[Vo]:Miles and Flieschmann paper on calorimetry uploaded

[Jed Rothwell]

I uploaded an ICCF-8 paper in preparation for uploading a series of letters
from Fleischmann to Miles. See:

Miles, M., M.A. Imam, and M. Fleischmann. *"Case Studies" of Two
Experiments Carried Out With the ICARUS Systems*. in *8th International
Conference on Cold Fusion*. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian
Physical Society, Bologna, Italy.

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

This has two new appendices explaining some of the mysteries of
Fleischmann's calorimetry.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter andexplains the EM drive

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The many-body involvement of LENR makes it likely that energy changes 
associated with kinetic energy in the form of spin and associated angular 
momentum happen in comparison to kinetic energy associated with a change of 
linear momentum and its conservation involving only 2 or 3 particles  during a 
short reaction period.

An important requirement is that any reaction involving spin kinetics must 
happen in integral quanta of the reduced Planck constant and happen very fast 
in a coherent system—maybe with no time delay (or within a given time quanta.)  
The coherent system of particles allows the required  coordination of spin 
quanta consistent with the 2nd law of TD requiring an increase of disorder 
within the coherent system reacting.  The phonic (vibrational) kinetic energy 
(heat energy) is a measure of the disorder.  Thus, the change in disorder 
(entropy) is quantized.  IMHO the 2nd Law needs a little modification of make 
it make its math reflect this discontinuous property.

I consider the  coupling field involved is the local B magnetic field that 
occurs within the reacting coherent system, since it determines the allowed 
nuclear energy states of constituent nucleons. as well as, the allowed energy 
of the orbital electron spin of the constituent lattice electrons.  High energy 
gammas are out of the picture for all practical purposes, since the conditions 
they need to be produced (large nucleon energy changes) do not occur.

The LENR’s are akin to those that occur within NMR machines without the 
energetic gammas associated with two or three- body reactions and  their 
significant changes of nuclear potential energy to kinetic energy with 
instanteous conservation of linear momentum.   Resonant orbital spin conditions 
within a coherent system can be engineered to happen by changing the B magnetic 
field with external applied varying magnetic H fields.

Modifying resonant conditions allows LENR control in practical devices with 
engineered nano parameters.   With this in mind dusty plasmas allow better 
control of individual coherent systems (nano-- particles) than larger condensed 
matter crystalline structures.  IMHO the heat transfer engineering is possible 
without destruction of the nano-particles making up the dusty plasma.  Lithium 
and Hydrogen are good convective heat transfer agents as well as well as being 
in LENR directly as a constituent of a coherent system.

Bob Cook

frm: Brian Ahern
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 4:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


Mitchell Swartz says the gammas are absent because they are spin forbidden.



I do not know the rules and their conditions.


From: Russ George 
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive

Pray tell as one of the few real cold fusion experimentalists what associations 
might have come to your mind connecting nanoparticles lasing and cold fusion. 
Any ideas on how coherent lasing domains might assist in mediating those pesky 
gammas?

On Feb 6, 2018 12:16 PM, "Brian Ahern" 
> wrote:

This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II contract. 
I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER PAINT. It 
incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in stimulated 
emission  It is widely used today.


From: Russ >
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data and 
is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew the real 
data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a ‘fusing nudge’ 
to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the highly loaded 
metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in which prodigious 
4He is produced by DD fusion, mere nanometers, the QI notion fits very well. In 
that dimensional realm McCulloch’s QI Unrah effects might easily offer the 
nudge to start the cold fusion cascade. Such cold fusion cascades are clearly 
evident in the data that shows vast numbers of 4He producing cold fusion events 
deep inside such nanometric metal domains (not on the surface).



Once the QI Unrah environment becomes established it might also provide the 
means to satisfy the second miracle of cold fusion that being the suppression 
of energetic emissions, that danged missing gamma. The QI Unrah nanometric 
environment (horizons) it would seem captures and moderates those pesky gammas 
leaking them 

Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter andexplains the EM drive

[Brian Ahern]

Mitchell Swartz says the gammas are absent because they are spin forbidden.


I do not know the rules and their conditions.



From: Russ George 
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive

Pray tell as one of the few real cold fusion experimentalists what associations 
might have come to your mind connecting nanoparticles lasing and cold fusion. 
Any ideas on how coherent lasing domains might assist in mediating those pesky 
gammas?

On Feb 6, 2018 12:16 PM, "Brian Ahern" 
> wrote:

This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II contract. 
I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER PAINT. It 
incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in stimulated 
emission  It is widely used today.



From: Russ >
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data and 
is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew the real 
data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a ‘fusing nudge’ 
to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the highly loaded 
metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in which prodigious 
4He is produced by DD fusion, mere nanometers, the QI notion fits very well. In 
that dimensional realm McCulloch’s QI Unrah effects might easily offer the 
nudge to start the cold fusion cascade. Such cold fusion cascades are clearly 
evident in the data that shows vast numbers of 4He producing cold fusion events 
deep inside such nanometric metal domains (not on the surface).



Once the QI Unrah environment becomes established it might also provide the 
means to satisfy the second miracle of cold fusion that being the suppression 
of energetic emissions, that danged missing gamma. The QI Unrah nanometric 
environment (horizons) it would seem captures and moderates those pesky gammas 
leaking them into local materials as phonons thus suppression of the expected 
gammas.



Now the question is whether the QI Unrah environment can also serve to induce 
nanometric masing of those cold fusion powered phonons. That of course leads to 
the obvious technological device, the phaser



This paper just published 4 Jan 2018  speaks of the use of nanometric mirrors 
to produce masing effects. Seems to be clearly in McCulloch’s QI dimensions 
that his maths show are appropriate for said Unrah effects. The atom-ecology 
that is characteristic of active cold fusion materials easily fits here.  Just 
beam over to the Journal Nature to read more….



https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat5065.epdf?shared_access_token=Clp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9BdyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%3D%3D





From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
[mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



Jones—



I had the same idea about DH and QI together answering the galactic rotation 
problem.   The Mills spectrum of DH surely warrants a comparative review with 
the observed spectrum from the Milky Way or other near by galaxies.



Maybe Mills has already done this comparison; if not, he should IMHO.



Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive





There is a new study from NASA on dark matter/ dark energy and the 
reinterpretation of the Chandra findings WRT the mystery radiation signature at 
3.5 keV.

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[Brian Ahern]

This is an absurd request in light of Heisenberg and the 10*36 difference in 
potentials. I think this topic may have had its origin on April  1.




From: H LV 
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 1:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

Thanks for finding out.
harry

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:16 PM, JonesBeene 
> wrote:

From: H LV



A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever been 
measured?









Experiments to determine the Force of Gravity on Single Electrons and Positrons

  *   FRED C. 
WITTEBORN
  *& WILLIAM M. 
FAIRBANK

  *   Nature volume 220, pages 436–440 (02 November 1968)





My comment.

Behind a paywall -  but the consensus seems to be this: the experiment 
partially but not fully supports the generally held  view that gravity affects 
the electron or positron.



Mills would say it is a poor experiment and  not proof.