USEFUL PAPERS THREAD

    Quote from Rob

    JedRothwell if you’re not going to upload these to the library, could you please upload them to the internet archive? I don’t think quality issues mean we shouldn’t share them.

    Do you mean the Brightsen papers? I forgot all about them. I looked at them. I do not think they should be uploaded because:


    1. The scans are of very poor quality.


    2. Two of them are more like business memos than scientific papers. They are of no general interest. The business is long gone.


    3. One is the manuscript:


    Brightsen, R.A. and E. Mallove, Explanation of Cold Fusion Reactions Based on the Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM). 1992.


    It was submitted for publication but never accepted. It looks like a rough draft to me. I seldom upload rough drafts or papers that were not accepted, unless the authors ask me to. The authors are dead, as you know. Most authors would not want me to upload unfinished work.


    I will look at the other two to see if they are suitable to be uploaded.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Do you mean the Brightsen papers? I forgot all about them. I looked at them. I do not think they should be uploaded because:

    I actually meant the entire list you posted. If you’re not going to upload those, could you send them to us in the archive project? We feel these have historical significance and we’d like to have them.

    Quote from Rob

    I actually meant the entire list you posted. If you’re not going to upload those, could you send them to us in the archive project?

    I can send them, but you have to promise not to upload any of them without permission. Most of the authors are dead and cannot grant permission. Some of them denied permission. Emphatically. As you probably know, a prominent author repeatedly threatened to sue me if I upload his papers, talk about his papers, or keep copies on my disk.


    I already sent copies to Ed, since this is a replacement for his paper library. I sent copies to some other people who assisted me with the conversions, downloading, and database. The database was a mess. It took weeks to correct. So I can send copies to you.


    I never hesitate to upload a paper because of the content. I never judge that. I would upload anything by Huizenga or some other arch skeptic, no matter how much I disagree. However, I do not like to upload papers that are poor quality scans, or very poorly written, with spelling errors and incomprehensible sentences. I would not upload anything like that unless the author asks me to. I would insist the author provide a better scan, and fix the spelling at least. On some occasions when I asked authors to do this they said, "never mind." If the author is not willing to put in a few days creating a good quality Acrobat copy, I am not willing to upload it. Blurred papers and spelling errors insult the reader. There is no excuse for them in the 21st century. We don't use fax machines.


    When the authors are dead there is nothing to be done. I am not willing to spend hours making a new copy of a third-rate paper with spelling errors, from a blurred image.

    A yr 2000 thesis on zirconia preparation via a solgel. starting with Zr carbonate.

    The modified solgel ZrO2 catalyst is a very active research subject

    since many transition and other metals can be easily incorporated

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/20036/2693/02Whole.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiyldjwk8aIAxUs8zgGHZLBEWYQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw32C93DGhKCzJBOJ5dRqDaD

    I mentioned S. K. Borowski, NASA Technical Memorandum 107030 AIAA–87–1814, “Comparison of Fusion/Antiproton Propulsion Systems for Interplanetary Travel.” That paper used to be available online. I don't see it now. A copy is attached.


    Here are some related documents:


    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960001947/downloads/19960001947.pdf


    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200001904/downloads/20200001904.pdf

    Well, by not wanting to be too speculative, my best NASA paper is the one where they use NERVA-type nuclear thermal rocket engine, but only to heat water which is then turned into steam for propulsion. Same output as Musk's CH4 on Earth, but on the Moon or Mars, they use local water and don't need to carry it, which changes the game...


    Nuclear-Heated Steam Rocket Using Lunar Ice



    • New

    With regards to the above paper, there is also an interesting 2005 paper here from Robert L Jaffe. Note that it has not been referenced in the DIRD report, despite that being written later.


    Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum

    Quote from Abstract

    In discussions of the cosmological constant, the Casimir effect is often invoked as decisive evidence that the zero-point energies of quantum fields are “real.” On the contrary, Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as 𝛼, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of 𝛼, corresponds to the 𝛼 →∞ limit.

    It is paywalled, but can be found via the usual work-around.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

    Thanks 2
    • New
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This is a flat torus that lacks the 3D symmetry one needs. Clifford torus is the only solution...

    Both may be useful, especially if one extends intersection of both models with homomorphic holography. In where the 2D can be expressed in 3D when electron/photon/phonon emissions are involved.
    One could think of it is a kind of scalar transition perhaps.
    Some complex mathematical things I have been thinking about.
    Expressing the thoughts into formulaic equations is a lot more difficult. 😅

    • New
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Clifford torus is the only solution.

    " So far, these experiments have examined only one nucleus, nickel-58, with the required resolution and range of scatterers, and the data were consistent with the theory. Measurements of more nuclei—notably, heavy ones—will be needed before declaring that the long-sought TDR has been found.

    It's good to see DFG and wide spread of researchers still interested in nuclear modelling.

    the arxiv paper is here

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.04736

    The. actual data (black points) could accommodate a. number of different.models..

    The vertical scale is very coarse..it might fit a truck...

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.