[Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

[Axil Axil]

https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf

The Navy's patent application has been made public by the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office describing a plasmonic based room-temperature
superconductor capable of exhibiting superconductivity at temperatures of
around 77 degrees Fahrenheit.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp

RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

[Mark Jurich]

Bob C.:

   FYI: If you snag the actual research paper (Nature, CLAS Collaboration) that 
the MIT Summary by Jennifer Chu is based upon, you will see that at least 3 of 
the 4 authors of the review paper you site below, are co-authors of the recent 
Nature Paper (O. Hen is from MIT), and they reference the review paper 
(Reference 1).

- Mark

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

The link to the  MIT paper discussion is a qualitative bunch of fluff IMHO.

It assumes that quarks have "speed" avoiding consideration of velocity, nor a 
change in relativistic mass.  It tries hard to reflect the "primary 
(fundamental) particle"  characteristic of a virtual feature  of the standard 
model,  SM.

A better discussion of the EMC effect is contained in the following link:

Nucleon-Nucleon Correlations, Short-lived Excitations, and the Quarks 
...



https://arxiv.org > 
nucl-ex


I would suggest review of the theory starting on  page 44 and ending with the  
section entitled  " The way we think it is and the ways to check" on page 45.  
(Note the idea of "light quarks" is introduced at the end.)

Bob Cook


From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:33:28 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

http://news.mit.edu/2019/quark-speed-proton-neutron-pairs-0220

Another article about the The EMC effect, but with more detail from MIT.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
 Axil,

Yes, clearly dense hydrogen is necessary, and their IP does not limit the power 
going in to lasers. They have made a great effort to avoid reference to Mills 
version of dense hydrogen, but there is little doubt that patents will be 
contested if there is a commercial success.

The company Norront Fusion Systems is very well funded and is using laser 
irradiation but does not want to broadcast that fact due to the IP which is 
already out there, mostly held by National labs in the US.  BTW this company 
Norront - in Norway, says that they have 3 operating reactors producing muons, 
now! For all we know they could be months away from a big announcement.

http://www.norrontfusion.com/

Holmlid seems to be fond of exaggeration at times and has said several things 
he would probably like to take back or clarify, such as the muon effect 
happening with fluorescent lighting and other nonsense. This is one of the 
reasons that some physicists refuse to even consider the validity of his 
experiments. They will get a big surprise soon IMO.

Now that Holmlid has gone full tilt commercial and has big money involved - 
almost nothing said can be believed, except details in the patent which if 
false would jeopardize the legal protection.


Axil Axil wrote:

Jones,

You may be placing too much emphasis on the laser reaction mechanism with Ultra 
dense hydrogen here. Holmlid has found that the laser pulse can be replaced 
with a spark and that spark can still get the same reactions to occur as that 
low powered laser pulse can. The indispensable role that Ultra dense hydrogen 
plays in this quark confinement disruption reaction is to reformat the 
stimulant EMF energy into the proper strong force disruption format.

[Vo]:Re: Mystery of the Missing Reciprocal Action

[Harvey Norris]

Commentary is added to explain the deviance of actions here. It presents a 
solution to the paradox of what should occur as a reciprocal action; but does 
not. Comments made here from https://youtu.be/PbUcJTd3nTAI had I had wrote in 
the commentary that; "In the reverse operation a reciprocal loss in moving the 
energy from a small capacity to a larger one can be shown. " Examinations of 
ratios shown by extractions of this video shows that this presupposition is 
false. A reciprocal ratio is replaced by a time distortion ratio as shown by 
forward and reverse operations for comparisons of ratios as follows for the 
first case; fwd operation @ 25 volts   
https://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/46127172765/in/dateposted-public/ It can 
be speculated that a 50% time dilation occurs for the resonant transformation 
case shown here. The amperage meter actually records the rate of coulombs of 
charge crossing the cross sectional area per TIME PERIOD. which is noted as 
dq/dt. If dt is compressed to half of its source sending value, dq/dt will be 
doubled. This is noted as a doubling from the amp value that would be applied 
if the resistive ratio of 6.8/1 were applied to the reduction. Essentially here 
we have an increase of the L ratio with a corresponding decrease of the I 
squared ratio. This decrease however is itself countered by an amperage 
increase due to the time dilation which can be proved by the opposite analogy 
of actions that should take place if the process were reversed. Here if the 
source is noted as clock A and clock B runs 50% slower then A(due to time 
dilation) ; then B will see the source running at twice it's rate. Conversely 
if Clock C is running 50% faster then A (due to time elongation); its clock 
will see a source clock running at a rate 2/3 LESS rate then it's own. If this 
were to be shown to happen by metering as I have shown here, it definitely 
leads credence to the theory that a time distortion exists between the resonant 
transformations. It is also speculated that since a non-symmetrical time 
distortion between the systems exists, this explains why no expected reciprocal 
action is recorded that would develope if no time distortion took place between 
the systems. The elongation of time as the converse proof of the elongation of 
time with respect to it's source is shown at bkwd operation comment @ 25 volts 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/40076241583/in/dateposted-public/Here 
14.14 ma goes into a process showing a time "elongation" with respect to it's 
source. In both cases of time dilation and time elongation cited here, a 
deviation from the case where no time distortion takes place is shown. This is 
a deviation from the normal "reciprocal" action evidenced by inversely 
proportional quantities where this is shown as from the linear relationship 
shown as the reduction of I being inversely proportional to the increase of R 
or Z as this example of AC applies. The PROOF of time distortion consists of 
showing the DEVIATION from what would occur in the normal (lossless) reciprocal 
relationship for unity power transfer. Here then 14.14 ma goes in and for the 
(lossless) reciprocal linear relationship to hold true that figure would be 
increased 6.8 fold to account for the resistive changes of the R value which 
would be a value of 96.15 ma. Now we go back to the clock analogies used to 
explain the results of the meters after the time distortion is factored in. 
With respect to the observation made by the source rate clock (as referenced as 
the input amperage in these twoexamples) each deviance of time is symmetrically 
either faster or slower.(from it's perspective). However with respect to the 
ending clocks for the contraction case the source appears twice its rate and 
for the expansion case the source appears to be at a rate 2/3 slower with 
respect to it's own increase calculated for unity power transfer. Where the 
plausible confusion comes in regarding making these comparisons is that 
initially an increase is applied against a decrease showing a 2/1 deviation 
from the linear case, and secondarily a (2/3) decrease is applied against an 
increase showing a two thirds deviation ( as a decrease compared to an increase 
for the first example) from the linear case, where now these comparisons are 
also shown as the fact that the amount of decrease from unity is not a 
reciprocal of the amount of increase of unity. Nevertheless the end comparison 
to explain the discrepancies from what should occur in unity power transfer to 
what actually occurs is that the clock showing the time elongation has a 
reference of reduction of an expansion by 2/3. This means in retrospect that 
the derived 96.15 ma (@ unity transfer) as a rate should be reduced 2/3 to 32 
ma; well in agreement with the shown 31.9 ma. Essentially then I would suppose 
that since the forward and reverse cases shown here are explained as deviances 
from the normal reciprocal action in both 

RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil—

Your conclusion “The indispensable role that Ultra dense hydrogen plays in this 
quark confinement disruption reaction is to reformat the stimulant EMF energy 
into the proper strong force disruption form”  is right on IMHO.  The strong 
force is
The result of EM potentials  and not virtual quark attraction.

The roll of neutrino interaction with electrons and positrons within the   
confines of a nucleon seems always neglected.  The key may be in understanding 
the effect of intrinsic spin and angular momentum of the  neutrino at the 
Planck scale.

Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:35 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

Jones,

You may be placing too much emphasis on the laser reaction mechanism with Ultra 
dense hydrogen here. Holmlid has found that the laser pulse can be replaced 
with a spark and that spark can still get the same reactions to occur as that 
low powered laser pulse can. The indispensable role that Ultra dense hydrogen 
plays in this quark confinement disruption reaction is to reformat the 
stimulant EMF energy into the proper strong force disruption format.

The EMC Effect might be a result of a brief superposition of quarks between 
nucleons that reside in the constituent nucleons inside a nucleus. This 
observation seems to be a violation of the quark confinement rule. Quark 
confinement is the factor that produces high quark momentum. When quark  
momentum   goes down, this means that quark confinement is relaxed 
proportionally.  Superposition of quarks may be occurring were the strong force 
connections are shared between each interacting quark interconnection network 
regardless of what nucleon the quarks are in.

What Ultra dense hydrogen might do is to reformat the EMF produced by the 
stimulant pulse whether that EMF pulse is from a laser or a spark into some 
sort of  properly formatted strong force disruption pulse.

>From my examination of multiple LENR experiments that show transmutation, I 
>think I know the details of what that strong force interaction/disruption 
>pulse looks like, and how that pulse is formed.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:22 AM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Why would it be easier, far easier in terms of applied force, to completely 
disintegrate a proton into quarks - using a laser - compared to fusing two 
deuterons in a plasma using extreme heat ?

The answer is very likely related to the "EMC effect" which is in the Science 
News today (for other reasons).

Wiki sez: The EMC effect is the surprising observation that the cross section 
for deep inelastic scattering from an atomic nucleus is different from that of 
free nucleons. From this observation, it can be inferred that the quark 
momentum distributions in nucleons bound inside nuclei are different from those 
of free nucleons. This is unexpected, since the average binding energy of 
protons and neutrons inside nuclei is insignificant when compared to the energy 
transferred in deep inelastic scattering reactions that probe quark 
distributions.

Imagine that! The strong force, which holds nucleons together is in fact much 
weaker than a deep inelastic scattering event instigated by a laser pulse.

While over 1000 scientific papers have been written on the EMC effect and 
numerous hypotheses have been proposed, no definitive explanation for the cause 
of the effect has been confirmed. "Determining the origin of the EMC effect is 
one of the major unsolved problems in the field of nuclear physics."

For that reason alone, major funding should be applied to the simple phenomenon 
of laser irradiation of dense hydrogen (aka the Holmlid effect).

Here is a (poorly written) report of recent work on the EMC effect

Correlated nucleons may solve 35-year-old 
mystery





Correlated nucleons may solve 35-year-old mystery

A careful re-analysis of data taken at the Department of Energy's Thomas 
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility...

RE: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The link to the  MIT paper discussion is a qualitative bunch of fluff IMHO.

It assumes that quarks have “speed” avoiding consideration of velocity, nor a 
change in relativistic mass.  It tries hard to reflect the “primary 
(fundamental) particle”  characteristic of a virtual feature  of the standard 
model,  SM.

A better discussion of the EMC effect is contained in the following link:


Nucleon-Nucleon Correlations, Short-lived Excitations, and the Quarks 
...



https://arxiv.org › 
nucl-ex


I would suggest review of the theory starting on  page 44 and ending with the  
section entitled  “ The way we think it is and the ways to check” on page 45.  
(Note the idea of “light quarks” is introduced at the end.)

Bob Cook


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:33:28 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

http://news.mit.edu/2019/quark-speed-proton-neutron-pairs-0220

Another article about the The EMC effect, but with more detail from MIT.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
 Axil,

Yes, clearly dense hydrogen is necessary, and their IP does not limit the power 
going in to lasers. They have made a great effort to avoid reference to Mills 
version of dense hydrogen, but there is little doubt that patents will be 
contested if there is a commercial success.

The company Norront Fusion Systems is very well funded and is using laser 
irradiation but does not want to broadcast that fact due to the IP which is 
already out there, mostly held by National labs in the US.  BTW this company 
Norront - in Norway, says that they have 3 operating reactors producing muons, 
now! For all we know they could be months away from a big announcement.

http://www.norrontfusion.com/

Holmlid seems to be fond of exaggeration at times and has said several things 
he would probably like to take back or clarify, such as the muon effect 
happening with fluorescent lighting and other nonsense. This is one of the 
reasons that some physicists refuse to even consider the validity of his 
experiments. They will get a big surprise soon IMO.

Now that Holmlid has gone full tilt commercial and has big money involved - 
almost nothing said can be believed, except details in the patent which if 
false would jeopardize the legal protection.


Axil Axil wrote:

Jones,

You may be placing too much emphasis on the laser reaction mechanism with Ultra 
dense hydrogen here. Holmlid has found that the laser pulse can be replaced 
with a spark and that spark can still get the same reactions to occur as that 
low powered laser pulse can. The indispensable role that Ultra dense hydrogen 
plays in this quark confinement disruption reaction is to reformat the 
stimulant EMF energy into the proper strong force disruption format.

Re: [Vo]:The EMC effect and proton disintegration

[Axil Axil]

http://news.mit.edu/2019/quark-speed-proton-neutron-pairs-0220

Another article about the The EMC effect, but with more detail from MIT.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Axil,
>
> Yes, clearly dense hydrogen is necessary, and their IP does not limit the
> power going in to lasers. They have made a great effort to avoid reference
> to Mills version of dense hydrogen, but there is little doubt that patents
> will be contested if there is a commercial success.
>
> The company Norront Fusion Systems is very well funded and is using laser
> irradiation but does not want to broadcast that fact due to the IP which is
> already out there, mostly held by National labs in the US.  BTW this
> company Norront - in Norway, says that they have 3 operating reactors
> producing muons, now! For all we know they could be months away from a big
> announcement.
>
> http://www.norrontfusion.com/
>
> Holmlid seems to be fond of exaggeration at times and has said several
> things he would probably like to take back or clarify, such as the muon
> effect happening with fluorescent lighting and other nonsense. This is one
> of the reasons that some physicists refuse to even consider the validity of
> his experiments. They will get a big surprise soon IMO.
>
> Now that Holmlid has gone full tilt commercial and has big money involved
> - almost nothing said can be believed, except details in the patent which
> if false would jeopardize the legal protection.
>
>
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Jones,
>
> You may be placing too much emphasis on the laser reaction mechanism with
> Ultra dense hydrogen here. Holmlid has found that the laser pulse can be
> replaced with a spark and that spark can still get the same reactions to
> occur as that low powered laser pulse can. The indispensable role that
> Ultra dense hydrogen plays in this quark confinement disruption reaction is
> to reformat the stimulant EMF energy into the proper strong force
> disruption format.
>