[Vo]:Not quite ready for electic

[Frank Znidarsic]

There is a big motorcycle parade "Thunder in the Valley" in Johnstown PA.
Frank Znidarsic and Robert Vargo snuck into the parade with our souped up
electric bikes.  We got a lot of laughs from the onlookers.  At the end of the 
parade we took off before 
the cops found us.

This event is on the parade at time -250 on the official Facebook site for 
Thunder in the Valley linked below.
The world is not yet ready for electric.






https://www.facebook.com/Thunder-in-the-Valley-Motorcycle-Rally-124673794270492/




Frank Znidarsic

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

Convection heat transfer which you suggest would involve a gas or plasma with 
macroscopic motion of the mobile species NECESSARY for distribution of kinetic 
energy.  Would this system imply the nuclear reaction producing the anomalous 
heat resulted in energetic (kinetic energy) particles as opposed to higher spin 
states of the reactants?

Also what is your judgement as to the speed of the reaction being  slow enough 
to avoid local melting considering the low heat transfer coeff. associated with 
convection cooling? I would think CONDUCTION cooling would be faster and more 
likely than CONVECTION cooling to avoid melting.

Then again the power density may be low enough to avoid mechanical 
deformations.  I could not find anything about the power density of the 
reaction in the Ukrainian paper.

Bob Cook







Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 6:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

From: Bob Cook



But how does the ‘anomalous heat’ get out of the reaction site?  Is it by spin 
coupling of the reacting coherent system, which includes the metal lattice?





What’s wrong with regular convection? Think of it as sequential phase-change, 
which is continuous over time. It’s just heat at that point.



BTW - here is one of several interesting papers from 2009…

 

 
http://lenrcanr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdf=U=0ahUKEwjiiOz1isfNAhVD9GMKHfMTCEEQFggJMAI=internal-uds-cse=AFQjCNE8KOsK3JddH2zxL_2r9-bHkrTPnQ



… considering the result, e.g. - apparent inaction, when the experiments were 
more than good, would lead the cynic to suspect that the Navy converted this 
technology into a black project of some kind around 2010 or thereafter. This 
would also explain a number of apparently missed opportunities in the closing 
of SPAWARS, ect, ect.

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

 

But how does the ‘anomalous heat’ get out of the reaction site?  Is it by spin 
coupling of the reacting coherent system, which includes the metal lattice?

 

 

What’s wrong with regular convection? Think of it as sequential phase-change, 
which is continuous over time. It’s just heat at that point.

 

BTW - here is one of several interesting papers from 2009…

 

 
http://lenrcanr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdf=U=0ahUKEwjiiOz1isfNAhVD9GMKHfMTCEEQFggJMAI=internal-uds-cse=AFQjCNE8KOsK3JddH2zxL_2r9-bHkrTPnQ

 

… considering the result, e.g. - apparent inaction, when the experiments were 
more than good, would lead the cynic to suspect that the Navy converted this 
technology into a black project of some kind around 2010 or thereafter. This 
would also explain a number of apparently missed opportunities in the closing 
of SPAWARS, ect, ect. 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

That’s a nice explanation.  

But how does the “anomalous heat’ get out of the reaction site?  Is it by spin 
coupling of the reacting coherent system, which includes the metal lattice?

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 1:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

The active particle, which is dense neutral hydrogen, brings to mind a 
recurrent theme in LENR, which is D/H exchange – and the further possibility of 
asymmetry in the exchange reaction itself. 

This kind of isotope exchange is energetic and ends up looking like LENR but it 
relates to the zero point field and is non-nuclear. Actually, this subject area 
is not covered in the Ukrainian paper specifically, but maybe it should be. To 
digress further…

Many experiments have shown that the (H/D) exchange reaction results in 
one-time exotherm as the heavier isotope replaces the lighter. The reaction is 
assumed to be chemical and self-limiting – not sequential and not robust. It 
would only be robust if it was made to be asymmetric and continuous instead of 
one-way. 

Some skeptics of LENR suggest that H/D exchange is the only source of heat of 
cold fusion and noot anomalous. Yet… they miss the point that the H/D exchange 
could be the source of anomalous heat in certain situations, and we have a 
strong hint of this already. 

When we focus on tight confinement in a metal matrix along with the 
densification process, we see how net gain can happen in theory. Although two 
fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (Pauli exclusion) and two bosons 
can, fermions can change to become composite bosons and vice-versa. If they can 
do this very rapidly via fractional electron orbitals, everything becomes 
clearer. The see-saw change in identity (on fast scale from composite boson to 
fermion) is the key to anomalous heat.

With a mix of dissolved H and D and a catalyst, when going in and out of the 
fractional state (UDH, UDD) the proton becomes bosonic on fractionalization, 
since it is bound at nuclear distances to an electron and gains half spin as a 
composite boson; whereas deuterium will become fermionic in the dense state as 
it gains spin. This situation will allow for sequential asymmetry when the 
fractionalization is coincident with the exchange reaction and both are in a 
rapid (planned) state of flux. 

Since bosons can occupy the same place, they adapt to moving into tight 
confinement readily and will displace fermions, but when “reinflated” with a 
change in identity to fermionic, they will be displaced, ad infinitum. You need 
both the exchange and the cross-identity due to fractionalization.

The system is powered by the zero point field and that is the conceptual 
problem. At least it is a credibility problem for now. 

There are few believers in the proposition of zero point energy on a macro 
scale, since it has not yet been linked to any loading anomaly other this one: 
Miley’s paper for thermal gain due to heat release on both loading and 
unloading… 
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
Lovely paper … if the results could be trusted.

“On the Nuclear Coupling of Proton and Electron” Krasnoholovets et al
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20160530/UJPA6-18406680.pdf
Abstract -- We study both experimentally and theoretically the creation of a 
new physical entity, a particle in which the proton and electron form a stable 
pair with a tiny size typical for a nucleon.
This is a version/interpretation of fractional hydrogen in the role of virtual 
neutron. There are a few errors, and they make reference to some bogus 
research, but this is a very broad sweep and worth reading. Surprisingly 
well-written. No mention of W
They give Mills most of the credit – which they should. Too bad that Mills 
turns out to be such a failure as an inventor (as opposed to his success as a 
theorist) – since he was well-positioned to go down historically as the key 
figure in the field. His latest effort with the seam welder is ludicrous. 
Perhaps it will be a Ukrainian or Russian who will succeed with a usable LENR 
product. They have every incentive to do so, as the short summer will give way 
to early winter before you can say Buck Turgidson.

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Jones Beene]

The active particle, which is dense neutral hydrogen, brings to mind a
recurrent theme in LENR, which is D/H exchange - and the further possibility
of asymmetry in the exchange reaction itself. 

 

This kind of isotope exchange is energetic and ends up looking like LENR but
it relates to the zero point field and is non-nuclear. Actually, this
subject area is not covered in the Ukrainian paper specifically, but maybe
it should be. To digress further.

 

Many experiments have shown that the (H/D) exchange reaction results in
one-time exotherm as the heavier isotope replaces the lighter. The reaction
is assumed to be chemical and self-limiting - not sequential and not robust.
It would only be robust if it was made to be asymmetric and continuous
instead of one-way. 

 

Some skeptics of LENR suggest that H/D exchange is the only source of heat
of cold fusion and not anomalous. Yet. they miss the point that the H/D
exchange could be the source of anomalous heat in certain situations, and we
have a strong hint of this already. 

 

When we focus on tight confinement in a metal matrix along with the
densification process, we see how net gain can happen in theory. Although
two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (Pauli exclusion) and two
bosons can, fermions can change to become composite bosons and vice-versa.
If they can do this very rapidly via fractional electron orbitals,
everything becomes clearer. The see-saw change in identity (on fast scale
from composite boson to fermion) is the key to anomalous heat.

 

With a mix of dissolved H and D and a catalyst, when going in and out of the
fractional state (UDH, UDD) the proton becomes bosonic on fractionalization,
since it is bound at nuclear distances to an electron and gains half spin as
a composite boson; whereas deuterium will become fermionic in the dense
state as it gains spin. This situation will allow for sequential asymmetry
when the fractionalization is coincident with the exchange reaction and both
are in a rapid (planned) state of flux. 

 

Since bosons can occupy the same place, they adapt to moving into tight
confinement readily and will displace fermions, but when "reinflated" with a
change in identity to fermionic, they will be displaced, ad infinitum. You
need both the exchange and the cross-identity due to fractionalization.

 

The system is powered by the zero point field and that is the conceptual
problem. At least it is a credibility problem for now. 

 

There are few believers in the proposition of zero point energy on a macro
scale, since it has not yet been linked to any loading anomaly other this
one: Miley's paper for thermal gain due to heat release on both loading and
unloading. 

 
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

Lovely paper . if the results could be trusted.

 

"On the Nuclear Coupling of Proton and Electron" Krasnoholovets et al

 
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20160530/UJPA6-18406680.pdf

Abstract -- We study both experimentally and theoretically the creation of a
new physical entity, a particle in which the proton and electron form a
stable pair with a tiny size typical for a nucleon.

This is a version/interpretation of fractional hydrogen in the role of
virtual neutron. There are a few errors, and they make reference to some
bogus research, but this is a very broad sweep and worth reading.
Surprisingly well-written. No mention of W

They give Mills most of the credit - which they should. Too bad that Mills
turns out to be such a failure as an inventor (as opposed to his success as
a theorist) - since he was well-positioned to go down historically as the
key figure in the field. His latest effort with the seam welder is
ludicrous. 

Perhaps it will be a Ukrainian or Russian who will succeed with a usable
LENR product. They have every incentive to do so, as the short summer will
give way to early winter before you can say Buck Turgidson.

[Vo]:what is impossible in LENR?

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-26-2016-what-is-impossible-in-lenr.html

many things, the task is to make them possible!

peter

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

[Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Jones Beene]

"On the Nuclear Coupling of Proton and Electron" Krasnoholovets et al
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20160530/UJPA6-18406680.pdf

Abstract -- We study both experimentally and theoretically the creation of a
new physical entity, a particle in which the proton and electron form a
stable pair with a tiny size typical for a nucleon.

This is a version/interpretation of fractional hydrogen in the role of
virtual neutron. There are a few errors, and they make reference to some
bogus research, but this is a very broad sweep and worth reading.
Surprisingly well-written. No mention of W

They give Mills most of the credit - which they should. Too bad that Mills
turns out to be such a failure as an inventor (as opposed to his success as
a theorist) - since he was well-positioned to go down historically as the
key figure in the field. His latest effort with the seam welder is
ludicrous. 

Perhaps it will be a Ukrainian or Russian who will succeed with a usable
LENR product. They have every incentive to do so, as the short summer will
give way to early winter before you can say Buck Turgidson.

Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:

One problem is that cancer is that radiation is  not the only issue
> associated with cellular damage.   Mutagenic effects also occur in gene
> cells and can be propagated into the population as a whole . . .
>

But, I believe those mutations are mainly caused by radiation. So we are
back to radiation being the root cause, only it takes place over
generations.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Bob Cook]

One problem is that cancer is that radiation is  not the only issue associated 
with cellular damage.   Mutagenic effects also occur in gene cells and can be 
propagated into the population as a whole, if the particular mutation is not 
fatal to begin with.  This is a problem for small populations of people who do 
not have a large gene pool to select from.

The particular isotopes that cause mutagenic issues are those that are 
incorporated into the DNA itself—H-3 and C-14 are examples.


An experiment that I followed in the early 1990’s on the vole populations 
around Chernobyl indicated viable mutations caused by H-3 were at a centration 
of about 200 picocuries per liter of the water being consumed.  The limit set 
for cancer deaths is 20,000 picocuries per liter.

The self correction mechanism in cell with two chromosomes is not the same as 
those with only one chromosome—gene cells.

Icelanders and tribal folks be careful.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

I think there probably is a relatively high threshold for ionizing
radiation, below which no statistically significant increases in lukemia,
Parkinsons, and other cancers will be found.  The danger is that some
people may be extraordinarily sensitive and WILL develop these illnesses
when exposed to doses below the threshold (wherever you place it).  Since
radiations are unseen and hard for the general populace to detect and
quantize their dose, how do we protect the canaries in our midst?  Today it
is unlikely there is any way to medically screen who may be extraordinarily
sensitive to ionizing radiations.  Before a threshold can be set to allow
extraneous radiations into our environment we must know how sensitive the
canaries will prove to be.  We cannot just kill the canaries for the profit
of the masses.

OTOH, if the "canaries" are just a few ppm; as a society, it may be to our
net benefit to spend the money to detect who will be sensitive to ionizing
radiations and then take extraordinary means to educate them and give them
the means to protect themselves.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

> How much difference does this make, in practical terms?  I'm not sure it's
> all that significant.
>
> If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold below
> which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is no
> "medical threshold".
>
> As an analogy which may help to clarify this, consider that *there is no
> threshold for automobile accidents*.  No matter how slowly everyone is
> forced to drive, there will *still* be accidents.  Fatalities presumably
> have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, and
> reducing that speed will *always* save lives.  But that doesn't lead to
> the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to zero
> and force everyone to walk, because *it is a tradeoff*.  *Nothing* in
> life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need to do
> is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small relative to
> other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.
>
> In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still an
> *economic* threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to PANIC!"
> crowd refuses to see it.
>
>
> On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation
>
>
> On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker buster”
> salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.
>
> On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of
> radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should
> continue using a linear, no threshold model.
>
> The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has been
> gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no permanent
> damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a modest health
> improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. They believe that the
> LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job of protecting people from
> harm.
> ​ ​
>
>
> (​more at link)​
>
> ​ ​
> ​
>
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation
>
>
>