Posts by Frank Grimer

I've been thinking a lot about those four power laws for water and water vapour.

I believe that they will open the way to using water as a fuel.

Of course, water can be used as a fuel at the moment. The problem is that more energy is needed to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen than is returned by their combination back into water.

I believe that if the process is carried out in the vapour phase rather than the liquid phase less energy will be needed.

Moreover, I believe this is what Joseph Papp discovered and demonstrated with his Papp engine - and kept quiet about.

What about the noble gasses? Where do they come into the equation?

I believe they are acting as catalysts.

There's a lot of stuff on Papp and his engine. I'll have to start delving into it.

I suppose it's not exactly LENR, more LEAR.
Still, it's in the same iconoclastic spirit.

The interesting thing about that Southampton conference I mentioned in the previous post was the complete lack of any contradiction. Frankly I'd expected the paper to be excoriated and I was not looking forward to it. Nevertheless, since I believed my hypothesis to be correct however outlandish it might appear I knew I had to put it forward.

To my surprise we only got a single comment. That was from a delegate who come up to us afterwards and said,
"That paper of yours. It was a hoax, wasn't it?"
We both fell about laughing and assured him we were completely serious. He went away looking very puzzzled.

I suppose the lack of reaction was simply a reflection of that well known saying about conferences, "We're only here for the beer"

My division head found we'd presented the paper under the auspices of Building Reasearch and was annoyed with my Section Head for passing it but didn't take any other action. I knew that from then on I could publish anything I liked without comeback - and I did. It seemed to me the Official Secrets Act was a paper tiger.

When I first lectured on the scale invariant sixth power law for water I expected great interest from the many other scientists at my government research lab. After all, water is probably the most important material there is and an equation of state calls for an explantion.
Why was it a power law? Was the 6 a reflection of the molecule structure? Why had this relation been missed since published by Bridgman in the International Critical Tables all those years ago.

On reflection Simone Weil, had the situation bang to rights when in her essay,
"La Science et nous" she wrote,

============
What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe it and define it and, having taken it into account, to draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.

And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare exceptions there are none to be found among the members of other professions.

So the scientists forged ahead without revising anything, because any revision would have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.
============

I suppose my Hotson moment of disillusion with physics came when my director, Sir William Glanville, wrote in his own hand across the top of my Laboratory Note - Not for Publication. Obviously, engineers are not supposed to discover things that physicists like P.W.Bridgman
had missed.

Years later I had my revenge, my Building Research Establishment, BRExit. The organiser of the Southampton University 1968 International Conference on Engineering Materials knew about our work on concrete and asked us to submit a paper. Now members of government labs don't have the same freedom of publication as academics and I knew that if I submitted a paper to my superiors which claimed that materials were held together from without and not from within I didn't stand an earthly of it being approved - so I made the first few pages quite anodyne and kept the heresy and equation of state for water to the end. I knew my immediate boss was a lazy sod and wouldn't read it all.

By the time they found out what I had done it was too late. The conference was over and because there'd been no ructions I got away with it.

Interestingly enough the conference was a year later than the year Fleischmann became Professor of Electrochemistry at the University occupying the Faraday Chair of Chemistry.

I was thinking about Dr Maclean's difficulty with our Archimedes procedure and realised that his problem arose from his training as a physicist. Physicists don't really "do" environments for they have a history of a non-existence aether. Lip service is sometimes paid in the form of virtual particles but generally space is reduced to a maths devoid of substance.

Consider this account by D.L.Hotson talking
about himself in the third person.

==================================================
Unfortunately, he could not resist asking
awkward questions. His professors taught that
conservation of mass-energy is the never-violated,
rock-solid foundation of all physics. In
'pair-production', a photon of at least 1.022 MeV
'creates' an electron-positron pair, each with
0.511 MeV of rest energy, with any excess being
the momentum of the 'created' pair. So supposedly
the conservation books balance.
But the 'created' electron and positron both have
spin (angular momentum) energy of h/4p. By any
assumption as to the size of electron or positron,
this is far more energy than that supplied by the
photon at 'creation'.

"Isn't angular momentum energy?"
he asked a professor.

"Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular
momentum is the energy needed by the electron to
set up a stable standing wave around the proton.
Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion
principle, hence for the extension and stability
of all matter. You could say it is the sole cause
of the periodic table of elements."

"Then where does all this energy come from? How
can the 'created' electron have something like
sixteen times more energy than the photon that
supposedly 'created' it? Isn't this a huge
violation of your never-violated rock-solid
foundation of physics?"

"We regard spin angular momentum as an 'inherent
property' of electron and positron, not as a
violation of conservation."

"But if it's real energy, where does it come from?"

"Inherent property' means we don't talk about
it, and you won't either if you want to pass
this course."

Later, Mr. Hotson was taken aside and told that
his 'attitude' was disrupting the class, and
that further, with his 'attitude', there was no
chance in hell of his completing a graduate
program in physics, so 'save your money'. He
ended up at the Sorbonne studying French
literature and later became a professional
land surveyor.
================================================

For me the shock of seeing that things were held together by external compressions and not internal tensions was akin the the cognitive dissonance of seeing a negative photo as a positive - a complete inversion as in our Archimedes procedure.

I'm reminded of Secondo Pia's experience who said that he almost dropped and broke the photographic plate in the darkroom from the shock of what appeared on it: the reverse plate showed the image of a man and a face that could not be seen with the naked eye.

For me the positron and electron don't anihilate each other but form a neutral electric, neutral mangnetic and neutral inertial particle. I was so pleased with the notion that I even wrote a letter to the New Scentist. Of course, I didn't expect them to publish it but I did get a polite letter back thanking me.

On reflection I think a better name for the Materon would be a Whole.

I think that's enough scientific heresy for this post.

An amusing incident early in my research career illustrates the kind of cognitive dissonance resulting from inverting one's view of things such as material strength.

=============================================================
To find the density of a piece of material one needs to measure two quantities. Its weight and its volume.

Finding the volume of a material is easy enough when the material is a simple shape; you just measure and use the appropriate maths formula.

When the material is irregular, like a roughly hacked piece of soil cement or a king’s crown, then there’s a problem as Archimedes realised. It is his method, or rather the inverse, which we used to find the volume of our soil-cement samples.

Archimedes’ discovery is often expressed as,

“The loss of weight in water is equal to the volume of water displaced.”

Strictly speaking, the loss of weight in water is equal to the weight of water displaced but since 1 cc of water weighs one gram we can jump directly from loss of weight to volume.

Using this principle the volume of a lump of stuff can be measured by
hanging it by a thin thread from one arm of a lever balance to measure its weight and then letting out the thread until it is immersed in a beaker of water when its weight is again measured.

The original weight is its weight. The loss in weight is its volume. So the original weight divided by the loss in weight is its density.

The Concrete Division were using just such a system for measuring the density gradients of core slices cut from concrete roads. Because Soils didn’t have a suitable lever balance we thought we'd be smart and do it differently. Using a pan balance we measured, not the loss in the weight of the specimen, but the gain in the weight of the water.

............

One day our Division Head, Dr.Maclean, was walking through the lab and he happened to see me holding one end of the thread and calling out the scale readings to my colleague.

He stood and watched for a while looking puzzled.

..........“What are you doing Grimer?”

..........“I’m measuring the volume of these soil-cement samples, sir.”

..........“But the volume is equal to the loss in weight of the specimen. You are
...........holding the end of the thread. How can you measure the loss in weight like that?”

..........“I’m not measuring the loss in weight of the specimen, sir. I’m
...........measuring the gain in weight of the water.”

...........“Are you sure you can do that, Grimer?”

His incredulity was so palpable that I almost started having doubts myself. It was like when your wife asks you for the third time if you turned the gas off when you left.

..........."Pretty sure. After all, the weight has to go somewhere, doesn’t it! It
............can’t just disappear.”

He walked slowly away looking very unconvinced.

In retrospect I can’t really blame him. When all your life you have been used to seeing a thing done one way, its very difficult to accept that it can also be done in the completely opposite way. Standing there holding one end of the thread with the specimen dangling in a beaker of water at the other it must have seemed as though I was engaged in some mystic rite of pendulum divination.
=============================================================

Quote

My Damascene conversion came about from my research on the stress-strain properties of concretes. I will explain this in more detail in a future post. It was only much later after the discovery of the equations of state for water vapour that I was able to reach a more detailed understanding of the external compression mechanism.

Research results for the properties of concrete as shown above convinced me that it was more useful to see materials as held together from external field compressions than from internal tensions.

Ooops! wrong thread.

In the above graph I've indicated in red the barometric pressure scale equivalent to Skempton's pF scale. Thus pF 7, the maximum pressure reached in clays represents a pressure of 10,000 atmospheres, or roughly 150,000 pounds per square inch.

It can be seen therefore that the maximum strength of clays is of the same order as the maximum strength of metals.

This goes to explain why the rheological properties of clays and metals are so alike - as Skempton recognised.

However, because the theory of the Casimir Effect was not sufficiently developed in his time he wasn't in a position to make the Gestalt switch of viewing the clay as being held together by external Casimir particle pressure rather than by internal fluid phase tension.

My Damascene conversion came about from my research on the stress-strain properties of concretes. I will explain this in more detail in a future post. It was only much later after the discovery of the equations of state for water vapour that I was able to reach a more detailed understanding of the external compression mechanism.

Thanks very much for that, Alan.

I particularly liked this piece on the opening page.

Quote

I chose Science in the Green as a title to emphasise that these ideas are considered new, alternative, and largely unproven. They are therefore in the realm of fools. I will write of hardworking, conscientious, intellegent, trained academics, but they are considered to be fools. Personally, though sceptical by nature, I am entirely of an open mind as to the validity of many of their claims. Perhaps I am the greatest fool. Though I have a general science background, I am no specialist in anything of which I write. This web-site is merely an opportunity to share my efforts to understand some of the issues involved. As such it is, and always will be, a work in progress. It is very much about science in and of the green.

I'm just checking how to get images onto my posts. It seems to be the second line of the Photobucket image list is the one to use.

I'll have more comments on this later.

Thanks for that Wyttenbach. Extra evidence of cold transmutation. The alchemists would have loved it.

Quote

my bad ,it s already there but in very bottom after the quick reply box,it would helpful if it's before.

I agree. It would be better if it came just before the quick reply box rather than after it.

Alan Smith wrote in my other thread:

Quote

There are many researchers who have claimed that elements can be transmuted inside living systems, most notably workers in Russia, Germany and France. This link will lead you to a readable 1-page account of some of their findings.oceanplasma.org/documents/plants.html

The question arises, where in a plant does the nuclear synthesis take place.The fact that the roots appear to search out the highest pF regions of the soil suggest that this occurs in the root hairs which will reach into the smallest spaces at the lowest pressure.

Interestingly enough one can see a demonstration of the three vapour pressure equations of state by going outside and looking up to the heavens.
The twelfth power is manifest by the Cirrus clouds (the hair clouds, cf, plants).
The eighth power is manifest by the Stratus clouds (the sheet clouds).
The fourth power is manifest by the bulbous cumulous clouds.

This in turn suggests that the water molecule aggregations are needles, sheets of hexagons and Buckyballs respectively.

Dr Storms is obviously on the right track with his idea that tiny cracks in metals are a likely CF environment. All that is lacking is any concept of the metallic equivalent of a pF scale, an eF scale, say where the 'e' stands for electric. Rheologically clays and metals differ only in scale so the physics should be analogous.

Once one appreciates that the Casimir eF environment of small spaces in metals is vastly different from that in larger spaces then something else becomes clear, i.e. that the muon is simply a high mass electron, not a different particle. It has a high mass because it is in a high eF environment. Mass is not a measure of the amount of substance, of stuff. It is a property of motion.

Leibniz Rules - OK.

"a smart,somehow cocky and juvenile" LOL - fair comment. You could have also added "rambling" as one of the inquisition "experts" did at our Star Chamber trial.

I often think my notes are more akin to an episode of James Burke's Connections than a proper scientific treatise. For a military comparison, I'm more of a Patton than a Monty fan.

However, my approach has been successful, inter alia, in anticipating failure of the M1 carriageway (internal note showing the appalling lack of strength control - suppressed) - in heading off failure of the Ross-Spur Motorway by demonstrating there was an unmixed layer in the first few miles of construction - in anticipating failure of glass reinforced cement and getting it restricted to non-structural components. Even those failed at 5 years exactly as predicted.

Let's hope I'm not proved correct about the injudicious choice of prestressed concrete for the British AGR's.

As for Tesla I don't think he was as specific as I was and he certainly didn't envisage a whole hierarchy of atmospheres but it seems clear from his whole approach that he believe in the existence of a real material aether.

My biggest disappointment has been failure to solve the Bessler conundrum. Trouble was, I didn't have the strong team of experimental officer support I had in government employ.

@ Curbina

Nice to find someone who's actually heard of the Beta-atmosphere.

If you, or any other member for that matter, are interested in what gave rise to the Beta-atmosphere insight they will find more than they ever wanted to know dumped on my website:
http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/
For non engineers it's best to start off with the memories file entitled "Stuff".

I've recently realised, much to my chagrin, that Tesla preceded me by many decades.

One reason I've joined this forum is that my later discoveries (the three equations of state for water vapour) have a direct bearing on cold fusion in particular and LENR in general.

If LENR can have a relevance to plants, of all things, I've no doubt that it can have a relevance to geophysical phenomenology - and a lot of other things come to that. The Hutchison Effect for example.

As for poor old Alberto losing his position I was very cunning in publishing terrible heresies under the Station's auspices without loosing mine - well, until 2 years before my retirement when my idiot director, Dr Rex Watson (he's dead so he can't be libelled ) tried to stop me writing internal notes.

My appeal against his ruling went all the way to the Cabinet Secretary (Robin Butler) since it involved the safety of an AGR. It's a long story but it ended up with Watson's successor throwing me into the briar bush. The final two years of my service were on "gardening leave" on full pay.

@ scuromio

As an "expert" on the water vapour equation of state you may wish to comment on the
Clays - possible environments for COLD FUSION.
thread where reference us made to the 3 equations of state Professor Chaplin presents on his website.

Quote

Since pore water in clays can reach pressures below ambient of up to pF 7 it seems possible that using D2O in clay could be a candidate for cold fusion.

Using the deuterium as heavy water rather that individual atoms seems more likely to be successful.

To draw an analogy, individual deuterium atoms are like pairs of wild horses charging around all over the place. An encounter with a second pair at the right orientation for the magnetic field to overcome the coulomb barrier has a low probability of success. Also, because the process is random there is a possibility of generating higher bursts of energy which are damaging.

Coupling the horses to the oxygen carriage means that the orientation can be controlled. Encounters are no longer random but can be organised by channeling the heavy water molecules along streamlines in the high pF regions between the clay minerals.

To achieve this one needs to choose the clay mineral which give the pore water a linear structure, i.e that of the ice vapour pressure phase which has the equation of state:
P = (((V)⁴)⁴)⁴

As you can see, the vapour in this state is under the first three orders of reduced Casimir compression.

Quote

Hi Frank.Certainly Alumina and Zeolites have been shown to be useful matrices for LENR, and are also a component in many types of clay. Here's a recent paper on the topic of Deuterium/Alumina.researchgate.net/publication/2…_a-alumina_coated_Eurofer

That's interesting. Thanks very much Alan.

Quote

Interesting idea… Should make for some interesting pottery. I wonder if anyone in the Ceramics industry has observed interesting phenomena after firing clays in their Kilns (Normally they are dried at this point though), especially with particular glazes slip/glazes and/or metal oxides included. Maybe interesting to check glazes of pots for element/isotope changes some day.

Do you know it those pressures are retained after the clays are dried… I suppose there is always some residual water in the clay. Using D2O in clay is an intriguing idea I think

They certainly are retained. That's what gives clays their strength.

In effect you have a natural prestressed concrete with the pore water in a state of tension and the clay mineral structure in a balancing state of compression.

When I worked at RRL there was a Section researching suction in soils lead by Dr Croney. I worked in the Soil Stabilization Section and my research led me to poach Croney, Coleman and Black's results and replot them as power relations thus revealing their significance.

Croney was very pissed off and delayed commenting on my note for 6 months until he was forced to disgorge.

To be fair to the Section Dr Coleman paid me a handsome compliment by saying:

"When I saw those graphs, Grimer, I nearly had an orgasm."

The note's probably down the memory hole by now but I kept a copy.

If you want an long read it can be found here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/ln_167_fjg.pdf

Since pore water in clays can reach pressures below ambient of up to pF 7 it seems possible that using D₂O in clay could be a candidate for cold fusion.

Has any research been done on this?