Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[Terry Blanton]

Summary:
  John Wallace Relativistic quantum mechanics of cold fusion As a
metallurgist John Wallace is interested in ferromagnetic effects. He has
studied propagation of electromagnetic waves at 1 kHz - 3 MHz in an iron
bar, from which a dispersion relation can be measured. The result indicated
an anomalously low effective electron mass m* ~ 10-9 mo (rest mass), which
is not understood, but may be relevant to LANR, where ferromagnetic effects
are probably significant. Wallace did a quantum mechanical analysis with a
3-dimensional spherical potential, with a “dimension of randomization”
parameter ε = h - /mc. He assumed a 3D spherical potential, then studied
the limiting case where the potential V → 0 to see the resulting quantum
numbers. A high-energy electron may go into a D nucleus, resulting in a
zero spin state boson, which may lead to reactions.

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:04 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Thanks to Ruby Carat
>
> https://youtu.be/YE9y7xYb-Ek
>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[Terry Blanton]

Thanks to Ruby Carat

https://youtu.be/YE9y7xYb-Ek

>

Re: [Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR

[Jones Beene]

Yes. In fact if lithium is present, the reaction you suggest makes more sense 
than the TSC reaction, as that one involves 4 particles. Maybe it doesn't 
matter if a triple BEC is present and is also densified.

However, Holmlid does not use lithium. Perhaps he should, or someone else 
should use it, if they are trying to go beyond his results.


Robin van Spaandonk wrote:  
>Normally however,Beryllium would not be expected to be found in D+D reactions. 
>Yet it could be hiding in plain sight, thanks to updating an older theory from 
>Akito Takahashi, called TSC, which posits the simultaneous reaction of 4 
>deuterons (as a BEC tetrahedron). The theory makes far more sense with dense 
>deuterium as the reactant.

Li6 + D => Be8 too.







  

Re: [Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Thu, 7 Feb 2019 20:08:47 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
>Normally however,Beryllium would not be expected to be found in D+D reactions. 
>Yet it could be hiding in plain sight, thanks to updating an older theoryfrom 
>Akito Takahashi, called TSC, which posits thesimultaneous reaction of 4 
>deuterons (as a BEC tetrahedron). The theory makes far more sense with dense 
>deuterium as the reactant.

Li6 + D => Be8 too.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR

[Jones Beene]

 Speaking of Holmlid, muons and/or muon substitute here is a new article from 
Fusion,
Rather prestigious venue, one would think...

This is not all that far from commercial realization

 
Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give Megawatt Thermal 
Fusion Generator
Article in Fusion Science and Technology · January 2019    
   -

Leif Holmlid   
   - University of Gothenburg


AbstractFusion power generators employing muon-catalyzed nuclear fusion can be 
developed using a new type of laser-driven muon generator. Results using this 
generator have been published, and those data are now used to derive the 
possible fusion power using this generator. Muon-catalyzed fusion has been 
studied for 60 years, and the results found in such studies are used here to 
determine the possible power output. Since the muon source gives complex 
mixtures of mesons and leptons, which have very different interactions with the 
measuring equipment, the number of negative muons formed is not easily found 
exactly, but reasonable values based on numerous published experiments with 
different methods are used to predict the energy output. With deuterium-tritium 
as fuel, a fusion power generator employing the novel muon generator could give 
more than 1 MW thermal power. The thermal power using pure deuterium as fuel 
may be up to 220 kW initially: It will increase with time up to over 1 MW due 
to the production of tritium in one reaction branch. The power required for 
running a modern laser and the muon generator is estimated to be of the order 
of 100 W, thus giving a total energy gain of more than 10 000. The harmful 
radiation from such fusion power generators is mainly in the form of neutrons 
from the fusion reactions. Thus, thick radiation shields are necessary as for 
almost all other fusion concepts. This means that medium-scale thermal fusion 
power generators of the muon-catalyzed fusion type may become available within 
a relatively short time.

Re: [Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR

[Jones Beene]

 

  bobcook wrote: ..
 
 > However, the dark particle is a neutral muon made up of 17 electron-positron 
 > pairs. 
 

Hmm...neutral muon?  that would solve Holmlid's problem but is there physical 
evidence for it ?
The physical evidence for the X boson looks strong. 

It is being rumored that CERN is finally getting into the X boson act, which 
they should have done several years ago. 


  

RE: [Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

You’re right..

However, the dark particle is a neutral muon made up of 17 electron-positron 
pairs.  The experiments should have good coincident gamma detection and be fast 
enough to detect all 17 nihilations.  The gammas would be back-to-back along 17 
 separate lines,  maybe one line at a time as the muon decays—maybe 4 lines at 
a time.  A cloud chamber may be the best detector for all 17 events,. occurring 
in quick succession.   Maybe CERN could add some useful advice on monitoring 
the suggested experiments.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:08 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR


There are a number of different techniques named for their inventors - used for 
manipulating hydrogen isotopes dissolved in a metal matrix. Most of the effects 
have “excess heat” as the major output component of interest, and some of them 
produce high energy radiation. Typically, the expected levels of high energy 
radiation are absent. This has led to doubts by mainstream physics that 
significant nuclear fusion is happening.

An attempt will be made here to link several of these effects together via the 
modality of the newly discovered X gauge boson - and the beryllium anomaly of 
Krasznahorkay, This anomaly could be huge breakthrough for LENR since it tells 
us where high energy radiation should be found, and what to look for and it 
explains why it wasn't seen before.

The Hungarian group reported a 6.8 sigma anomaly in the Be8 nuclear transition, 
now replicated. The radiation is explained by a ~17 MeV vector gauge boson 
produced in the decay of Be8. The particle is relatively inert, short lived and 
“dark” and would not be found by normal detection means. This dark feature of 
the new particle makes it a candidate for LENR especially in situations where 
beryllium-8 would be expected to be found.

Normally however, Beryllium would not be expected to be found in D+D reactions. 
Yet it could be hiding in plain sight, thanks to updating an older theory from 
Akito Takahashi, called TSC, which posits the simultaneous reaction of 4 
deuterons (as a BEC tetrahedron). The theory makes far more sense with dense 
deuterium as the reactant.

The following is a listing of some of the major “effects” of LENR, which is a 
bit subjective, since it is focused on a progression of salient features which 
could lead to commercialization via coherent light input.

The P Effect as explained by Takahashi

The first cold fusion effect from 1989 – made famous by Stanley Pons and Martin 
Fleischmann employs deuterium loaded into a palladium matrix (cathode) with DC 
electrolysis as the power input, and with heavy water and a lithium electrolyte 
as notable features. Helium is seen as an output but not the expected gamma 
radiation. Using the Takahashi explanation, the fusion of 4 deuterons in a Pd 
matrix first produces beryllium-8 as an intermediate step. This is the 
Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensation (TSC) theory which now can be proved - by 
looking specifically for X boson decay.

The Mills Effect

This is an non-nuclear “densification” effect based on hydrogen with nickel 
matrix (and other catalysts including palladium), with UV radiation in addition 
to excess heat as distinctive outputs. Notably, in Mills' theory hydrogen is 
claimed to enter into a denser state he calls a redundant ground state, with 
its electron in a stable orbital closer to the nucleus. Others have 
hypothesized some version of dense hydrogen or deuterium as a preliminary stage 
leading to thermal gain but Mills was first. He avoids the fusion pathway 
(presumably due to IP concerns), In a hybrid theroy, the densification of 
deuterium as a first step would assist the TSC mechanism, resulting in the 
needed Be8 metastable ion.

The Letts-Cravens Laser Effect

This is a thermal boosting effect using IR coherent irradiation on a deuterium 
loaded metal in a weak magnetic field. The effect was observed when two lasers 
were tuned to produce a beat frequency near 8 THz, 15 THz and 20 THz. The 
importance of this experiment is found more in how it suggests a magnetic 
coupling to photons. Unfortunately, a good quality replication attempt (Guffey) 
showed a null result and it is possible that the problem is achieving the beat 
frequency at low power.

The Holmlid Effect

This is a two-step effect of laser irradiation of “ultra-dense” hydrogen 
producing a mystery radiation claimed to be subatomic mesons > kaons> muons. In 
other papers, Holmlid documents positron/electron pair production, at some 
distance away from the reactor - which is exactly what is expected from 
Krasznahorkay's new particle. The is an imaginary cone extending outward from 
the reaction zone where the X particle decay can be seen.

“Electron-Positron Pair Production observed from Laser-induced processes in 
Ultra-dense Deuterium” is a Holmlid paper from 

RE: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Brian—do you have a reference to wallasce 2009 item you identified?

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 11:30:39 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; John Wallace
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

John Wallace may have the mechanism correct. His 2009 article is important.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?


Magnetic coupling in the Tesla power device and the Manelas device is the key.

The question IMHO is which physical system in the respective devices provide 
the potential energy assuming the vacuum is not involved.



It seems the vacuum is the likely source of energy and the magnetic field taps 
this source of energy, not normally defined as potential energy.



In a more real sense the magnetic  coupling couples physical systems with the 
5th dimension of quantized angular momentum and its respective  real quantized  
potential energy.



As Jones would say: “You heard it first on Vortex-l”.



Bob Cook





From: Brian Ahern
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?



I think the Manelas Device corroborates Tesla.





From: Harvey Norris 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Yahoogroups; Heinz; Yahoogroups; Vortex List; Yahoogroups; Ljubo Vujovic; 
pnor...@ysu.edu
Subject: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?



Once again the eminent Tesla historian Bill Beaty has made good on reporting 
new avenues of exploration on Tesla's ideas of wireless transfer of energy on a 
global scale.

Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - 
Quora







Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - Quora




I added this comment to his post;

Fantastic work on informing the public here Bill; and I can see immediate 
analogies with my own work where I have extracted portions of delivery from 
teslafy message 3639; Comparisons of Capacitive Energy Movements in the 666 
machine.

  *   In the ferromagnetic transformer case VI (in) = VI (out). This then is a 
transformation of reactive measurements where the gain of voltage by the 
secondary is accompanied a inversely proportional loss of amperage on the 
circuit. When three phase air core transformers are used in proper mutual 
inductance a situation where the reactive output can exceed the reactive input 
not only is possible, but is logical when the true parameters are shown. The 
whole issue becomes a confusion between a linear relationship and that of an 
exponential one. This is illustrated by the deception of the missing energy 
argument. If an energy storage as a capacitor is discharged to an equal 
capacitor, the energy content before and after is cut in half. Where did the 
missing energy go? When the transformation is viewed from the linear side we 
have two changes that of the voltage and the equivalent change in capacity 
where C goes up by two, and V is cut in half. Now view in comparison to what is 
happening on the true power transfer side of things where an exponential 
relationship exists.(.5) C*V squared indicates the energy content. By 
transforming the situation where C is doubled and V squared is cut in half for 
equivalent transformations this means an entirely different thing on the energy 
side of the equation. Now cutting V in half reduces V squared four fold; and to 
compensate C is only doubled; creating the observation that half of the energy 
has been lost in the transformation. Now just imagine if we could manipulate 
this situation in reverse only here the ratios of capacitive change are 272/1.
  *   In the experimentation with resonant 60hz air core energy exchanges 
between large and small coils balanced for resonance this ratio was only ~20/1 
between inductive ratios, yet the same phenomenon revealed itself. In this case 
scenario almost a doubling of energy in transfer was made when sending that 
energy from a large capacity to a smaller one using the magnetic fields of the 
coils as the transfer agent. And reciprocally when the energy transfer was made 
in reverse between the intermediary coils a 50% loss of that energy was shown; 
EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE LINE CONNECTION MODEL FOR REDISTRIBUTING (STORED)ENERGY 
FROM A SMALL CONTAINER TO A TWICE LARGER ONE.







Pioneering 

[Vo]:Stand by for a big breakthrough in LENR

[Jones Beene]

There are a number of differenttechniques named for their inventors - used for 
manipulating hydrogenisotopes dissolved in a metal matrix. Most of the effects 
have“excess heat” as the major output component of interest, and someof them 
produce high energy radiation. Typically, theexpected levels of high energy 
radiation are absent. This has led todoubts by mainstream physics that 
significant nuclear fusion ishappening.

An attempt will be made here to linkseveral of these effects together via the 
modality of the newlydiscovered X gauge boson - and the beryllium anomaly 
ofKrasznahorkay, This anomaly could be huge breakthrough for LENR sinceit tells 
us where high energy radiation should be found, and what tolook for and it 
explains why it wasn't seen before.

TheHungarian group reported a 6.8 sigma anomaly in the Be8 nucleartransition, 
now replicated. The radiation is explained by a ~17 MeVvector gauge boson 
produced in the decay of  Be8. The particle isrelatively inert, short lived and 
“dark” and would not be foundby normal detection means. This dark feature of 
the new particlemakes it a candidate for LENR especially in situations 
whereberyllium-8 would be expected to be found. 

Normally however,Beryllium would not be expected to be found in D+D reactions. 
Yet it could be hiding in plain sight, thanks to updating an older theoryfrom 
Akito Takahashi, called TSC, which posits thesimultaneous reaction of 4 
deuterons (as a BEC tetrahedron). The theory makes far more sense with dense 
deuterium as the reactant.

The following is a listing of some of themajor “effects” of LENR, which is a 
bit subjective, since it isfocused on a progression of salient features which 
could lead tocommercialization via coherent light input.

The P Effect as explained byTakahashi

Thefirst cold fusion effect from 1989 – made famous by Stanley Ponsand Martin 
Fleischmann employs deuterium loaded into a palladiummatrix (cathode) with DC 
electrolysis as the  power input, and with heavy water and a lithium 
electrolyte as notable features. Helium isseen as an output but not the 
expected gamma radiation. Using theTakahashi explanation, the fusion of 4 
deuterons in a Pd matrix firstproduces beryllium-8 as an intermediate step. 
This is the TetrahedralSymmetric Condensation (TSC) theory which now can be 
proved - bylooking specifically for X boson decay. 

The Mills Effect

This is annon-nuclear “densification” effect based on hydrogen with 
nickelmatrix (and other catalysts including palladium), with UV radiationin 
addition to excess heat as distinctive outputs. Notably, in Mills'theory 
hydrogen is claimed to enter into a denser state he calls aredundant ground 
state, with its electron in a stable orbital closerto the nucleus. Others have 
hypothesized some version of densehydrogen or deuterium as a preliminary stage 
leading to thermal gainbut Mills was first. He avoids the fusion pathway 
(presumably due toIP concerns), In a hybrid theroy, the densification of 
deuterium as afirst step would assist the TSC mechanism, resulting in the 
neededBe8 metastable ion. 

The Letts-Cravens Laser Effect

Thisis a thermal boosting effect using IR coherent irradiation on adeuterium 
loaded metal in a weak magnetic field.  The effectwas observed when two lasers 
were tuned to produce a beat frequencynear 8 THz, 15 THz and 20 THz. The 
importance of this experiment isfound more in how it suggests a magnetic 
coupling to photons.Unfortunately, a good quality replication attempt (Guffey) 
showed anull result and it is possible that the problem is achieving the 
beatfrequency at low power.

The Holmlid Effect

This is a two-stepeffect of laser irradiation of “ultra-dense” hydrogen 
producing amystery radiation claimed to be subatomic mesons > kaons>muons. In 
other papers, Holmlid documents positron/electron pairproduction, at some 
distance away from the reactor - which is exactlywhat is expected from 
Krasznahorkay's new particle. The is animaginary cone extending outward from 
the reaction zone where the Xparticle decay can be seen.

“Electron-PositronPair Production observed from Laser-induced processes in 
Ultra-denseDeuterium” is a Holmlid paper from 2014 which may be mostconsistent 
with the X boson results. There are certainlypoints of controversy with 
Holmlid's claims and some problems may berectified by the substitution of the X 
particle for the meson-to-muonchain. 

Holmlid may notadequately measure the extreme hydrogen density which is claimed 
-and that part of the technique could be a correlate of the MillsEffect, Nor 
does Holmlid adequately identify the radiation effectsto the satisfaction of 
mainstream physics. In the end, Holmlid may beright for all the wrong 
reasons... which is the way that progressworks, sometimes.

Nevertheless, inthe context of a progression and a hybridized device using 
manyeffects, the addition of dark output could be the big breakthrough 
inunderstanding. It would seem that an easy 

Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[Brian Ahern]

John Wallace may have the mechanism correct. His 2009 article is important.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?


Magnetic coupling in the Tesla power device and the Manelas device is the key.

The question IMHO is which physical system in the respective devices provide 
the potential energy assuming the vacuum is not involved.



It seems the vacuum is the likely source of energy and the magnetic field taps 
this source of energy, not normally defined as potential energy.



In a more real sense the magnetic  coupling couples physical systems with the 
5th dimension of quantized angular momentum and its respective  real quantized  
potential energy.



As Jones would say: “You heard it first on Vortex-l”.



Bob Cook





From: Brian Ahern
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?



I think the Manelas Device corroborates Tesla.





From: Harvey Norris 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Yahoogroups; Heinz; Yahoogroups; Vortex List; Yahoogroups; Ljubo Vujovic; 
pnor...@ysu.edu
Subject: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?



Once again the eminent Tesla historian Bill Beaty has made good on reporting 
new avenues of exploration on Tesla's ideas of wireless transfer of energy on a 
global scale.

Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - 
Quora







Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - Quora




I added this comment to his post;

Fantastic work on informing the public here Bill; and I can see immediate 
analogies with my own work where I have extracted portions of delivery from 
teslafy message 3639; Comparisons of Capacitive Energy Movements in the 666 
machine.

  *   In the ferromagnetic transformer case VI (in) = VI (out). This then is a 
transformation of reactive measurements where the gain of voltage by the 
secondary is accompanied a inversely proportional loss of amperage on the 
circuit. When three phase air core transformers are used in proper mutual 
inductance a situation where the reactive output can exceed the reactive input 
not only is possible, but is logical when the true parameters are shown. The 
whole issue becomes a confusion between a linear relationship and that of an 
exponential one. This is illustrated by the deception of the missing energy 
argument. If an energy storage as a capacitor is discharged to an equal 
capacitor, the energy content before and after is cut in half. Where did the 
missing energy go? When the transformation is viewed from the linear side we 
have two changes that of the voltage and the equivalent change in capacity 
where C goes up by two, and V is cut in half. Now view in comparison to what is 
happening on the true power transfer side of things where an exponential 
relationship exists.(.5) C*V squared indicates the energy content. By 
transforming the situation where C is doubled and V squared is cut in half for 
equivalent transformations this means an entirely different thing on the energy 
side of the equation. Now cutting V in half reduces V squared four fold; and to 
compensate C is only doubled; creating the observation that half of the energy 
has been lost in the transformation. Now just imagine if we could manipulate 
this situation in reverse only here the ratios of capacitive change are 272/1.
  *   In the experimentation with resonant 60hz air core energy exchanges 
between large and small coils balanced for resonance this ratio was only ~20/1 
between inductive ratios, yet the same phenomenon revealed itself. In this case 
scenario almost a doubling of energy in transfer was made when sending that 
energy from a large capacity to a smaller one using the magnetic fields of the 
coils as the transfer agent. And reciprocally when the energy transfer was made 
in reverse between the intermediary coils a 50% loss of that energy was shown; 
EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE LINE CONNECTION MODEL FOR REDISTRIBUTING (STORED)ENERGY 
FROM A SMALL CONTAINER TO A TWICE LARGER ONE.







Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Terry Blanton]

Vibrator, your posting rights at the Trap have been restored.

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> I sent the Sim over to two of my MEs.  They might have questions.
> Meanwhile, Moletrap denies they banned you.  The fuckwit banner is actually
> a badge of honor for having stimulated the group.
>
> There's a question there (orbosansmags) about an error msg. from the Sim.
> You can see it and try to answer.  Answer it here if you can't post there.
>  There are some common members (winkwink nudgenudge say no more).
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:46 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:08 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Shame, i was learning so much, right up until they banned me..
>>>
>>
>> They banned you?  I've never seen anyone banned there.
>>
>> What do you mean you can't post?  Harrumph.  I'll look into this.
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>> <#m_-5876905437550706507_m_-4687402291690011436_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>

[Vo]:Google, University of Maryland File Patent based on ‘High Density Electron Clouds’

[Kevin O'Malley]

Google, University of Maryland File Patent based on ‘High Density
Electron Clouds’
Posted on February 7, 2019 • 12 Comments
Thanks to Max Nozin for referencing a new patent application
(published February 7th, 2019) filed by Google Inc. and the University
of Maryland, College Park on Aug 3, 2017.




This patent reads like one of Axil Axil's posts here on Vortex or
elsewhere.   He's the only one I have seen going on and on about
Plasmon interactions, SPPs (Surface Plasmon Polaritons), and so on.
I expect the phrase SPP BEC to be in wide use within a few weeks







The title is “Enhanced Electron Screening Through Plasmon Oscillations”.

Here is the abstract:

Enhanced Coulomb repulsion screening around light element nuclei is
achieved by way of utilizing electromagnetic (EM) radiation to induce
plasmon oscillations in target structures (e.g., nanoparticles) in a
way that produces high density electron clouds in localized regions of
the target structures, thereby generating charge density variations
around light element atoms located in the localized regions. Each
target structure includes an electrically conductive body including
light elements (e.g., a metal hydride/deuteride/tritide) that is
configured to undergo plasmon oscillations in response to the applied
EM radiation. The induced oscillations causes free electrons to
converge in the localized region, thereby producing transient high
electron charge density levels that enhance Coulomb repulsion
screening around light element (e.g., deuterium) atoms located in the
localized regions. Various systems capable of implementing enhanced
Coulomb repulsion screening are described, and various nanostructure
compositions and configurations are disclosed that serve to further
enhance fusion reaction rates.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2=HITOFF=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html=1=1=G=50=PG01=20190043624.PGNR.=dn/20190043624=DN/20190043624

The term ‘high density electron clouds’ is familiar in connection with LENR



The Google/U of Maryland Patent talks about ‘low energy fission’ in
the ‘Field of Invention’ section:

The present invention relates specifically to the generation of the
light-Nuclei elements (LNEs) Lithium, Beryllium and Boron by the
process of low energy fission, breaking down, Carbon, Nitrogen, and
Oxygen (CNOs) with the introduction of instability to the CNOs heavy
stable isotopes through the application high-frequency radio waves at
the NMR frequency, in the presence of a strong magnetic field, of the
targeted source material.

RE: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Magnetic coupling in the Tesla power device and the Manelas device is the key.
The question IMHO is which physical system in the respective devices provide 
the potential energy assuming the vacuum is not involved.

It seems the vacuum is the likely source of energy and the magnetic field taps 
this source of energy, not normally defined as potential energy.

In a more real sense the magnetic  coupling couples physical systems with the 
5th dimension of quantized angular momentum and its respective  real quantized  
potential energy.

As Jones would say: “You heard it first on Vortex-l”.

Bob Cook


From: Brian Ahern
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

I think the Manelas Device corroborates Tesla.


From: Harvey Norris 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Yahoogroups; Heinz; Yahoogroups; Vortex List; Yahoogroups; Ljubo Vujovic; 
pnor...@ysu.edu
Subject: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

Once again the eminent Tesla historian Bill Beaty has made good on reporting 
new avenues of exploration on Tesla's ideas of wireless transfer of energy on a 
global scale.
Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - 
Quora





Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - Quora



I added this comment to his post;
Fantastic work on informing the public here Bill; and I can see immediate 
analogies with my own work where I have extracted portions of delivery from 
teslafy message 3639; Comparisons of Capacitive Energy Movements in the 666 
machine.

  *   In the ferromagnetic transformer case VI (in) = VI (out). This then is a 
transformation of reactive measurements where the gain of voltage by the 
secondary is accompanied a inversely proportional loss of amperage on the 
circuit. When three phase air core transformers are used in proper mutual 
inductance a situation where the reactive output can exceed the reactive input 
not only is possible, but is logical when the true parameters are shown. The 
whole issue becomes a confusion between a linear relationship and that of an 
exponential one. This is illustrated by the deception of the missing energy 
argument. If an energy storage as a capacitor is discharged to an equal 
capacitor, the energy content before and after is cut in half. Where did the 
missing energy go? When the transformation is viewed from the linear side we 
have two changes that of the voltage and the equivalent change in capacity 
where C goes up by two, and V is cut in half. Now view in comparison to what is 
happening on the true power transfer side of things where an exponential 
relationship exists.(.5) C*V squared indicates the energy content. By 
transforming the situation where C is doubled and V squared is cut in half for 
equivalent transformations this means an entirely different thing on the energy 
side of the equation. Now cutting V in half reduces V squared four fold; and to 
compensate C is only doubled; creating the observation that half of the energy 
has been lost in the transformation. Now just imagine if we could manipulate 
this situation in reverse only here the ratios of capacitive change are 272/1.
  *   In the experimentation with resonant 60hz air core energy exchanges 
between large and small coils balanced for resonance this ratio was only ~20/1 
between inductive ratios, yet the same phenomenon revealed itself. In this case 
scenario almost a doubling of energy in transfer was made when sending that 
energy from a large capacity to a smaller one using the magnetic fields of the 
coils as the transfer agent. And reciprocally when the energy transfer was made 
in reverse between the intermediary coils a 50% loss of that energy was shown; 
EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE LINE CONNECTION MODEL FOR REDISTRIBUTING (STORED)ENERGY 
FROM A SMALL CONTAINER TO A TWICE LARGER ONE.



Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Terry Blanton]

I sent the Sim over to two of my MEs.  They might have questions.
Meanwhile, Moletrap denies they banned you.  The fuckwit banner is actually
a badge of honor for having stimulated the group.

There's a question there (orbosansmags) about an error msg. from the Sim.
You can see it and try to answer.  Answer it here if you can't post there.
 There are some common members (winkwink nudgenudge say no more).

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:46 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:08 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>>
>> Shame, i was learning so much, right up until they banned me..
>>
>
> They banned you?  I've never seen anyone banned there.
>
> What do you mean you can't post?  Harrumph.  I'll look into this.
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-4687402291690011436_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[Brian Ahern]

I think the Manelas Device corroborates Tesla.


From: Harvey Norris 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Yahoogroups; Heinz; Yahoogroups; Vortex List; Yahoogroups; Ljubo Vujovic; 
pnor...@ysu.edu
Subject: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

Once again the eminent Tesla historian Bill Beaty has made good on reporting 
new avenues of exploration on Tesla's ideas of wireless transfer of energy on a 
global scale.
Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - 
Quora







Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - Quora




I added this comment to his post;
Fantastic work on informing the public here Bill; and I can see immediate 
analogies with my own work where I have extracted portions of delivery from 
teslafy message 3639; Comparisons of Capacitive Energy Movements in the 666 
machine.

  *   In the ferromagnetic transformer case VI (in) = VI (out). This then is a 
transformation of reactive measurements where the gain of voltage by the 
secondary is accompanied a inversely proportional loss of amperage on the 
circuit. When three phase air core transformers are used in proper mutual 
inductance a situation where the reactive output can exceed the reactive input 
not only is possible, but is logical when the true parameters are shown. The 
whole issue becomes a confusion between a linear relationship and that of an 
exponential one. This is illustrated by the deception of the missing energy 
argument. If an energy storage as a capacitor is discharged to an equal 
capacitor, the energy content before and after is cut in half. Where did the 
missing energy go? When the transformation is viewed from the linear side we 
have two changes that of the voltage and the equivalent change in capacity 
where C goes up by two, and V is cut in half. Now view in comparison to what is 
happening on the true power transfer side of things where an exponential 
relationship exists.(.5) C*V squared indicates the energy content. By 
transforming the situation where C is doubled and V squared is cut in half for 
equivalent transformations this means an entirely different thing on the energy 
side of the equation. Now cutting V in half reduces V squared four fold; and to 
compensate C is only doubled; creating the observation that half of the energy 
has been lost in the transformation. Now just imagine if we could manipulate 
this situation in reverse only here the ratios of capacitive change are 272/1.
  *   In the experimentation with resonant 60hz air core energy exchanges 
between large and small coils balanced for resonance this ratio was only ~20/1 
between inductive ratios, yet the same phenomenon revealed itself. In this case 
scenario almost a doubling of energy in transfer was made when sending that 
energy from a large capacity to a smaller one using the magnetic fields of the 
coils as the transfer agent. And reciprocally when the energy transfer was made 
in reverse between the intermediary coils a 50% loss of that energy was shown; 
EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE LINE CONNECTION MODEL FOR REDISTRIBUTING (STORED)ENERGY 
FROM A SMALL CONTAINER TO A TWICE LARGER ONE.



Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/