneau and others to show that the momentum IS conserved. The action of forces is 'as if' all forces interact between the coils or rails.
But the *consensus view* is that the momentum is fully conserved, but part of it is no longer observable because it has been added to the angular momentum of space -- or the swirling of virtual particles, or aether vortices-- and no longer acts on matter. For instance, the attached article describes the hidden momentum thus:
The hero--or is it the villain?-- of this story is hidden momentum.
What can be said about the nature of hidden momentum
in general? It seems to share three general features:
• It is purely mechanical. Although it arises most often in
electromagnetic contexts, it has nothing to do with electrodynamics...
• It occurs in systems with internally moving parts, such as
current loops..
• It is intrinsically relativistic...
A definitive characterization of the phenomenon remains
elusive, and some have suggested that the term should be
expanded to include all strictly relativistic contributions to
momentum including electromagnetic momentum, the
.. piece of particle momentum, and the ... portion
of the momentum density of a fluid under pressure; others
urged that the term be expunged altogether."
So it is an open question. What remains true is that in practical situations like yours, the second coil will tend to move away from the first, if allowed to move. In terms of the way they behave, all forces appear to act upon the rails, and none appear to be 'missing' in space. But some may *appear* to be missing if the moving coil has too much mechanical inertia and cannot directly move based on the forces. So you would need to use a very lightweight coil, I think.
More power to you in your new experimental phase! I have always been a bookish person, so I've always been a bit envious of people who have experimental skills, and can directly test their theories. It's especially frustrating if you read a lot of really interesting things that nobody is doing anything with.... This is totally megalomania on my part but I fantasize about being Edison in Menlo Park, where he could tell 20 people, "try this out!", and results would be back in a couple of days :-)
orthofield
Thank you for your insights, OField. You mentioned an article
QuoteFor instance, the attached article describes the hidden momentum thus:
QuoteIt is intrinsically relativistic...
A definitive characterization of the phenomenon remains
elusive, and some have suggested that the term should be
expanded to include all strictly relativistic contributions to
momentum including electromagnetic momentum...
Interesting stuff, but it appears you neglected to attach the article -- would you do so? I'd like to read it!
QuoteI fantasize about being Edison in Menlo Park, where he could tell 20 people, "try this out!", and results would be back in a couple of days :-)
Sigh... I used to have students eager to work with me, both undergrad and graduate, who were like that... But I was "early retired" from the University (not my desire!) at age 57 in 2007... and yet, there is one "student" who has recently re-joined with me. I hope that continues! he's really talented, much smarter than me!
Below is a conceptual diagram for an E-field comparative experiment using 2 charged plates, in lieu of the 2-coil B-field experiment delineated above. Again, the 2 plates are mounted on a platform which is free to move. Not sure yet which is more feasible, in the lab.
The goal is the same: to observe apparent non-conservation of momentum.
Hi Physics Prof,
Here's the article...it is not unlike many others, by such as Richard Feynman...it's more than anything else a good description of the conventional viewpoint.
orthofield
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.03.19, 22:06:17
Thanks for your reply, Smudge. I'd like to pursue this a bit:
Right... and how does the "vacuum" carry an E or B field? Scientists used to speak of the ether, now its vacuum - but make no mistake, the vacuum has definite properties such as mu-nought and epsilon-nought; it is NOT "nothingness."
I absolutely agree. I fill my space with aether particles.
QuoteSo let's say these particles have an effective momentum. Then when the LH coil1 is energized, particles carrying momentum are emitted left (carrying south-pole-ness) and right (carrying north-pole-ness) -- momentum all balances out so far = there is no net force yet, but how do the particles moving right carry "north pole" information? how do they do that? (You agree that they somehow do that?)
I don't see them as carrying "north pole information", I see them carrying something that defines a field direction, in this case a field that points in the velocity direction. Those emitted from the S pole carry something that defines a field that is anti-parallel to the velocity. The simplest approach to this is to give the aether particles spin, and let that spin define the field direction. However in my aether I have already used spin to define the E field so I cannot use it for the B field. My B field definition is more complex and involves the fact that the field comes from moving electrons. So it involves the E field particles with their spin defining the E field direction. We have particles emitted from the electons in the LH copper coil and they arrive at the RH coil with their spins pointing backwards. But the copper coil is electically neutral so we also have particles arriving from the positive nuclei with their spins pointing forward. Net result is a zero E field but zero does not mean zero particles, they are definititely there. Now the electrons are moving, they have velocity, so the particles arriving from them are slightly different from those arriving from the static nuclei. The E field particles from the moving electrons now have their spins slightly misaligned with the velocity vector. When you look into it you find that the misaligment angle is v/c radians where v is the electron velocity. And you find that those particles define a very slight transverse E field, the overall pattern of the many particles coming from the coil electrons define a sort of E field vortex. It is the CW or CCW rotation of that vortex relative to the velocity direction that defines the direction of the B field
QuoteI'd like to start there, if anyone has any comments. Then move on to more Q's (below).
MORE: when this north-pole-field hits the north-pole-field coming from the RH coil2, then there is repulsion, right?
The question remains -- how can it after THIS interaction, that momentum is conserved?? - since the RH coil is pushed to the right by "the north-pole-field" and it seems nothing "real" gets pushed to the left.
In any aether theory you cannot just consider the emanating particles travelling from A to B, you must also consider the enormous background continuum of aether particles arriving at A and B, playing their game of ping-pong with A and B. Then is is possible that the particles emitted from A and arriving at B somehow modify the effects of the background. Lets take a background continuum of say transverse particles, they all have their spins transverse to their velocity direction and they arrive at B equally from all directions and with random transverse spin directions. The net effect is zero force on B. But tht is while A is not present. Now let us suddenly put A in place. It gets particles arriving mostly from all directions but those that would have passed through B actually get absorbed by B then re-emitted, and if B is an electron the emitted particles are no longer transverse, their spins are all longitudinal. So A gets something different from the B direction and that upsets the neutral balance at A. Depending on what B is, positron or electron, B will now endure a force in a given direction but that force can be the considered as a modification of the background neutrality.
QuoteAddendum - finally, I'm an experimenter and I'd like to see whether the mount holding the two coils moves to the right, or not (when free to move).
I think it will.
Smudge
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.03.20, 17:48:28
Below is a conceptual diagram for an E-field comparative experiment using 2 charged plates, in lieu of the 2-coil B-field experiment delineated above. Again, the 2 plates are mounted on a platform which is free to move. Not sure yet which is more feasible, in the lab.
The goal is the same: to observe apparent non-conservation of momentum.
You can get better results with high K dielectric between the plates which slows down the E field propagation. And it should work even with sine wave drive, you just have to get 90 degree phase shift between the drive onto one plate and the drive onto the other plate. I once proposed a long stack of plates where each successive plate got a voltage 90 degrees shifted from the previous one. Never did get the experiment done though, the company I worked for wasn't interested.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.20, 19:57:31
You can get better results with high K dielectric between the plates which slows down the E field propagation. ...
Wait, my friend, I don't think that will work -- the dielectric is now a physical object like the LH plate, and electric field is "launched" from the dielectric now a short distance from the RH plate. Thus, the fields between these two (dielectric and RH plate) now push equally on the RH plate and BACK on the dielectric, and both are fixed to the platform, so there is cancellation and no impulsive force to the right.
t= L/c is made very short; too short I should think.
Can you see this? The same problem would arise in my 2-coil experiment above if a ferrite (or iron etc) core were placed between the coils - the forces finally would be between the end of the ferrite and the RH coil. The left and right forces would simply cancel in that case, and there would be no acceleration, since there would be no net force.
I'm looking fora situation where there is nothing physical present (air will not hurt) for a distance L (say 10 or 30 cm) between either the coils or the plates. Thus, as I noted before,
QuoteGiven the finite time for the B field from COIL1 to propagate, it reaches COIL2 at time
t (at 2) = L/c, where c is the speed of light.
Now as the "magnetic pulse" reaches COIL2 it is energized with north pole to the left, so that its north pole REPELS the incoming north pole "wave" and COIL2 is nudged to the right, and I find that the whole system will then be pushed to the right. This impulse to the right results in a velocity Vs to the right of the whole system, which as I said is free to move.
(As coil2 is switched on, coil1 is turned off, so it will not be pushed by the field arriving later from coil2.)
What is the north pole of coil2 pushing against? I see it as pushing against whatever is carrying the magnetic-field pulse which was generated near COIL1, namely the vacuum. Thus, the experiment probes the interaction of two magnetic fields, one generated earlier by COIL1 and traveling to the right, and one generated by COIL2 as this B-field arrives, such that COIL2 is pushed to the right.Quote
For the two-plate experiment, replace "coil" with "plate" and "magnetic" with "electric", and "north pole" with "E from negative electrons."
It is important in the experiment that nothing carry either the B or E fields except the VACUUM itself (read, "ether" if you prefer). I hope that's clear...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.03.20, 21:42:39
Wait, my friend, I don't think that will work -- the dielectric is now a physical object like the LH plate, and electric field is "launched" from the dielectric now a short distance from the RH plate. Thus, the fields between these two (dielectric and RH plate) now push equally on the RH plate and BACK on the dielectric, and both are fixed to the platform, so there is cancellation and no impulsive force to the right.
I don't see it that way. I see a plate immersed in a dielectric (no air gap) receiving electrons from a source while at the same time there is a longitudinal electric wave arriving from the other electrode. The net force on all the plate electrons will depend on their number density (a function of time) and the direction and amplitude of arriving field (also a function of time). If the phasing between number density and field is correct you can get a net force in one direction (a sin^2 function).
Quote
Can you see this? The same problem would arise in my 2-coil experiment above if a ferrite (or iron etc) core were placed between the coils - the forces finally would be between the end of the ferrite and the RH coil. The left and right forces would simply cancel in that case, and there would be no acceleration, since there would be no net force.
I think you are fixated on the ends ;) . The force is not from the end of the ferrite, that is just a simplistic approach where you imagine magnetic poles at the ends. The force (on the ferrite) is unequally distributed on
all its magnetic dipoles, and they all contribute to the force on the coil. Take away the ends and have coils immersed within a ferromagnetic continuum then what do you get? You certainly get an imbalance of forces on the coils, so the question is do you also get a reverse imbalance on forces on the continuum? I think there is the possibility that such a system (which in your case of two coils could be a long ferrite rod with coils on it) could carry any imbalance or reaction out into the real vaccum by emitting more virtual particles from one end than from the other.
QuoteI'm looking fora situation where there is nothing physical present (air will not hurt) for a distance L (say 10 or 30 cm) between either the coils or the plates.
Then you are using just c as the velocity and will have to live with the small time periods involved. I think there is more to be gained if you can get lower velocities.
Smudge
So we see things differently, and that's OK - I just hope that we agree that EXPERIMENTS (not arguments) will provide the answer! The experiments I proposed above are experiments I'd like to do.
I did look for similar tests/experiments, and found these of interest:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156811/paradox-electric-current-in-a-coil-on-a-disc-will-this-disc-spin-if-the-circu?rq=1
Somewhat like the expt I proposed, except that both B and E are involved in the SAME "thought" experiment... note the discussion of "angular momentum" contained in the field...
Interesting that NO actual experiments have been done, AFAIK!!
No refs to experiments.
One pursued by Feynman (again, without experiment) is discussed here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31425/what-is-the-answer-to-feynmans-disc-paradox
both B and E are involved in the SAME "thought" experiment... note the discussion of "angular momentum" contained in the field AGAIN.
Its high time to do actual experiments! and that's what we try to do in this community, despite lack of funds in most cases...
Hi Physics Prof,
Yes, electrodynamics is one of those areas where not enough experiments are done relative to the level of theory that is generated, and where there are many conflicting theories, all with weak evidence. More experiments have been done on the angular momentum of space issue than you might think, when you add in all the papers from the Hindawi National Union Journal, and the like. I'll do a bit of a lit review.
I don't have any final answers on what's true either-- the evidence is just not strong for any particular theory. My self-explanation, which doesn't rise to the level of a theory-- and is more an expression of the power of coffee :-)-- is that understanding this A.M of space issue is crucial to creating any sort of energy system that can tap it. My reading of plasma and solar physics is that E parallel B fields--they are not waves, as such-- are extremely important in this. I don't always understand the physics involved, but the E parallel B pattern is a *least energy* state of electromagnetic fields. As a result the universe must be filled with electromagnetic matter that has 'fallen' from more energetic states into this bottom state. Most of these vortical forms are closed, like toroids or knots, and become non-observable for the most part. So for myself, I accept the quite conventional view that space contains a basic energy in the form of angular momentum. Maxwell, and entropy, suggest that there is a lot of energy around in this ground EM state. This is quite similar to the highly developed vortical aether theories of the late 19th century, but does not require any pre-existing aether structure, and also might explain 'missing mass'.
Structures using parallel E and B fields can be stable and not substantially radiating (think ball lightning) and do contain energy even though they do not have a Poynting vector (carry power). As non-radiating field configurations, these structures, often very small, and possibly Planck scale, fill the universe, and lead to stories of prana, chi, and orgone. It's no accident that Feynman's paradox involves this alignment, because he is basically showing mechanical rotation can exist where there is no power, and we know that from our every day experience.
It's easy to set up experimental situation where E parallel B applies. For instance, a bar magnet with electrodes on the ends to create a similar electric field-- an Anapole. According to some papers, this configuration may have unusual force interactions with a nearby toroid or dipole. But testing Feynman's paradox or something similar is also a very good place to start. Like I said, I will really look at what has been observed already there, and see if there is not some consensus hidden in obscure journals.
orthofield
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.23, 13:23:12
Hi Physics Prof,
Yes, electrodynamics is one of those areas where not enough experiments are done relative to the level of theory that is generated, and where there are many conflicting theories, all with weak evidence. More experiments have been done on the angular momentum of space issue than you might think, when you add in all the papers from the Hindawi National Union Journal, and the like. I'll do a bit of a lit review.
I don't have any final answers on what's true either-- the evidence is just not strong for any particular theory. My self-explanation, which doesn't rise to the level of a theory-- and is more an expression of the power of coffee :-)-- is that understanding this A.M of space issue is crucial to creating any sort of energy system that can tap it. My reading of plasma and solar physics is that E parallel B fields--they are not waves, as such-- are extremely important in this. [snip for brevity]
It's easy to set up experimental situation where E parallel B applies. For instance, a bar magnet with electrodes on the ends to create a similar electric field-- an Anapole. According to some papers, this configuration may have unusual force interactions with a nearby toroid or dipole. But testing Feynman's paradox or something similar is also a very good place to start. Like I said, I will really look at what has been observed already there, and see if there is not some consensus hidden in obscure journals.
orthofield
I look forward to any further info.
" According to some papers, this configuration may have unusual force interactions with a nearby toroid or dipole."
Please provide links if you have time. Very interesting.
On another note, as I posted in the LENR/geo-fusion thread, that speakers for the upcoming ICCF-19 conference in Padua, Italy, have been selected and titles given. I went to the last ICCF meeting at the University of Missouri, but this one in Italy is just too expensive. But we can follow and comment via youtube videos, etc.
Here's the link:
http://www.iccf19.com/program_abstract.html
Hi Physics Prof,
The attached paper by Afanasiev is quite interesting throughout, but the section I was referring to is on pg. 15. After a discussion of possible nonreciprocity between antennas of different toroidal orders, he describes an experiment which illustrates force differentials between moving a circumferentially magnetized toroid near a current loop, and moving a current loop near such a toroid. In another paper he mentions this experiment as a test, rather than a hypothetical, but doesn't give a paper reference. As he points out on the next page, conservation of momentum is not violated when taking into account the small radiation in this experiment. Afanasiev's principles are being used to design nonreciprocal metamaterials, and the concept of Toroidal moments developed by him and several other Russian researchers have been quite productive in nuclear physics and in chemistry.
Perhaps more important from a practical standpoint are his assertions on pg. 18 that interacting coils where the interwinding capacitances are different may be nonreciprocal at high frequencies. He mentions experiments which show nonreciprocity between toroids and supertoroids. Then in the next couple of pages he shows that a current loop and an electric dipole are non reciprocal. A lot of experiments seem to use a single wire running inside a solenoid, and Afanasiev seems to be corroborating the idea that induction will only go 'one way' in that situation.
There are lots of interesting bits in other parts of this paper and it is well worth reading. I can't claim to follow all the math but it makes sense to the level I can get it.
orthofield
Very interesting and informative paper - thank you, OF.
QuoteElectromagnetic fields of the simplest time-dependent sources (current loop, electric dipole, toroidal solenoid, etc), their interactions with an external electromagnetic field and between themselves are found. They are applied to the analysis of the Lorentz and Feld–Tai lemmas (or reciprocity-like theorems) having numerous applications in electrodynamics, optics, radiophysics, electronics, etc. It is demonstrated that these lemmas are valid for more general time dependences of the electromagnetic field sources than it was suggested up to now. It is shown also that the validity of reciprocity-like theorems is intimately related to the equality of electromagnetic action and reaction: both of them are fulfilled or violated under the same conditions. Conditions are stated under which reciprocity-like theorems can be violated. A concrete example of their violation is presented.
Hi Physics Prof,
I have a bunch of articles by Afanasiev if you want any more. The one I sent covers the whole territory, and the other ones focus in on specific aspects.
orthofield
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.04.01, 21:15:23
Hi Physics Prof,
I have a bunch of articles by Afanasiev if you want any more. The one I sent covers the whole territory, and the other ones focus in on specific aspects.
orthofield
That would be much appreciated! O0 I'm learning...
Hi Physics Prof,
OK, I'll send them one at a time on this list, leaving some time for assimilation.
orthofield
Hi Physics Prof,
Here's the first one, and a major paper-- 57 pages.
This paper has quite a number of subjects, and is almost a survey paper, except what it is surveying is not known to many!
Pg. 9-12, on the supertoroidal shapes, and pg. 17-19 on the interaction of different EM objects with fields, pg. 21-24 on the magnetic supercurrent in a superconductor, pg. 31 and on, about the oscillating magnetic and electric vector potentials, and the magnetic fields outside an oscillating toroidal field and with a linearly growing current are especially interesting. Then the discussion of higher toroidal orders continues again. And then closed electric toroids, and the electric vector potential outside them, and on..
Some of the material in this paper is theoretical but some is not. For instance, the discussion of "current electrostatics" starting on pg. 41 seems to have been tested extensively in a Russian book that is not in English, by Miller. This technology allows for the creation of a field equivalent to an electric charge in space that is generated by a nearby special coil, but where the field lines do not meet on the surface of this coil, but emanate from the charge alone.
orthofield
Thanks, Orthofield O0
My wife and I got up 13 minutes before totality, got some coats on, went out and SAW the blood moon... awesome!
It felt a little like Christmas... And indeed I thought how on that first Christmas God provided a "sign in the heavens"...
This blood moon is the third in a Tetrad, 4th and last will come on Sept 28, 2015.
Below is the photo I took at about 6:02 am in Spring City, Utah, with my Nikon - near totality.
EuroPhysicsNews has just published a paper I co-authored (with three colleagues):
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
If someone could place the .PDF here, I would appreciate it as I have some very busy days ahead..
QUOTE
"15 YEARS LATER:
ON THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES
---Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter"
Hello Steven
No problem i have attached the PDF to this post O0
Regards
Peter
Thank you very much, Peter!
Steve
Steven O0
It is not until you are on the receiving end of things, that you know what some people say is right and not fiction.
Hope your keeping well
Regards
Mike 8)
Thanks, Mike.
Quick note about a subject I've been researching and writing about for a decade or so - measuring the value of Big G and why I think it is so elusive to pin down. Has to do with Lorentz-aether effects, in my view (as I wrote back in 2005!).
Here's a quick overview of the problem as it stands in the physics community:
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-what-is-the-value-of.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/wanted-gravitational-constant-s-true-value/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.121101
If anyone can get/download the above PhysRevD article - I would much appreciate it! they want to charge me $25 for it...
More later.
Hi Steve
Is this the document you require or is it a little older version, anyway it's free
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.01774v2.pdf
That's it! O0
Thanks again, Peter.
Quoting from Scientific American, re: measurements of Big G which don't agree with each other:
Quoteit's possible that the incompatible measurements are pointing to unknown subtleties of gravity—perhaps its strength varies depending on how it's measured or where on Earth the measurements are being made?
"Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity," says Mark Kasevich, a Stanford University physicist who conducted an unrelated measurement of big G in 2007 using atom interferometry. "Further work is required to clarify the situation."
"Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity," -- there is a 3rd alternative!!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.09.01, 13:40:41
Thanks, Mike.
Quick note about a subject I've been researching and writing about for a decade or so - measuring the value of Big G and why I think it is so elusive to pin down. Has to do with Lorentz-aether effects, in my view (as I wrote back in 2005!).
...............
............
More later.
Hello PhysicsProf,
some time ago I got this information during a phone-talk with a fieind who was in direct contact to the ungarian Physics Professor Dr. Gyula Szasz who had the rare opportunity - as a single privat person - to do a experiment in the drop-tower of Bremen ( Germany ) . Only big companies have the money to pay for such experminents in this institution. So they charged no money for this single experiment.
Intro to ZARM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QKzcFR5fSY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QKzcFR5fSY)
As long as we repeat old failures from the past will we not gather new insights into "the big G".
So what is the failure we are repeating again and again ?
We use a random mix of elements to perfom the old drop-experiment. Not so Prof. Szasz
Please read the comments below the following video by pressing the button "weiter"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXHhfFa1Cgw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXHhfFa1Cgw)
and again the 4 seconds where you can watch what is going on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkNjvCmsWOU
The crew of the drop-tower was so ethousiastic after this experminent that they wanted to continue with additional tests at no cost for Prof. Szasz but got a call from some "important" physicist in a german institution to stop all work on this.
Here is the only discussion by Prof. Sazs however only in german language which I present to you via google translator:
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.index.hu%2FArticle%2FshowArticle%3Fgo%3D81064567%26t%3D9173847%26token%3Db491233a1798a4b87e15eb5a682313ed&edit-text= (https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.index.hu%2FArticle%2FshowArticle%3Fgo%3D81064567%26t%3D9173847%26token%3Db491233a1798a4b87e15eb5a682313ed&edit-text=)
Document about the experiment by Prof. Sazsz in english:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090612070510/http://nmkt.extra.hu/szaszgyula.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20090612070510/http://nmkt.extra.hu/szaszgyula.pdf)
Just found his website with a complete description of all succeding events : http://atomsz.com/ (http://atomsz.com/)
Mike ( germany )
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.09.01, 13:40:41
Thanks, Mike.
Quick note about a subject I've been researching and writing about for a decade or so - measuring the value of Big G and why I think it is so elusive to pin down. Has to do with Lorentz-aether effects, in my view (as I wrote back in 2005!).
Lorentz forcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
In physics, particularly in electromagnetism, the Lorentz force is the combination of electric and magnetic force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields. If a particle of charge q moves with velocity v in the presence of an electric field E and a magnetic field B, then it will experience a force
F = qE + qv × B
(in SI units). Variations on this basic formula describe the magnetic force on a current-carrying wire (sometimes called Laplace force), the electromotive force in a wire loop moving through a magnetic field (an aspect of Faraday's law of induction), and the force on a charged particle which might be travelling near the speed of light (relativistic form of the Lorentz force).
The first derivation of the Lorentz force is commonly attributed to Oliver Heaviside in 1889,[1] although other historians suggest an earlier origin in an 1865 paper by James Clerk Maxwell.[2] Hendrik Lorentz derived it a few years after Heaviside.
Gravitational potentialhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential
In classical mechanics, the gravitational potential at a location is equal to the work (energy transferred) per unit mass that would be done by the force of gravity if an object were moved from its location in space to a fixed reference location. It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge. The reference location, where the potential is zero, is by convention infinitely far away from any mass, resulting in a negative potential at any finite distance.
In mathematics the gravitational potential is also known as the Newtonian potential and is fundamental in the study of potential theory.
Piezo ignitionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezo_ignition
Piezo ignition is a type of ignition that is used in portable camping stoves, gas grills and some lighters, and potato cannons.[1] Piezo ignition uses the principle of
piezoelectricity, which, in short, is the electric charge that accumulates in some materials in response to high pressure. It consists of a small, spring-loaded hammer which, when a button is pressed, hits a crystal of PZT or quartz crystal. Quartz is piezoelectric, which means that it creates a voltage when deformed. This sudden forceful deformation produces a high voltage and subsequent electrical discharge, which ignites the gas.
No external electric connection is required, though wires are sometimes used to locate the sparking location away from the crystal itself. Piezo ignition systems can be operated by either a lever, push-button or built into the control knob. An electric spark is usually generated once per turn of the knob or press of the button.
Gravitational constant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
The gravitational constant (also known as "universal gravitational constant", or as "Newton's constant"), denoted by the letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of gravitational effects in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Its value is approximately 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2.
Newton's law of universal gravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him; see the History section below.)
In modern language, the law states: Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[2] The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[3] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of the electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the sun).
General relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[2] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.
Einstein's theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape—as an end-state for massive stars. There is ample evidence that the intense radiation emitted by certain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes; for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei result from the presence of stellar black holes and black holes of a much more massive type, respectively. The bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of the same distant astronomical object are visible in the sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, which have since been observed directly by physics collaboration LIGO. In addition, general relativity is the basis of current cosmological models of a consistently expanding universe.
@PhysicsProf
First off, good on you are your team on the 911 publication. One day we will all know the true facts.
About Gravity, here is an angle that may be pertinent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ftTm34xfk
This is a long video but just look between 43:42 and 59:00. The topic of this video is about PlanetX which may seem farfetched too most but this guy, Gill Broussard has made an analysis that takes real data into account and overlays it to past written accounts. The best rendition of our planets past I could ever find and is actually worth a full viewing but for your specific interest, he provides a small piece of insight that may shed some better light on your own research.
wattsup
Structure of the Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
The interior structure of the Earth is layered in spherical shells, like an onion. These layers can be defined by their chemical and their rheological properties. Earth has an outer silicate solid crust, a highly viscous mantle, a liquid outer core that is much less viscous than the mantle, and a solid inner core. Scientific understanding of the internal structure of the Earth is based on observations of topography and bathymetry, observations of rock in outcrop, samples brought to the surface from greater depths by volcanoes or volcanic activity, analysis of the seismic waves that pass through the Earth, measurements of the gravitational and magnetic fields of the Earth, and experiments with crystalline solids at pressures and temperatures characteristic of the Earth's deep interior.
Estimating 'little' g from the law of universal gravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
Note that this formula only works because of the mathematical fact that the gravity of a uniform spherical body, as measured on or above its surface, is the same as if all its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre. This is what allows us to use the Earth's radius for r.
Newton's law of universal gravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him; see the History section below.)
In modern language, the law states: Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[2] The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[3] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of the electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the sun).
Law of gravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
(depending on the choice of definition of the stress-energy tensor also normalized as κ) is also known as Einstein's constant.
Stress–energy tensor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor
The stress–energy tensor (sometimes stress–energy–momentum tensor or energy–momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress–energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity.
Our paper questioning the official US Government story regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC-building 7 has had over 200,000 full-text views since 24 August 2016 when it was published in Europhysics News. We understand that the previous record for this journal was about 10,000 full-text views.
You may learn more about the metrics of our article here:
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html
By clicking on "
PDF (596.9 KB) "- on the right-hand side of the above link - you can down-load the full-text - and add to the count!
As part of research I'm doing on Big G, I've come across reference to the paper below - and I wonder if anyone can find it "free" on the internet. Peter is very good at this, for example!
It would be very useful - a method to measure gravitational G using interferometry.
Steven,
is this what you are looking for: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4173270
You can download it as a PDF file on the top right corner.
Itsu
Yes - that is exactly the paper I was looking for, Itsu. Perhaps others will find it interesting also.
Thank you!
Quote from: Itsu on 2016.09.19, 19:47:54
Steven,
is this what you are looking for: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4173270
You can download it as a PDF file on the top right corner.
Itsu
At the ICCF conference held at the Univ of Missouri in 2013, I gave a paper on "anomalous heat effects" (AHE) and predicted that, if I was correct, then H2 gas would be as effective as D2 gas.
This report from recent Japanese research (which I consider to be careful work) --
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0250v1.pdf
Conclusion of the paper:
The sustainable AHE as observed for Pd1Ni7/zirconia (or /meso-silica) and Cu1Ni7/zirconia (or meso-silica) at elevated temperatures (200-300 deg C) have been repeatedly observed after D(H)/M dynamic loading ratios saturated. Averaged η-values at the elevated temperature conditions exceeded 1 keV/D(H) (or 100 MJ/mol-D(H)-transferred). So the explanation by chemical reaction origin is very difficult to fit to this observation. We have given the explanation by the condensed cluster fusion theory (TSC models) as 4D/TSC fusion for D-charging and 4H/TSC WS fusion for H-charging. Why AHE by H-charging showed comparable (or more) excess heat-power to those by D-charging is of mystery to be studied further. However, the sustainable AHE power by Cu1Ni7/zirconia with H-gas charging is very promising result to look forward its industrial application of cheap distributable thermal energy devices.
Note that Pd is not needed; and D2 is not needed! " H-charging showed comparable (or more) excess heat-power to those by D-charging" !!!
PhysicsProf
A bold conclusion indeed .
and hope for the future O0
I've always enjoyed woopyjump's videos. Here's his latest, apparently recoil-less propulsion using a gyroscope system. As some of you may recall (See: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3237.0), I've been working on recoil-less propulsion also - but with a completely different approach.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3b8-AOvzaM&feature=em-subs_digest
See also
http://overunity.com/17573/inertial-propulsion-with-gyroscope/new/topicseen/#new
Thank you, Chet - very interesting!
The latest from our colleague in Belgium, Laurent (woopyjump) -- is very well done IMO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoDj5KlJztc&feature=em-uploademail
Here we observe what certainly appears to be non-conservation of angular momentum - a big surprise (if true)!
The bike wheel ( a torsional pendulum) moves in one direction when the gyro brass weight is moving in the opposite direction. Before the torsional pendulum has a chance to swing back, the brass weight comes around again and accelerates, and the wheel moves in the opposite direction again. How is this a violation of CofM? The torsional pendulum has a natural frequency of oscillation. It is getting a timed push from the opposite motion of the brass wheel, and so it accumulates angular displacement, just as an ordinary pendulum accumulates vertical displacement if it is given small pushes at the right time.
Let's see now if the same thing happens, or doesn't happen, if the "gyro" part of the experiment is removed, by stopping the spinning of the brass weight and just swinging it around on its vertical axis, with the same alternations of speed as before.
TK - I agree that further work is needed before firm conclusions are drawn.
I have a further suggestion for an experiment, and have stopped in our travels to make a quick post - which I also made to Laurent.
Rotate the device 180-degrees, so now the "push" should be in the opposite direction.* Now see which direction (counter-clockwise or clockwise?) the bicycle wheel turns. Even though it will take longer (I think) to make a complete turn, the bicycle wheel should still rotate. Which direction the bike wheel rotates will tell us something!
*Alternatively, move the device without rotating it, to the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BICYCLE WHEEL.
PS - Woopy's latest vid (part 7) is here: https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=x5mBI-ll86HDyM39&u=/watch%3Fv%3Dp3iEy5sprpA%26feature%3Dem-uploademail
Am glad he followed up on your comments, TK and Steve.
That first gyro was definitely stopping at the same point momentarily each rotation and, in my opinion, introducing the effect.
However, still good to see as it was the 'kid on a swing' principle, in this case using an error to manifest and magnify.
His test set up may be a large version of tiny natural processes, using such errors on purpose within biological systems.
Thanks, Mark.
The latest from Laurent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WBD5hZu0t4&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=1X1BbXfPgaQNdIjg-6
I take note especially of those instances when the device goes left just a little, before proceeding to the right with the substrate NOT moving to the left (evidently recoil-less).
I posted further comments there.
I worked on "hot fusion" before turning to "muon-catalyzed cold fusion", and would like to note this intriguing development and patent in the thermonuclear fusion arena:
QuoteLockheed Martin has secretly been developing a game-changing compact nuclear fusion reactor that could potentially fit into a fighter jet. The Maryland-based defense contractor recently obtained a patent associated with its design for a fully compact fusion reactor, after filing for the patent in 2014.
If the latest patent from the defense company serves as a benchmark, nuclear fusion technology could revolutionize the aeronautic industry and eventually begin the quantum leap from fossil fuels to compact fusion reactors for the industry.
According to CBS Washington, the prototype system would be the size of a normal shipping container but capable of producing enough energy to power 80,000 residential homes or a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, sometime in the next year or so.
The patent, tilted "Encapsulating Magnetic Fields for Plasma Confinement," is dated Feb. 15, 2018. CBS indicates that Skunk Works, also known as Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs or its advanced R&D group, has reportedly been developing the compact fusion reactor since about 2014, with latest reports suggesting the technology could be ready for production by 2019.
More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-30/lockheed-martin-patents-nuclear-fusion-powered-fighter-jet
Continuing thought on experiments which appear to me to violate Newton's Third Law, Lenz's law, or that lead more directly to freedom energy. At least its fun to think and invent!
Please tell me what you think -- see sketch below.
We start with a strong cylindrical magnet (or stack of N52 neodymium magnets) - although in my original-to-me thought-experiment I began with a long cylindrical solenoid (and that should work, too).
A loop of wire is wrapped around the cylinder as shown, with a capacitor (for example) for a power source, and a radio-activated switch. In the left drawing, the current flows CW. The wire segment on the left is in a strong North B field and therefore with current flowing, feels a kick towards you, due to IxB; since the current is perpendicular to the B-field; whereas the wire segment on the right feels a kick away.
Let's let the magnets have NO conducting covering, so there are no Eddy currents to consider. Note that the B-field around each wire is azimuthal, so there should be no (or very little) effect from this field on the magnet. This is where the asymmetry comes in. (One may use the right-hand rule to check me on this.)
The rod is free to rotate, and therefore begins to rotate CW (as viewed from above). Is angular momentum conserved? how? Note that the wires on top and bottom of the cylinder are in regions where the B field is weak -- and receive very little impulse.
By putting a twist in the loop, both wire segments on the ends of the cylinder feel an impulse due to IxB in the same direction - so that the rod now on a low-friction surface moves linearly - in this case, away from the viewer. Where is the third-law reaction force? - and how is momentum conserved?
Note that one may use multiple loops of wire, increasing the effect with each current-pulse.
Naturally, one would want to run this as a Generator; using arguments outlined above, the generator should spin freely once started. Again, a strong cylindrical magnet rotating about an axis through its center (not through the faces, as in the Faraday homopolar generator, so this is different!). Note that there will be a DC current without brushes.
See figure below.
TK noted that my sketches of my motor and generator were very large (3-6 MB or so). I've captured them and now these are much smaller.
TK also said that he is unable to comment on this thread - which I don't understand why this should be. I welcome comments by all.
Next step is to put together a small version of the generator - and spin it. Note that the whole system co-rotates (no brushes) - and I expect I will spin a DVM with the device and try to take some readings. With ZERO RELATIVE MOTION, one might expect zero voltage -- we'll see! that can only be determined by real experiments.
TK also said that he is unable to comment on this thread
That's does not make sense he already did 8 posts previously??
I can comment
Thanks Jim and Peter.
--Steve
Testing 1,2,3
Will now catch up with the reading of the thread :)
Maybe there's something I can add about the 'field collapse', if that is what you mean Steve..apologies if not.
In tests of a homemade fidget spinner based motor on the bench at the moment, I was surprised to see that a neon could fire with about 1 degree of motion away or towards a point in front of the powering coil. Perhaps am just so used to seeing a rotor rotate 360 that the 1 degree where the collapse actually happens had been missed. I sat the rotor just on that point and it fired the neon continuously.
My hand was likely the weak point in the system, but it was very near to completely still while the neon lit from the 5V 44mA input.
So your description of no movement sort of rang a bell there for me of that experiment today.
no problem for me to see or comment.
Regards Itsu
I've been so busy I didn't read the chat till now but I see the thread just fine.
Pm
I can also see or make this comment, no problem. Yesterday it was ok for me too. I use Firefox.
Gyula
My old browser and Puppy Linux are enabling me to see
the whole enchilada.
Test.
Glad to see you're on, TK.
I like that quote of yours, muDped: "
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- )"
Ah,good to see everything is sorted.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.07.27, 17:49:10
Yes Jeane is a good reporter, well it is her job. I met her in Washington state a few years back, she's of our age ;) ;) ;D I mean from the point of view she keeps her feet on the ground, she lives in Canada and knows a lot of people in the new energy field, she wanted to do a report on my work but told her it is too soon, lets get it right first or I might get shot down.
Mike 8)
Mike, I tried to contact Jeane via her website, but it didn't go through.
Do you know how to contact her, or could ask a question? This is what I tried to send:
"Hi, Jeane, this is Professor Steven E Jones, muon-catalyzed fusion, cold fusion, etc. EARLY retired (and not by choice). Anyway, I'm putting together some notes and I came across a question I asked a scientist (I think John) of Defkalion. He gave a solid answer, and now 5 years later, I wonder - what has happened to Defkalion? any progress, devices for sale or testing, etc.? I thought - if anyone, Jeane would know.
Thanks, Steven J"
I recently found an article published in 2018:
Neutrons from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Muon-Capture Processes in an Ultradense Hydrogen H(0) Generator, by Holmlid, here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15361055.2017.1421366?scroll=top&needAccess=true
They want $50 to view the paper for 24 hours! Can anyone find the paper without the high fee?
See it here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Holmlid/publication/323622063_Neutrons_from_Muon-Catalyzed_Fusion_and_Muon-Capture_Processes_in_an_Ultradense_Hydrogen_H0_Generator/links/5aa40825aca272d448b8e6a8/Neutrons-from-Muon-Catalyzed-Fusion-and-Muon-Capture-Processes-in-an-Ultradense-Hydrogen-H0-Generator.pdf (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Holmlid/publication/323622063_Neutrons_from_Muon-Catalyzed_Fusion_and_Muon-Capture_Processes_in_an_Ultradense_Hydrogen_H0_Generator/links/5aa40825aca272d448b8e6a8/Neutrons-from-Muon-Catalyzed-Fusion-and-Muon-Capture-Processes-in-an-Ultradense-Hydrogen-H0-Generator.pdf)
Gyula
That's the paper - thank you, Gyula! O0
Here's something more to chew on - the Chinese have landed an exploratory rover on the FAR side of the moon...
https://www.foxnews.com/science/china-successfully-lands-spacecraft-on-far-side-of-moon-state-media-says
How do they get radio signals back from there?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.01.03, 14:22:51
Here's something more to chew on - the Chinese have landed an exploratory rover on the FAR side of the moon...
https://www.foxnews.com/science/china-successfully-lands-spacecraft-on-far-side-of-moon-state-media-says
How do they get radio signals back from there?
According to the BBC by a moon satellite that was also part of the project.
Smudge
Gentlemen and Ladies:
I recently completed SEVEN books presenting my research paths in various fields. Each of these paths has "loose ends" and I am inviting public support and participation.
Three of these books are now offered to the public, links given below. Sales began TODAY and sales income will go mainly to support the research delineated in these books.
Comments are welcomed.
Book 1 (Metal-Catalyzed Fusion) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WZWQYW2
Book 2 (Challenging Einstein's Theory of Relativity) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XBQ9W3P
Book 5 (9-11 Research as a Full Professor of Physics) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07X13S763
Background information:
Hi!
Physics Professor Steven E. Jones here. Inventor of the Solar Funnel Cooker and several other devices (Books 3 and 4). The search for Alternative Energy sources has been my quest throughout my career. Some of you may have thought my career ended when I "early-retired" in January 2007. These books will demonstrate that my researches are far from over!
You may have heard about me from my research and publications on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion and Cold Fusion (Book 1) or from my research on how the World Trade Center Towers fell on 9/11/2001 (Book 5). I have traveled to about sixty universities and research laboratories around the world both conducting experiments and talking about my results. Perhaps I had the privilege of speaking to YOU!
However, I suspect that very few of you have heard about my research challenging Einstein's Theory of Relativity (Book 2) or about my researches in archaeometry (Book 6).
In these seven books (some yet to come) I share with the world my best inventions and ideas for further research studies and experiments. Enjoy!
I sincerely hope that many of you (particularly students and seekers everywhere) will join me in the quest for truth and for marvelous inventions which will benefit mankind.
Sincerely,
Dr. Steven E. Jones
O0
I suppose the book that will interest more people on this forum is the book regarding "Metal-Catalyzed Fusion" where I discuss the "star in a jar" device, among other freedom-energy concepts:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07WZWQYW2/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1
But the book that has the most sales so far is my book challenging Einstein's Relativity Theory:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07XBQ9W3P/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
which, interestingly, is currently the " #1 New Release in Astrophysics & Space Science " according to the page above.
Link to the three books published so far: https://www.amazon.com/Steven-Jones/e/B07X28D8NB/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
A reader of my books has pointed me to a very interesting and informative video regarding cold fusion - begins at about 3m06sec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLvoCjz9Q1k&t=436s
Joe is kind enough to cite my work in the LENR/cold fusion arena:
Greetings, Friends and Colleagues:
My career has been largely devoted to the pursuit of clean renewable energy, freely available to humanity. All profits from the sale of this book will go back into this pursuit for abundant clean freedom energy. By "freedom energy" I mean that we are seeking freedom from dependence on polluting fuels such as oil and gas, seeking a NEW untapped source of energy which will benefit everyone. Please recall my scientific papers on muon-catalyzed fusion, cold fusion in metals, and the solar funnel cooker which I invented in 1990.
Following a decade of further research work since my early retirement (not what I wanted to do!) from BYU, in this book I give away all my best "Freedom Energy" ideas and inventions and present the inventions of fellow open-sourcing researchers as well. I explain why I truly expect a "Freedom Energy" breakthrough, a gift to humanity, by the end of 2020. How do we expect to do this?
Find out now! Here's the link to my latest book, currently listed by Amazon as "#1 New Release in Physics of Energy" --
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Z3TS1SG/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i3
And here is the link to my other published books in this series:
https://www.amazon.com/Steven-Jones/e/B07X28D8NB/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
Thanks for your support, and Best Wishes to you!
Dr. Steven E. Jones
PS -Here are two of my "freedom energy" videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUL9JTFPuIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRigG687ies&t=0s
All seven of my series are now available on Amazon:
7 Books of Emeritus Physics Professor Steven E Jones.
https://www.amazon.com/Steven-Jones/e/B07X28D8NB/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
Book 3 is now the #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory.
the new form of propulsion cought my attention!