[Vo]:Re: time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Bob Cook]

I think Axil has stumbled upon an explanation of the formation of Ni-62 (which 
has been reported but with extreme doubt  from many including some Vorts).  

I have thought that the understanding of the extent of a coherent QM system 
(entangled per Axil’s terms) is a key.   And the tendency of  such a system to 
go to a lower potential by giving up this energy to thermal energy consistent 
with theory that entropy increases is also important in understanding the 
transformation of a coherent (entangled) system.

Ni-62 is such a target for a system that can get to that configuration.  In the 
nano structure Axil has suggested all the constituents are present.  

This complex nano system seems to fit the bill, including a good high 
temperature lattice of Ni to absorb and transmit thermal  energy.

Bob Cook

PS:  I agree with Higgins that the current standard model has a lot of hand 
waving with many empirical constants for fitting things together.  Holston was 
right on about such a miss-placed focus in modern phyics.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 2:16 PM
To: vortex-l iggin
Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

If we have something that quantum mechanically entangles two dissimilar atoms, 
then these two atoms become the same combined atom at the same location in 
space. Will their nuclei combine in a fusion reaction? 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/everyday-entanglement

In the Lugano test, it looks to me like the 100 micron nickel particle covered 
with lithium became entangled as a single quantum system. All the nickel and 
all the lithium became involved in a nuclear fusion reaction, Yes all N atoms 
in that particle and the lithium that covered it...both Nickel and 
Lithium...transmuted into pure Ni62 in a single fusion reaction through 
entanglement.

This is the only way that particle could have formed through transmutation.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:

  Why the strong force behaves this way - repulsion at close distance, and then 
switching to strong attraction with very short fall-off - is a core mystery of 
quantum mechanics and nuclear theory.  That having been said, Don Hotson's 
analysis of the Dirac's equation as a TOE (theory of everything) has a very 
plausible explanation of the strong force, predicting both the very close 
repulsion and the strong attraction.  This part of the description is in his 
2nd paper, but you will need to read his first paper to understand the second. 

  The strong attraction is an exchange force - sort of like a chemical bond of 
electrons, but with the components of the nucleon being shared between two 
nucleons.  This sharing can only happen at a very small distance.  The exchange 
force reminds me of the force between a magnet and its iron keeper - extremely 
strong at short distance and very weak at longer distance.  Not sure this is a 
good physics analogy, but it comes to mind as I think about it.


  I find Hotson's analysis of what Dirac's equation implies to be very 
compelling.  It really throws conventional quantum mechanics back on its heels! 
 I have his papers, but there have been links to them several times in Vortex.

  Bob Higgins 


  On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:10 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with 
respect to separation?  If there are more than 3 spatial dimensions then some 
of the acting flux might leak off into those mystery regions.  Otherwise, I am 
having a difficult time visualizing why it is not limited in a manner similar 
to that seen with electromagnetic fields.  Of course, if the effects are 
explained as a result of experiments then one is left with this question 
unanswered.

Are we using data that is generated by curve fitting to observations as 
compared to understanding the true physical phenomena underlying those 
observations?  If true, then there is a limited opportunity available to 
anticipate new, so far unseen, forces that might come into play under new 
conditions.   LENR might be one of a family of possibilities waiting to be 
discovered as better instrumentation is developed.  Of course, serendipity has 
its place in physics as it has always led to most of the major discoveries.  It 
has been said, "I'd rather be lucky than good."

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 10:32 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:47 AM, David Roberson  wrote: 


  Does anyone know why this interaction varies as the sixth power of 
separation? 

Just to clarify -- the nuclear force is the one that drops off with the 
sixth power (per Robin).  The speculative relationship between the "interaction 
half-life" 

Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

The physicists seem to be trodding down a wrong path without ever looking
> around to see if their original assumptions could have been wrong.


There does seem to be some hand-waiving in current subatomic physics, as
well as astrophysics.  And physicists will circle their wagons to defend it
against complaints.  My hope is that by making an effort to better
understand what they're saying, even if some of it is a patchwork of
unexamined assumptions, I'll be better in a position to know what is
hand-waiving and what is based upon a solid experimental foundation.  I
think it can be difficult to do this without some familiarity with the
concepts.

For this reason I'm not one to abandon the whole thing as Hotson seems to
have done.  But I'm reading his two papers right now, because people here
seem to like him.

Eric


On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I hate to say it, but before I read Hotson's papers I thought the work on
> sub-nucleon physics was amazing and beyond me.  Now, with Hotson's
> perspective added, my brain nags me in the background that contemporary
> sub-nucleon theory is imaginary crap, built on a false foundation.  The
> physicists seem to be trodding down a wrong path without ever looking
> around to see if their original assumptions could have been wrong.  It
> makes me wonder where we would be today if these same physicists were
> working from a starting assumption that Dirac's equation is correct, and
> not to be fudged the way they have done so as to continue toward a solution
> they wanted to be right, but didn't fit Dirac's perfect equation (TOE).
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with
>>> respect to separation?
>>
>>
>> Here's a Hyperphysics page that says that the range of the strong
>> interaction is limited in part because gluons carry color charge, and
>> therefore interact with themselves and with quarks, in contrast to photons,
>> which carry no (electromagnetic) charge:
>>
>> The range of the strong force is limited by the fact that the gluons
>>> interact with each other as well as with quarks in the context of quark
>>> confinement. These properties contrast them with photons, which are
>>> massless and of infinite range. The photon does not carry electric charge
>>> with it, while the gluons do carry the "color charge".
>>
>>
>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

[Vo]:preview of Terni meeting - LENR, its spirit in a spirituality context

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-13-2015-terni-meeting-preview-lenr.html

subjective, LENR focused preview

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Alain Sepeda]

what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with Bo Hoistad
"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction."

the idea he did the operation is just an interpretation, not confirmed wit
Bo Hoistad.

to intervene may just mean to watch, to advise, to saw, to say where to saw.

The assumed superior competences of Rossi as stage magician has always
surprised me, while his loose protocols, and the recent allowance for
scientists to touch his tricks,  seems really incompatible with any
competence in stage art.



2015-09-12 20:49 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> just a detail : Rossi did not have control on the ashes, like skeptics say
> ….he was just present to watch if no error was done.
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/
>
>
>
>
>
> No, that is not correct.
>
>
>
> Levi himself clearly stated when the report was released that only Rossi
> handled the loading and unloading of the reactor.
>
>
>
> Levi was the lead investigator and spokesperson - and it is rather silly
> for anyone else to try to rewrite history - months later - by way of a
> translation of a translation from the memory of a researcher who faced
> harsh criticism, and is trying to cover up his own ineptitude.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Axil Axil]

I say once again that it is impossible for anyone to build a ash particle
using Li5 ans Ni62 to look identically the same as a fuel particle that is
composed of Li7 and Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61.

This 100 micron ash particle had to have been produced by some exotoic LENR
nuclear process inside the Hot cat.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> "The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is
>  obvious: you do them.Rossi himself physically performed the loading and
> unloading."
>
> Intervention, intervening, in corporate context simply mean coming in
> mission to do something, to watch something...
>
> watching is intervening.
>
>
>
> 2015-09-13 19:47 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :
>
>> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>>
>> Ø   what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with
>> Bo Hoistad
>>
>> "Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
>> subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
>> reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction."
>>
>> Once again, there is no ambiguity here. Levi’s meaning is clear.
>>
>> The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is
>> obvious: you do them. Rossi himself physically performed the loading and
>> unloading.
>>
>> Bo Hoistad is trying to cover-up the incompetence of his group, over a
>> year later … giving an interview in which introduces doubts about the
>> full level of their neglect. This never was intended to be an independent
>> , or third-party, experiment. Essentially, they were well-paid to look
>> the other way and rubber-stamp whatever Rossi wanted.
>>
>> It is implausible that Rossi permitted others to handle the fuel at this
>> point in time -- prior to publication of the patent and before it was
>> granted. The fuel composition was still a trade secret.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

But, when I detect curve fitting instead of basic understanding of the
> underlying processes I get annoyed.
>

I think by "curve fitting" you might mean the ad hoc creation of an
explanation together with a dogmatic insistence that it's final and
correct.  I see curve fitting as unavoidable.  You have a bunch of messy
data points, and you have to find some way to connect the dots.  You do so
in the best way you can, and you include some arbitrary constants and some
fudge factors to keep things together.

I see all explanations as provisional in this manner.  An explanation is
good for a certain scope and domain of applicability, and then when you
zoom in to some corner of the domain or zoom further out, it ceases to be
helpful anymore.  The question for me is whether an explanation provides
insights that illumine something more complex that is going on below the
surface, or whether it gets in the way of further exploration and
understanding.  For this reason I don't have a problem with curve fitting
as such; just with dogmatic assertions about the validity of an explanation
along with the shunning of people who try to look at things from a
different angle.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Axil Axil]

Without supersymmetry, the standard model does not hold together.
supersymmetry will not be found at the LHC. Particle physics will demand a
bigger and more powerful proton smasher to find supersymmetry at a huge
waste of more money.

Background...

Supersymmetry (SUSY), a theory of particle physics, is a proposed type of
spacetime symmetry that relates two basic classes of elementary particles:
bosons, which have an integer-valued spin, and fermions, which have a
half-integer spin. SUSY postulates that each particle from the group of
elementey particles are associated with a particle from the the bosons,
known as its superpartner, the spin of which differs by a half-integer.

In a theory with perfectly "unbroken" supersymmetry, each pair of
superpartners would share the same mass and internal quantum numbers
besides spin. For example, there would be a "selectron" (superpartner
electron), a bosonic version of the electron with the same mass as the
electron, that would be easy to find in a laboratory. Thus, since no
superpartners have been observed, if supersymmetry exists it must be a
spontaneously broken symmetry so that superpartners may differ in mass.

Spontaneously-broken supersymmetry could solve many mysterious problems in
particle physics including the hierarchy problem. The simplest realization
of spontaneously-broken supersymmetry, the so-called Minimal Supersymmetric
Standard Model, is one of the best studied candidates for physics beyond
the Standard Model.


In theoretical physics, the hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy
between aspects of the weak force and gravity. There is no scientific
consensus on, for example, why the weak force is 10^^32 times stronger than
gravity.




On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Eric, I hear what you are saying about the different interactions but
> that does not help to explain exactly why that is so.  My suspicion is that
> the behavior is explained by creating new "forces, colors, and particles"
> that have arbitrary interaction methods just to fit the measurements.   I
> see that as curve fitting and projections based upon measurements that did
> not fit into the earlier theories.  Perhaps I am wrong in this negative
> view of current physics understanding.
>
> From my perspective I see far too many fudge factors that don't make
> physical sense being used in that respect.  One example that has bothered
> me for a very long time is the understanding that photons are particles
> instead of small wave packets consisting of fields that obey Maxwell's
> equations.   Everyone knows that static electric fields exist and can be
> mapped out.  Also, steady magnetic fields exist and can be mapped with
> instruments.   The wavelength of a DC system with static electric and
> steady magnetic fields is infinite so the photon particles must likewise
> approach infinity in size.  The issue escapes the singularity as the rate
> of change of the fields becomes more significant, but the calculated photon
> size remains huge for many decades of AC frequency increase.  This does not
> make any practical sense at all as far as I can tell.  Continuous fields
> described by Maxwell do not share this confusion.
>
> No one would argue that energy is stored within atomic structures in
> anything but fixed quanta since that has been shown true in every case to
> which I am aware.  But free electrons undergoing acceleration should not be
> expected to exhibit that same restriction.  Field equations according to
> Maxwell accurately capture the emitted signals due to every change in
> acceleration of that particle as a function of time.  Are we to assume that
> a continuing emission of discrete photons is taking place depending upon
> the rate of acceleration according to existing theory?That each of
> these is directed toward a certain precise location in three dimensional
> space?  At what point in time and acceleration is each photon released as
> the process proceeds?
>
> I am a bit of a heretic in some of my beliefs regarding accepted physical
> theories.  But, when I detect curve fitting instead of basic understanding
> of the underlying processes I get annoyed.  Curve fitting is the beginning
> point in a quest for further understanding and I applaud the guys for
> patching up the holes that continue to appear as more accurate experiments
> indicate problems with the most recent theory.  This should be expected as
> long as an honest, thorough understanding of what is actually occurring
> remains elusive.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 5:57 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with
>> respect to separation?
>
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[David Roberson]

Eric, I hear what you are saying about the different interactions but that does 
not help to explain exactly why that is so.  My suspicion is that the behavior 
is explained by creating new "forces, colors, and particles" that have 
arbitrary interaction methods just to fit the measurements.   I see that as 
curve fitting and projections based upon measurements that did not fit into the 
earlier theories.  Perhaps I am wrong in this negative view of current physics 
understanding.

>From my perspective I see far too many fudge factors that don't make physical 
>sense being used in that respect.  One example that has bothered me for a very 
>long time is the understanding that photons are particles instead of small 
>wave packets consisting of fields that obey Maxwell's equations.   Everyone 
>knows that static electric fields exist and can be mapped out.  Also, steady 
>magnetic fields exist and can be mapped with instruments.   The wavelength of 
>a DC system with static electric and steady magnetic fields is infinite so the 
>photon particles must likewise approach infinity in size.  The issue escapes 
>the singularity as the rate of change of the fields becomes more significant, 
>but the calculated photon size remains huge for many decades of AC frequency 
>increase.  This does not make any practical sense at all as far as I can tell. 
> Continuous fields described by Maxwell do not share this confusion.

No one would argue that energy is stored within atomic structures in anything 
but fixed quanta since that has been shown true in every case to which I am 
aware.  But free electrons undergoing acceleration should not be expected to 
exhibit that same restriction.  Field equations according to Maxwell accurately 
capture the emitted signals due to every change in acceleration of that 
particle as a function of time.  Are we to assume that a continuing emission of 
discrete photons is taking place depending upon the rate of acceleration 
according to existing theory?That each of these is directed toward a 
certain precise location in three dimensional space?  At what point in time and 
acceleration is each photon released as the process proceeds?

I am a bit of a heretic in some of my beliefs regarding accepted physical 
theories.  But, when I detect curve fitting instead of basic understanding of 
the underlying processes I get annoyed.  Curve fitting is the beginning point 
in a quest for further understanding and I applaud the guys for patching up the 
holes that continue to appear as more accurate experiments indicate problems 
with the most recent theory.  This should be expected as long as an honest, 
thorough understanding of what is actually occurring remains elusive.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section


 
  
   
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson  
wrote:   
   


 But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with 
respect to separation?

 


Here's a Hyperphysics page that says that the range of the strong interaction 
is limited in part because gluons carry color charge, and therefore interact 
with themselves and with quarks, in contrast to photons, which carry no 
(electromagnetic) charge:


The range of the strong force is limited by the fact that the gluons interact 
with each other as well as with quarks in the context of quark confinement. 
These properties contrast them with photons, which are massless and of infinite 
range. The photon does not carry electric charge with it, while the gluons do 
carry the "color charge".
   
   


 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html 


 


Eric

 

   
  
 
 

RE: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Jones Beene]

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com 

*   what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with Bo 
Hoistad

"Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following 
subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor 
shutdown and powder charge extraction."


Once again, there is no ambiguity here. Levi’s meaning is clear.

The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is obvious: you 
do them. Rossi himself physically performed the loading and unloading. 

Bo Hoistad is trying to cover-up the incompetence of his group, over a year 
later … giving an interview in which introduces doubts about the full level of 
their neglect. This never was intended to be an independent, or third-party, 
experiment. Essentially, they were well-paid to look the other way and 
rubber-stamp whatever Rossi wanted.

It is implausible that Rossi permitted others to handle the fuel at this point 
in time -- prior to publication of the patent and before it was granted. The 
fuel composition was still a trade secret. 

Re: [Vo]:Isotopic Analysis of Glowstick by Univ. of Missouri Lab

[Alain Sepeda]

"The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is obvious:
 you do them.Rossi himself physically performed the loading and unloading."

Intervention, intervening, in corporate context simply mean coming in
mission to do something, to watch something...

watching is intervening.



2015-09-13 19:47 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>
> Ø   what was said in the report was ambiguous and is compatible with
> Bo Hoistad
>
> "Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following
> subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup,
> reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction."
>
> Once again, there is no ambiguity here. Levi’s meaning is clear.
>
> The only conceivable “intervention” for relatively simple tasks is
> obvious: you do them. Rossi himself physically performed the loading and
> unloading.
>
> Bo Hoistad is trying to cover-up the incompetence of his group, over a
> year later … giving an interview in which introduces doubts about the full
> level of their neglect. This never was intended to be an independent, or
> third-party, experiment. Essentially, they were well-paid to look the
> other way and rubber-stamp whatever Rossi wanted.
>
> It is implausible that Rossi permitted others to handle the fuel at this
> point in time -- prior to publication of the patent and before it was
> granted. The fuel composition was still a trade secret.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Axil Axil]

This  "curve fitting" issue is related to the coupling constant between the
electromagnetic force and the weak force. Glashow just pulled this number
out of the air to make the electroweak theory work at low energies. The
Higgs field was invented to make the electoweak theory work at high
energies.

The key to understanding how the electroweak force works is to understand
how the vacuum behaves. LENR can manipulate the vacuum to
produce instantaneous isotope stabilization. LENR can also give mass to
photons to produce dark matter in space withing clouds of dust.

LENR will provide experimental input into the behavior of the forces of
nature and how mass works when science takes LENR seriously.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> But, when I detect curve fitting instead of basic understanding of the
>> underlying processes I get annoyed.
>>
>
> I think by "curve fitting" you might mean the ad hoc creation of an
> explanation together with a dogmatic insistence that it's final and
> correct.  I see curve fitting as unavoidable.  You have a bunch of messy
> data points, and you have to find some way to connect the dots.  You do so
> in the best way you can, and you include some arbitrary constants and some
> fudge factors to keep things together.
>
> I see all explanations as provisional in this manner.  An explanation is
> good for a certain scope and domain of applicability, and then when you
> zoom in to some corner of the domain or zoom further out, it ceases to be
> helpful anymore.  The question for me is whether an explanation provides
> insights that illumine something more complex that is going on below the
> surface, or whether it gets in the way of further exploration and
> understanding.  For this reason I don't have a problem with curve fitting
> as such; just with dogmatic assertions about the validity of an explanation
> along with the shunning of people who try to look at things from a
> different angle.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf

Speeding-up Thorium decay

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf

Remarks on the cavitation of Thorium-228

I doubt that Jed has anything by Fabio Cardone in his library.

RE: [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

In the recent past the Kiplinger newsletter has mentioned the fact that there 
are renewed efforts underway in researching & developing nuclear power from 
Thorium decay. It's my understanding that many decades ago the US lost interest 
in developing Thorium-based energy when it became clear to them that they 
couldn't create atom bombs out of the low decaying element. 

 

I'm curious,

 

What qualifies this as a so-called CF experiment?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:38 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf

 

Speeding-up Thorium decay

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf

 

Remarks on the cavitation of Thorium-228 

 

I doubt that Jed has anything by Fabio Cardone in his library. 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.

[Axil Axil]

This paper explains how a collapsing cavitation bubble produces Surface
Pasmon Polaritons, the same mechanism that produces LENR reactions in the
Ni/H reactor.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/AminiFthestudyof.pdf

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 8:48 PM,  wrote:

> If this is true it may support the theories by Hagelstein.
>
> The Th nucleus picking up vibration quanta until its emits alpha or brakes
> with cold fission.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:29:33 -0400, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> This experiment did not produce neutrons or gamma radiation. These
> characteristics are common attributes of Cold Fusion and can be used to
> identify an experiment as LENR that deals with nuclear changes.
> The experimenters would loss their status if they said that the cause of
> this reaction was LENR. They came up with another explanation that should
> have produced neutrons and gamma radiation.
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> In the recent past the Kiplinger newsletter has mentioned the fact that
>> there are renewed efforts underway in researching & developing nuclear
>> power from Thorium decay. It's my understanding that many decades ago the
>> US lost interest in developing Thorium-based energy when it became clear to
>> them that they couldn't create atom bombs out of the low decaying element.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm curious,
>>
>>
>>
>> What qualifies this as a so-called CF experiment?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>
>> OrionWorks.com
>>
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:38 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l 
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Speeding-up Thorium decay
>>
>>
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Remarks on the cavitation of Thorium-228
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt that Jed has anything by Fabio Cardone in his library.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.

[Axil Axil]

This experiment did not produce neutrons or gamma radiation. These
characteristics are common attributes of Cold Fusion and can be used to
identify an experiment as LENR that deals with nuclear changes.

The experimenters would loss their status if they said that the cause of
this reaction was LENR. They came up with another explanation that should
have produced neutrons and gamma radiation.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> In the recent past the Kiplinger newsletter has mentioned the fact that
> there are renewed efforts underway in researching & developing nuclear
> power from Thorium decay. It's my understanding that many decades ago the
> US lost interest in developing Thorium-based energy when it became clear to
> them that they couldn't create atom bombs out of the low decaying element.
>
>
>
> I'm curious,
>
>
>
> What qualifies this as a so-called CF experiment?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:38 PM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf
>
>
>
> Speeding-up Thorium decay
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf
>
>
>
> Remarks on the cavitation of Thorium-228
>
>
>
> I doubt that Jed has anything by Fabio Cardone in his library.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2663#

Multiboundary Wormholes and Holographic Entanglement

Orthodox science has just come up with a new type of entanglement to
explain how black holes can radiate Hawking radiation.

Many different types of particles/atoms can all be entangled by a
multi-party mechanism.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> I think Axil has stumbled upon an explanation of the formation of Ni-62
> (which has been reported but with extreme doubt  from many including some
> Vorts).
>
> I have thought that the understanding of the extent of a coherent QM
> system (entangled per Axil’s terms) is a key.   And the tendency of  such a
> system to go to a lower potential by giving up this energy to thermal
> energy consistent with theory that entropy increases is also important in
> understanding the transformation of a coherent (entangled) system.
>
> Ni-62 is such a target for a system that can get to that configuration.
> In the nano structure Axil has suggested all the constituents are present.
>
> This complex nano system seems to fit the bill, including a good high
> temperature lattice of Ni to absorb and transmit thermal  energy.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> PS:  I agree with Higgins that the current standard model has a lot of
> hand waving with many empirical constants for fitting things together.
> Holston was right on about such a miss-placed focus in modern phyics.
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 2:16 PM
> *To:* vortex-l  *iggin*
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section
>
> If we have something that quantum mechanically entangles two dissimilar
> atoms, then these two atoms become the same combined atom at the same
> location in space. Will their nuclei combine in a fusion reaction?
>
> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/everyday-entanglement
>
> In the Lugano test, it looks to me like the 100 micron nickel particle
> covered with lithium became entangled as a single quantum system. All the
> nickel and all the lithium became involved in a nuclear fusion reaction,
> Yes all N atoms in that particle and the lithium that covered it...both
> Nickel and Lithium...transmuted into pure Ni62 in a single fusion reaction
> through entanglement.
>
> This is the only way that particle could have formed through transmutation.
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Why the strong force behaves this way - repulsion at close distance, and
>> then switching to strong attraction with very short fall-off - is a core
>> mystery of quantum mechanics and nuclear theory.  That having been said,
>> Don Hotson's analysis of the Dirac's equation as a TOE (theory of
>> everything) has a very plausible explanation of the strong force,
>> predicting both the very close repulsion and the strong attraction.  This
>> part of the description is in his 2nd paper, but you will need to read his
>> first paper to understand the second.
>>
>> The strong attraction is an exchange force - sort of like a chemical bond
>> of electrons, but with the components of the nucleon being shared between
>> two nucleons.  This sharing can only happen at a very small distance.  The
>> exchange force reminds me of the force between a magnet and its iron keeper
>> - extremely strong at short distance and very weak at longer distance.  Not
>> sure this is a good physics analogy, but it comes to mind as I think about
>> it.
>>
>> I find Hotson's analysis of what Dirac's equation implies to be very
>> compelling.  It really throws conventional quantum mechanics back on its
>> heels!  I have his papers, but there have been links to them several times
>> in Vortex.
>>
>> Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:10 AM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship
>>> with respect to separation?  If there are more than 3 spatial dimensions
>>> then some of the acting flux might leak off into those mystery regions.
>>> Otherwise, I am having a difficult time visualizing why it is not limited
>>> in a manner similar to that seen with electromagnetic fields.  Of course,
>>> if the effects are explained as a result of experiments then one is left
>>> with this question unanswered.
>>>
>>> Are we using data that is generated by curve fitting to observations as
>>> compared to understanding the true physical phenomena underlying those
>>> observations?  If true, then there is a limited opportunity available to
>>> anticipate new, so far unseen, forces that might come into play under new
>>> conditions.   LENR might be one of a family of possibilities waiting to be
>>> discovered as better instrumentation is developed.  Of course, serendipity
>>> has its place in physics as it has always led to most of the major
>>> discoveries.  It has been said, "I'd rather be lucky than good."
>>>
>>> 

[Vo]:Re: time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

[Bob Cook]

Well said Dave.  And as you point out, the continuous to 0 aspect of Maxwell’s 
theory does not explain quantized amounts of  angular momentum associated with 
electrons and other charged particles.

Bob Cook
 From: David Roberson 
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section

Eric, I hear what you are saying about the different interactions but that does 
not help to explain exactly why that is so.  My suspicion is that the behavior 
is explained by creating new "forces, colors, and particles" that have 
arbitrary interaction methods just to fit the measurements.   I see that as 
curve fitting and projections based upon measurements that did not fit into the 
earlier theories.  Perhaps I am wrong in this negative view of current physics 
understanding.

>From my perspective I see far too many fudge factors that don't make physical 
>sense being used in that respect.  One example that has bothered me for a very 
>long time is the understanding that photons are particles instead of small 
>wave packets consisting of fields that obey Maxwell's equations.   Everyone 
>knows that static electric fields exist and can be mapped out.  Also, steady 
>magnetic fields exist and can be mapped with instruments.   The wavelength of 
>a DC system with static electric and steady magnetic fields is infinite so the 
>photon particles must likewise approach infinity in size.  The issue escapes 
>the singularity as the rate of change of the fields becomes more significant, 
>but the calculated photon size remains huge for many decades of AC frequency 
>increase.  This does not make any practical sense at all as far as I can tell. 
> Continuous fields described by Maxwell do not share this confusion.

No one would argue that energy is stored within atomic structures in anything 
but fixed quanta since that has been shown true in every case to which I am 
aware.  But free electrons undergoing acceleration should not be expected to 
exhibit that same restriction.  Field equations according to Maxwell accurately 
capture the emitted signals due to every change in acceleration of that 
particle as a function of time.  Are we to assume that a continuing emission of 
discrete photons is taking place depending upon the rate of acceleration 
according to existing theory?That each of these is directed toward a 
certain precise location in three dimensional space?  At what point in time and 
acceleration is each photon released as the process proceeds?

I am a bit of a heretic in some of my beliefs regarding accepted physical 
theories.  But, when I detect curve fitting instead of basic understanding of 
the underlying processes I get annoyed.  Curve fitting is the beginning point 
in a quest for further understanding and I applaud the guys for patching up the 
holes that continue to appear as more accurate experiments indicate problems 
with the most recent theory.  This should be expected as long as an honest, 
thorough understanding of what is actually occurring remains elusive.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:time, separation and neutron tunneling cross section


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:10 AM, David Roberson  wrote: 


  But why does the force fall off with such a high power relationship with 
respect to separation? 

Here's a Hyperphysics page that says that the range of the strong interaction 
is limited in part because gluons carry color charge, and therefore interact 
with themselves and with quarks, in contrast to photons, which carry no 
(electromagnetic) charge: 


  The range of the strong force is limited by the fact that the gluons interact 
with each other as well as with quarks in the context of quark confinement. 
These properties contrast them with photons, which are massless and of infinite 
range. The photon does not carry electric charge with it, while the gluons do 
carry the "color charge". 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html 


Eric 

Re: [Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.

[torulf.greek]

If this is true it may support the theories by Hagelstein. 

The Th
nucleus picking up vibration quanta until its emits alpha or brakes with
cold fission. 

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:29:33 -0400, Axil Axil  wrote: 

This experiment did not produce neutrons or gamma radiation. These
characteristics are common attributes of Cold Fusion and can be used to
identify an experiment as LENR that deals with nuclear changes. 

The
experimenters would loss their status if they said that the cause of
this reaction was LENR. They came up with another explanation that
should have produced neutrons and gamma radiation.   

On Sun, Sep 13,
2015 at 6:06 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

In the
recent past the Kiplinger newsletter has mentioned the fact that there
are renewed efforts underway in researching & developing nuclear power
from Thorium decay. It's my understanding that many decades ago the US
lost interest in developing Thorium-based energy when it became clear to
them that they couldn't create atom bombs out of the low decaying
element.   

I'm curious,  

What qualifies this as a so-called CF
experiment? 

Regards, 

Steven Vincent Johnson 

OrionWorks.com


zazzle.com/orionworks [2] 

FROM: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com
[3]] 
SENT: Sunday, September 13, 2015 4:38 PM
TO: vortex-l 
SUBJECT:
[Vo]:Main stream science performs cold fusion experiment.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf [5] 

Speeding-up Thorium decay 


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf [6]  

Remarks on the cavitation of
Thorium-228   

I doubt that Jed has anything by Fabio Cardone in his
library.   

 

Links:
--
[1] mailto:orionwo...@charter.net
[2]
http://zazzle.com/orionworks
[3] mailto:janap...@gmail.com
[4]
mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com
[5] http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.5177.pdf
[6]
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5391.pdf