The ZPED theory below by Jones Beene lends support to my own relativistic solution for the recent claims of energy amplification by Italian researchers Rossi and Foccardi. the theory is only recently introduced on the vortex-l forumn. http://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg43780.html
Although I agree with most of what Jones Beene writes below my position is that many of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Mills’, Rossi or Haisch – Moddel depend on an ashless reaction as the predominant source of energy. Many contend that energy extraction from ZPE violates the first law of thermodynamics but this is because the first law assumes ZPE is too chaotic to be exploited. These claims of anomalous heat, IMHO, represent an interim ashless -ZPE- step to any of the nuclear paths being proposed. What Puthoff and others refer to as vacuum engineering or vacuum energy suppression provides a loophole to this assumption upon which a Heisenberg trap could be based. The amount of ash seen in these experiments does not seem to be in keeping with the amount of energy released. The theory Jones presents below is itself a hybrid between nuclear and Zero Point energy where decay is “enhanced” by change in energy density / supression. this theory still results in an exchange of mass for energy in a manner which I completely agree with but still remain convinced that energy can also be directly harvested from zero point energy without decay or conversion of mass. I am alone in seeing a connection between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and radioactivity, Although the first two are not radioactive I propose that they are all a result of energy balancing between a Puthoof atomic model ground state and vacuum energy density. Rapid changes in energy density are associated with catalytic action (pores in skeletal catalysts and nano powders) , spontaneous emission of photons and anomalous half life decays (cavity supression). My point is that these imbalances don’t have to result in radioactive decay but rather the ground state could alter the energy density or propell the atom between different densities given the proper environment (nano powder or skeletal cat) .
ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post) Jones Beene
Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:37:47 -0700
This concept has "a new kind of chain reaction" at the heart of a complicated theory known as ZPED - zero point enhanced decay. Several related old posts have been revised and included here for convenience. Many observers have become increasingly open to the suggestion that what Andrea Rossi has discovered, serendipitously and possibly unknown to himself, can be characterized as a critical mass. "of something" operating for large non-chemical gain, with mild radioactivity. Obviously, the 'something' is not directly related to nuclear fission, since neutrons are absent. The most puzzling detail is the lack of sufficient radioactivity to account for the excess heat. However, energy from nuclear decay or isomeric transition (IT) can be involved at a secondary level, if most of it can be coupled to an exchange mechanism with the zero point field. This overall modality is related to a physical mass of reactants, but it could easily be leaning towards having additional intangible considerations - which casts everything into a different light. Rather than change the well-known phrase 'critical mass' to the more precise: 'critical accumulation' (in order to accommodate intangible considerations) it seems prudent merely to acknowledge that this process is not directly connected to standard uranium fission, except metaphorically; but it does demand threshold levels of at least one variable and possibly several. The important behavior of the underlying system becomes "emergent" - in the way Ball describes in Critical Mass - How one thing leads to another, which is online at Google Books. This does not delve deeply enough into quantum mechanics to be helpful in the precise pursuit (explaining Andrea Rossi's E-Cat discovery). However, the insight on emergent systems is helpful for those who do not appreciate how a large jump in gain can arrive in such a surprising way. The irony here is that QM and critical mass are antithetical on one level of understanding - the small juxtaposed to the large. One intangible consideration in the operation of any quantum mechanical process is that 'probability' itself, in the sense of 'correlation fields,' is responsive to accumulation - and/or to 'trigger' levels (leading to emergent behavior) in systems which depend on a flux of neutrons-substitutes, which will be called a "vector". A moderately high stable temperature is one such trigger or vector, which operates to maximize stress within nanocavities. 'Probability' is also found at the underlying level of 'critical mass' via neutron interaction (fission chain reaction), but in this new form it is related to the zero point field in two steps. There is a secondary, accelerated nuclear decay (an isomeric conversion or a weak force reaction) which can seem at first to be primary, without looking at all the clues. This process is mediated by a dense form of hydrogen known as 'pycno'. This hypothesis is the merger of QM, cavity QED, and Casimir mechanics with mainstream nuclear reactions, and it will lead to a theory called ZPED, or zero point enhanced decay. The ultimate energy source is the atomic nucleus. Let's make that clear, even though the way it arrives is not straightforward and involves quantum mechanics, time shifting, and two distinct stages. Here are specific details: There is an unusual subset of heavy elements - four elements in the periodic table which are heavier (in a.m.u.) than the next element above them in the table. For instance, element 92 is heavier than element 93. There appears to be only four such elements in this category. As you might imagine (even not knowing the identity of the four) this characteristic could be strongly indicative of nuclear instability. The first three are quite well-known as the elements involved in nuclear fission: thorium, uranium and plutonium. The 'nuclear fission' common denominator of these elements is a "too-heavy" atomic mass, comparatively, and this property might indicate that the fourth element in this grouping is heavy enough to have its decay rate altered. However, this lesser known element is not known to undergo fission via neutron capture, as are the three above - and it does not participate in a chain reaction. At least not a chain reaction which is vectored by neutrons. It is also the lightest of the four. It is also a singularity in having the highest spread of atomic weight between its lowest and highest stable isotope of any element. Does that make it special in any way for a new kind of nuclear reaction, not involving neutrons as the active modality, but possibly involving another vector such as "pycno", f/H or IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) or other names which were once more closely identified with the Mills' hydrino? This fourth element is tellurium - element 52. It is best known in the compound bismuth-telluride, used in thermoelectrics, or cadmium telluride in photovoltaics. It is photoactive and tends to form into 2D layers in a way that seems to mirror the dense hydrogen state - pycno which is also 2D. "Topologically protected surface states" are the important 2D feature of bismuth telluride. In the presence of spillover hydrogen, this points directly towards the critical operative mechanism of the E-Cat device. To help in understanding how "topologically protected surface states" might relate to a new kind of sequential nuclear reaction of tellurium, it can be helpful to start with the information on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator A topological insulator is a material that behaves as an thermal insulator in its interior while permitting the movement of charges on its boundary. In fact bismuth-telluride conducts electricity like a metal but conducts heat poorly - like glass for instance. The internal stress resulting for this contradictory set of physical properties on bulk bismuth telluride must be severe. This will create nano-cracking and cavity formation. On the surface of a topological insulator are special states which fall within the bulk energy gap to allow good conduction. They also may allow spillover hydrogen to accumulate via mirror charges and then further densify in the nanocavities, which are more like nano-pits. Heat is retained in the pit but not at the surface, providing a high stress-interface. Once densified, there are many possibilities for excess heat. Those who favor a nuclear-only pathway might look to the P-e-P reaction as the aftermath. Some deuterium is expected in the ash. However, there are said to be no detectable neutrons over background in the E-Cat, and there should be neutrons with any significant level of fusion. What is more likely, in my opinion is that the main initial source of heat is NON-NUCLEAR. This creates an immediate local state of energy depletion, which can the secondarily result in accelerated decay of a tellurium isotope in such a way that that there is little remnant radioactivity. The most likely isotope for this is Tellurium-125m, which should be responsive to this kind of "balancing the books" scenario. Another unstable isotope - previously mentioned is Zr-96, but bismuth telluride may best frame this theory. In either case, the "IT" kind of energy shedding may predominate. An "isomeric transition" is a radioactive decay process that involves emission of energy from a nucleus in a metastable state, referred to in an excited state or deformed nucleus. There can be few traces of transmutation, when IT operates to balance the energy withdrawn from the ZPF. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomeric_transition I am pretty sure that zirconia is the corresponding active material in Arata/Kitamura/Takahashi/etc experiments, yet only used small quantities and with less grain. Rossi may have found a much better "catalyst" (which is of course his inaccurate description) or else he has found a critical mass level. In both cases the nano nickel or Ni-Pd alloy can serve as spillover catalyst. Rossi's one liter capacity reactor indicates that he could not be using more than a kilogram of powdered material - and for present purposes, it is assumed to be mostly bismuth telluride with a few grams of a spillover catalyst. To be a little more specific, then, in this hypothesis which I am calling ZPED (zero point enhanced decay), most of the extra thermal energy initiates in the first step from a known asymmetric manipulation of hydrogen - the Lamb shift operating at infrared frequencies with a GHz offset. Any excess energy is severely self-limiting at a low level unless there is provided an in situ way to replenish the zero point field. The replenishment can comes from weak force reactions in tellurium (or other candidate nuclei) and this effectively replaces the energy deficit. Most of the emitted gamma radiation couples to ZPF before it can be observed in out 3-space. Continuing operation "appears to be" nuclear, when in fact that characterization is not accurate, and the proximate cause in zero point, while the ultimate cause is nuclear. This mechanism happens in two steps beginning with an asymmetrical looping effect of QED - quantum electrodynamics, and can be interpreted as the influence of virtual photons from the ZPE which have been emitted and re-absorbed by the densified hydrogen atoms. The value of the Lamb shift to this explanation is by way of a tiny mass-energy equivalent, which is about 4^-6 eV = 1 GHz = 4^-23 joules which is not much to get excited about unless you can recycle (pump) the change (asymmetry) rapidly. With your oscillator in the terahertz range (higher than ambient - i.e. the 'trigger' temperature) then the slight thermal gain can be made additive and sequential, so long as the zero point field is continually replenished locally. The bottom line of the ZPED thesis is that the initial (non-nuclear) gain is via QM effects and the zero point field (the Lamb shift and/or relativistic acceleration) - in conjunction with the rapid IR (infrared) pumping mechanism at a thermal trigger temperature. This creates a local energy deficit - in which an unstable nucleus, like Te-125 or Zr-96 become far more susceptible to decay, and can effectively 'regauge' the depleted local field, while leaving some (but comparatively little) remnant radioactivity. As for moving this from paper to laboratory, a set of definitive experiments has been (is being) designed to falsify this theory.
-----Reply to jones ----- From: Roarty, Francis X Although I agree with most if not all of the proposed ZPED theory my position is that many of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Mills', Rossi or Haisch - Moddel depend on an ashless reaction powered directly from ZPE as the predominant source of energy. Many contend that any energy extraction from ZPE violates the first law of thermodynamics but this is because the first law assumes ZPE is too chaotic to be exploited (Apparently true in an isotropic energy density but not confirmed when said isotropy is broken into gradients). Many of the claims of anomalous heat all seem to occur when this isotropy is broken and, IMHO, represent an interim ashless reaction. The reaction can be a chemical or physical asymmetry such that the gas atoms are modified in some way before returning to a particular energy density - the asymmetry even opposes this return and it is left for ZPE to overcome this opposition. Reifenschweiler effect may reflect how ZPE manipulates Space-Time to satisfy this asymmetry in restoring an orbital to ground state by dilating time. What Puthoff and others refer to as vacuum engineering or, vacuum energy suppression, provides a loophole to this assumed violation of COE upon which a Heisenberg trap could be based. The amount of ash seen in these experiments does not seem to be in keeping with the amount of energy released. The theory Jones presents is itself a hybrid between nuclear and Zero Point energy where decay is "enhanced" by change in energy density / supression. This theory still results in an exchange of mass for energy in a manner which I completely agree with yet I still remain convinced that energy can also be harvested directly (in exchange for time dilation) from zero point energy without radioactive decay or conversion of mass. I am alone in seeing a connection between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and radioactivity, Although the first two are not radioactive I propose that they are all a result of energy balancing between a Puthoof atomic model ground state and vacuum energy density. Rapid changes in energy density are associated with catalytic action (pores in skeletal catalysts and nano powders) , spontaneous emission of photons and anomalous half life decays (cavity supression). My point is that these imbalances don't have to result in radioactive decay but rather the ground state could interact with the energy density to be propelled through space and/or time as a result. Regards Fran
Reply from Jones: Fran - I generally agree except the problem with Mills or Haisch/Moddel et al. is that they make claims for the nickel hydrogen reaction alone, not requiring a second stage nuclear 'makeup' reaction - but the claims cannot be verified by others. They probably can do it, but not robustly and perhaps not for extended periods. Until they can do it 'on demand', it seems reasonable to suggest that Rossi is essentially doing a similar thing, yet he (inadvertently) provided a pathway for nuclear gain, and that extra detail seems to have allowed him to demonstrate a robust reaction in circumstances where others get mixed results. Mills has not asked me for advice but if he did, I would suggest adding an active ingredient to his "solid fuel" reactor that does have this ZPED pathway for accelerated decay. Same with Haisch/Moddel. The first thing to try is bismuth telluride, and the second is zirconia. Either of these must be recycled with heat and pressure several times to achieve nano-fracturing; but they probably do not need to be nanopowder at the outset (hopefully). It is that simple (almost). This setup might also require a nuclear trigger like thorium. Can you interest Moddel in trying this? It could be as simple as adding a commercially obtained product to an earlier experiment. Jones -----Reply from Robin ----- From: mix...@bigpond.com >How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question, >and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a >'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few papers >to base an informed opinion. RvS - If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so it's not very likely IMO. Robin - ----- Jones reply to Robin----- No, no. Nuclear fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the simple reason that mass is converted to energy. This is no different. Induced gamma emission (IGE) or internal conversion (IT) are both solid fact, not hypothetical. Mass is being converted to energy as in fission and fusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission The hypothetical part of it - especially as it might relate to the E-Cat via the ZPED theory is that the gamma emission can be stimulated by a "deficit in the zero point field", and that some (or most) of the induced emission couples directly to the depleted field... and that isotope redistribution reveals the ultimate mass deficit. That is not too big a stretch IMO. It does not violate CoE. The few elements subject to so-called "isomer energy" are no different in metastability than are the fission candidates Th, U or Pu - except the excess mass "identity" is less clear; this is because the beginning and ending element can be the same but not necessarily the isotope balance. I have tried to find any study which connects IGE to isotope distribution shifts, but if there are any - then they are classified. "Isomer energy" itself is a newer field that was born out of top secret military devices like the hafnium or tantalum (gamma) lasers, and especially the UAV program. "What" the nature of the loss mass involved consists of, is nebulous: Gluons? Pions? who knows? IOW - it is too early to say what kind of mass is being converted, so one must simply consider this to be a "subset" of IGE for now. (or else dismiss it as unproved). For any CoE violation, one would need to show that no mass is being converted, which is next to impossible with an element like tellurium that has no many isotopes and isomers including the metastable Te-123, which it is a most excellent candidate for any kind of isotope redistribution in the conversion process. If no mass is lost, then of course you are correct; but suffice it to say that all of this hypothesis is on a fairly firm foundation due to IGE and the undeniable billions that have gone into it from the USAF under the blanket of the UAV programs. Best estimate is $12 billion since 2002 into UAV of which a quarter or more of that figure has gone into isomer energy or IGE. That is new information I got today from a reliable source, but it needs to be checked out. This kind of R&D focused on IGE/IT/IE etc could explain why there is such a high level of "official indifference" at DoD to the E-Cat Rossi, which any fool can see has enormous military significance. They are probably already way ahead - and could have their own version of the E-Cat in an unmanned drone, with an enormous range ready to fly if not in the air now. It would not surprise me if the USAF "borrowed" some of the technology directly from Rossi a few years ago, come to think of it. The UAV program is not just top priority. It is the crème-de-la-crème and certainly would be expected to bring out all the spooks. Jones