Re: [Vo]:This could be an indication of "dense hydrogen" from solarorigin

[Russ George]

I am imagining a magnetic monopole as a cluster of UDD. Behaving in some
ways but not all ways like a neutron.

The purely magnetic nature might allow aggregation and dissemination of
energy.

A solar source of these would be a convenient fit to the data.

Russ

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 9:49 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> One early and very detailed model of Aringazin:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0202049
>
> Jürg
> On 13.06.2019 02:01, JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> How low can you go?
>
>
>
> Picometers are so passe’…
>
>
>
> The $64 question… what is the densest of the dense?
>
>
>
> Has anyone ever put together a table which lists the various theories of
> dense hydrogen and also lists the diameter of the densest species supported
> by the theory?
>
>
>
> This could be an opportune time to start such a table.
>
>
>
> Here are some names that come to find who have written specifically on
> dense hydrogen with size estimates. Please provide corrections and
> additions.
>
>
>
> It is fully realized that a few of these researchers have provided far
> more effort and insight than others, not to mention many more publications.
>
>
>
> But this is not a contest, yet it is intriguing to me that most of this is
> high quality work – yet still snubbed by the mainstream.
>
>
>
>
>
> Randell Mills
>
> A.O Barut
>
> Leif Holmlid
>
> Nabil Lawandy
>
> Jerry Vavra
>
> Yoshiaki Arata
>
> Friedwardt Winterberg
>
> Cerofolini
>
> Andrew Meulenberg
>
> F.J. Mayer
>
> George Miley
>
> Jacque Dufour
>
> Horace Heffner
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Jürg Wyttenbach
>
>
>
> And others to be added///
>
>
>
> The next column would be the  smallest version of proton bound to an
> electron in picometers/femtometers.
>
>
>
> Other relevant columns should be added.
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Russ]

Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
varies. 

Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>> other nuclides is said to be different.
>>
>
>I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is 
>heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?

Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.

> There are
>different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?

The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
the mass of the constituent particles.

>
>That seems extremely unlikely to me.

Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).

Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
only
2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that neutrons
in Ni have lower mass than those in D.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

[Russ]

There were complications on pursuing the Mischugenons which I now call 
Tellerons. Teller’s world was/is very different than what most take is our 
reality. My compact fusion light-bulb technology, pieces of which are on my new 
lab bench, is today’s outgrowth of that work. 

 

Progress in the process of invention and delivery as practical technology as 
Thomas Edison rightly noted is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. My 
apologies but there is just so much one old guy can perspire, but after a 
couple months on my feet back at the lab bench I am regaining my wind.

 

The curse/blessing of cold fusion in the atom-ecology of the universe is that 
people seem to think that its presence is a miracle and that means an unlimited 
number of miracles ought to be at hand. Sorry it is one miracle to a customer. 
A team of 50 at ‘the bench’ would develop and deliver the suite of technologies 
using this clean limitless energy to save the world from the fossil fool age in 
about a year. Alas one full time old guy and a couple of part-time old guy 
assistants changes the rate.  

 

Russ

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:45 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

I am referring to the  Meshuganon experiment not your current experiment. Its 
too bad that you moved on from that Meshuganon experiment, you has something 
there. 

 

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Sorry that dog won’t hunt, the present experiment is nothing like this. Keep 
fishing.

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:13 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

The Alan/Russ experiment has been conducted by young plasma students for over a 
100 years. This goes to show that there is not much new under the Sun. The glow 
tube experiment is a demonstration of the Goldstein–Wehner law.

 

See

 

http://campus.mst.edu/aplab/index_files/PlasmaTheory.pdf

 

Plasma Theory for Undergraduate Education - Missouri S

 

 

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/images/plasma_discharge_tube_480x357.jpg

 

More info here

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_6.htm

 

The SAFIRE experiment is the spherical version of this plasma tube experiment. 
The Double layers are produced in the plasma tube as well as in the spherical 
SAFIRE mode. What Alan did with the metal foil is identical to what SAFIRE did 
by inserting the Langmuir Probe into the double layer. The two experiments 
produced the same LENR effect when the metal was inserted into the double 
layer. In both these systems, the interaction between the metal and the double 
layer is to produce a population of surface plasmon polaritons that merge to 
generate a polariton BEC.

 

In this plasmoid generation mode of the LENR reaction where the petal 
Condensate intercepts the energy output that the double layer reaction 
produces, that energy is reformatted in the singular way that the petal 
condensate is constrained to produce as a analog black hole. That reformatting 
process includes a very wasteful segment of the total output. The condensate 
produces muons (aka Meshuganon) with that fraction of total output energy that 
is essentially lost to the far field. Muons has a long delay time and they 
travel a long way from the place in which they were created. As Alan has 
observed, the generation of gamma radiation when the tube is heavily shielded 
is a sure sign that muons are being produced by the inserted metal surface.

 

In the SAFIRE reaction, no condensate is formed and therefor all the energy 
that the LENR reaction produces in the formation of helium is retained as heat 
output. I predict that Helium 3 will be detected in a spectrogram of the gases 
in the glow tube over some extended period of its operation. Excess heat will 
also be produced by the glow tube in the same why that SAFIRE produces excess 
heat.

 

Alan/Russ should take the glow tube experiment to ICCF-21. The SAFIRE people 
will greatly profit from the Muon demo.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

[Russ]

Sorry that dog won’t hunt, the present experiment is nothing like this. Keep 
fishing.

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:13 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

The Alan/Russ experiment has been conducted by young plasma students for over a 
100 years. This goes to show that there is not much new under the Sun. The glow 
tube experiment is a demonstration of the Goldstein–Wehner law.

 

See

 

http://campus.mst.edu/aplab/index_files/PlasmaTheory.pdf

 

Plasma Theory for Undergraduate Education - Missouri S

 

 

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/images/plasma_discharge_tube_480x357.jpg

 

More info here

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_6.htm

 

The SAFIRE experiment is the spherical version of this plasma tube experiment. 
The Double layers are produced in the plasma tube as well as in the spherical 
SAFIRE mode. What Alan did with the metal foil is identical to what SAFIRE did 
by inserting the Langmuir Probe into the double layer. The two experiments 
produced the same LENR effect when the metal was inserted into the double 
layer. In both these systems, the interaction between the metal and the double 
layer is to produce a population of surface plasmon polaritons that merge to 
generate a polariton BEC.

 

In this plasmoid generation mode of the LENR reaction where the petal 
Condensate intercepts the energy output that the double layer reaction 
produces, that energy is reformatted in the singular way that the petal 
condensate is constrained to produce as a analog black hole. That reformatting 
process includes a very wasteful segment of the total output. The condensate 
produces muons (aka Meshuganon) with that fraction of total output energy that 
is essentially lost to the far field. Muons has a long delay time and they 
travel a long way from the place in which they were created. As Alan has 
observed, the generation of gamma radiation when the tube is heavily shielded 
is a sure sign that muons are being produced by the inserted metal surface.

 

In the SAFIRE reaction, no condensate is formed and therefor all the energy 
that the LENR reaction produces in the formation of helium is retained as heat 
output. I predict that Helium 3 will be detected in a spectrogram of the gases 
in the glow tube over some extended period of its operation. Excess heat will 
also be produced by the glow tube in the same why that SAFIRE produces excess 
heat.

 

Alan/Russ should take the glow tube experiment to ICCF-21. The SAFIRE people 
will greatly profit from the Muon demo.

 

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Russ]

Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
other nuclides is said to be different.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com  
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 20 May 2018 15:10:28 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
> The proton proton (PP) fusion reaction is the most enigmatic nuclear 
>reaction that you will ever run across. This reaction has concerned me 
>a lot and still confuses me.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
>
>Proton-proton chain reaction
>
>
>
>The PP reaction should not occur, but it is said to occur as the power 
>source of the Sun as well as all the other stars because there is so 
>much hydrogen involved in the energy cycle of the Sun.
>
>"In the Sun, deuterium-producing events are rare. Diprotons are the 
>much more common result of proton-proton reactions within the star, and 
>diprotons almost immediately decay back into two protons. Since the 
>conversion of hydrogen to helium is slow, the complete conversion of 
>the hydrogen in the core of the Sun is calculated to take more than 
>10^10 (ten
>billion) years."
>
>The PP reaction should be impossible to happen here on earth, but there 
>is evidence that helium is being generated in all sorts of LENR 
>systems. Why does LENR make PP fusion possible or possible very likely to
occur?

The PP reaction probably doesn't happen here on Earth. The neutron in
Deuterium is quite heavy compared to the neutrons in other nuclei. In short,
when a proton converts to a neutron inside another nucleus much less energy
has to be found, so it can happen much faster.
IMO that's why the half lives of beta+ decay reactions for isotopes heavier
that D are much shorter than for the PP reaction.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Fast company in Fresno

[Russ]

Conduction band moving particles that are not electrons were very clearly 
described in the work of Talbot and Scott Chubb. They focused their 
considerable genius on proton conduction which includes deuteron conduction. 
RIP Scott and Talbot, they were good companions in the study of cold fusion for 
so many years. 

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fast company in Fresno

 

 

 

According to the ORNL paper, which may not be related to this - the propagation 
wave does not consist of conduction band electrons but “phasons” which is a 
much heavier particulate, like a phonon but also much faster. Wouldn’t it be 
interesting if potassium ferrite was such ceramic?

 

That exotica may not apply to LENR however, but if it does, there is the 
possibility of finding better results with  lattice alloy combinations (or more 
likely ceramics) which work more like the phasons in fresnoite.

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins  

 

 

The interesting part of the phenomenon is not the speed of propagation per se, 
but what happens at the metal surface during this propagation.  I believe there 
is a conduction band electron sweep as this type of thermal "wave" passes 
through the metal grains with perhaps unusual behavior when these electrons are 
swept up to a metal grain boundary.  Also, it appears to be more of a wave - 
and in that sense it can setup up reflections and standing wave behavior.  Look 
at Krivit's photo of Piantelli's runaway reaction on his Ni rod.  It appears to 
have a standing wave effect for the maximum LENR action in the center of the 
rod.  This seems characteristic of a standing wave pattern.  It is possible 
that the LENR activity, being stimulated by the passage of a thermal wave, can 
turn the rod into an active medium so that a passing thermal waves can have 
gain and oscillation - almost like a laser cavity.

 


​

 

 

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

[Russ]

The TOF SIMs equipment Mills has in his lab is known to be more than sufficient 
to identify composition and isotope ratios in his materials. He clearly bought 
that equipment precisely to study such possible transmutation possibilities. I 
give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not blowing faked metallic smoke.

 

Mills has years ago shown at ACS/APS meetings polymer plastic made with his 
hydrinos that demonstrated similar anomalous magnetic properties. Give the guy 
the courtesy of being taken at his word. 

 

If you want to propose an entirely different interpretation of this work it is 
up to you to conduct the experiments and produce the data to substantiate your 
hypothesis. If you are unable and/or unwilling to do the work and provide 
equivalent data then you might consider getting a job as a book or movie 
critic. 

 

But this digresses into the age old argument between experimentalists who 
actually do original work and armchair theorists who claim to be uniquely able 
to read into the experimental work of others whatever they wish to support 
their untested ideas. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:11 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

This Mills experiment is not the first one that has been done. Proton 21 has 
been at this stuff for years. If Mills were to look for transmutation in his 
metal smoke, he would find it as the Proton 21 project has found. Experimenters 
should sit in an armchair are see what has be done in the past: they night not 
need to work so hard in duplicating what has been done many times before. 

 

In proton 21 resuts

 

http://proton-21.com.ua/science_02_en.html

 

Results of experiments

on collective nuclear reactions

in superdense substance

 

Proton 21 has seen 

 

"the mass spectra reveal the masses equal to 253, 264, 394, 395, 433, and 434

which do not yield to any interpretation and identification, i.e., they are 
absent among all the

known isotope combinations given in the typical catalogs."

 

This stuff is most likely Ultra dense material. There is strange radiation 
observations documented that most likely is this  Ultra dense material on the 
move.

 

Regarding: "Mills is either a fool or a fraud". He does not want to see 
anything that would disprove his theories.

 

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X  > wrote:

OK, that might explain why the bulk material didn’t collapse and cling to the 
tool the researcher used to attract it. Mills has always talked about his 
hydrinos being part and parcel with hydrides and I never believed these exotic 
types of hydrogen can persist outside of the cavity environment but you seem to 
be  suggesting that this gaseous smoke still contains a metal matrix like 
aerojels!? The polaritons by definition are on metal surfaces, now marooned in 
an airborne bulk with its buoyancy from the held dense hudrogen? I cant see a 
closed cell effect like aerojels.

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com  ] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:22 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

IMHO, this smoke is metal hydride nanoparticles that are covered on their 
surface with polaritons. The polaritons are the source of the magnetism that 
binds the nanoparticles togither. The SunCell uses this smoke to form a dusty 
plasma that can produce a self sustaining LENR reaction.

 

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

This video is (reputedly) what dense hydrogen looks like, in response to a 
strong magnet –  

 

https://youtu.be/Epenv-PPLJM

 

Somewhat mind boggling, shall we say. If not dense hydrogen, it is unclear what 
else the ghostly filaments could be.

 

Apparently it is paramagnetic and possibly superfluidic, whereas hydrogen is a 
diamagnetic, invisible gas.

 

Or more to the point – what else could one do with the material to proved its 
identity/characteristics?

 

One of the things (phenomena)  which comes to mind  … LOL … “ectoplasm” which 
is somewhat fitting given the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

[Russ]

To suggest that Mills has not looked at this ‘magnetic smoke’ sufficiently to 
eliminate it being made of magnetic metal is to suggest that Mills is either a 
fool or a fraud. Given that such wild speculation by armchair pundits is surely 
more of an exercise in ego and not an earnest effort to lend useful comments.

 

From: Roarty, Francis X  
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

OK, that might explain why the bulk material didn’t collapse and cling to the 
tool the researcher used to attract it. Mills has always talked about his 
hydrinos being part and parcel with hydrides and I never believed these exotic 
types of hydrogen can persist outside of the cavity environment but you seem to 
be  suggesting that this gaseous smoke still contains a metal matrix like 
aerojels!? The polaritons by definition are on metal surfaces, now marooned in 
an airborne bulk with its buoyancy from the held dense hudrogen? I cant see a 
closed cell effect like aerojels.

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:22 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

IMHO, this smoke is metal hydride nanoparticles that are covered on their 
surface with polaritons. The polaritons are the source of the magnetism that 
binds the nanoparticles togither. The SunCell uses this smoke to form a dusty 
plasma that can produce a self sustaining LENR reaction.

 

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

This video is (reputedly) what dense hydrogen looks like, in response to a 
strong magnet –  

 

https://youtu.be/Epenv-PPLJM

 

Somewhat mind boggling, shall we say. If not dense hydrogen, it is unclear what 
else the ghostly filaments could be.

 

Apparently it is paramagnetic and possibly superfluidic, whereas hydrogen is a 
diamagnetic, invisible gas.

 

Or more to the point – what else could one do with the material to proved its 
identity/characteristics?

 

One of the things (phenomena)  which comes to mind  … LOL … “ectoplasm” which 
is somewhat fitting given the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

The first task in any new experimental protocol is to make sure that one can 
see some useful data that emerges. Cold fusion heat comes at the behest of 
nearly a trillion fusion reactions per watt/second. Nothing like that level of 
the lovely gammas being seen, millions of times less.  This is a testimony to 
the precision and sensitivity of the system and methods designed to monitor 
these experiments. Such sensitive insight into the heart of the reactions 
offers one the means to understand and discover what is going on and how to 
drive the multiplicity of reactions taking place in that complex atom-ecology. 
As my good friend Tom Passell always said to me, “let the data speak to you.” 
The corollary to that sage advice is don’t drown the data with one’s own talk. 

 

So far listening to the lovely gamma data that is speaking there is no reason 
to suggest it is bremsstrahlung and indeed every reason to think otherwise. The 
gamma producing cold fusion pathways are clearly not the principal cold fusion 
taking place in these experiments. It is however lovely to see them just the 
same and they are an incredible diagnostic tool. Don’t forget Rossi’s 
admonishment about ‘the mouse and the cat’  It should be a simple matter now 
to leapfrog those Italian cats. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:06 AM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

MFMP continues on with the discussion of the "signal" and talks about gamma 
radiation that has been produced by old school LENR reactors.

 

The "signal" may have been seen is Rossi's old style reactors as a startup 
artifact. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeHU4vBmc

 

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com 
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A sub-second flash of  Bremsstrahlung has been seen in LENR experiments, 
immediately followed by the appearance of heat.  Science has been looking for 
this as a sign of the formation of Hole superconductivity. This kind of 
superconductivity is an alternative to the standard beliefs that hold sway in 
superconductive theory. Leif Holmlid has adopted this theory to explain how 
ultra dense hydrogen becomes superconductive. 

 

In my view, what MFMP saw was the onset of  Hole superconductivity as the 
density of individual polaritons reached the condensation threshold and formed 
a polariton condensate. The onset of heat production came from the condensate. 
The  Bremsstrahlung is produced by the expulsion of electrons from inside the 
polariton condensate at high energies.

 

There is a fair chance that the bursts of gammas coming from Russ's experiment 
turn out to be  Bremsstrahlung; then the LENR reaction in Russ's reactor may be 
flickering.

 

See MFMP's experimental views

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ALuWrmXBo 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ALuWrmXBo=249s> =249s

 

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

The notion of a ‘flash of gammas’ being what is there is just wrong. There is a 
steady state production of gammas in these sorts of cold fusion ecologies. 
Rossi knows this well and has shared more than enough of his protocol to 
confirm that is what he also has in hand. 

 

The use of the moniker LENR was and is never more than a obvious banal dodge to 
avoid the howls of outrage against the term ‘cold fusion’ and all who dared to 
work in that venue. There is nothing ‘low energy’ about these reactions, rather 
they are entirely new pathways atoms take in the ecology of cold fusion where 
energetic emissions are not favoured. Making minor adjustments to the 
atom-ecology environments enhances the emission of the energetic emissions. 

 

Ain’t real science done at the lab bench wonderful! As Thomas Edison said from 
his lab bench, ‘Hell there are no rules here, we are trying to accomplish 
something.” 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>  
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Fran—

 

Good questions!

 

A good spectrum analyzer would answer questions about the flash of EM radiation 
of the Rossi tests.  I assume he knows the answer and that gammas are not 
produced that would otherwise harm the observers.  

 

However, I doubt the flash is the result of a large energetic (Mev-scale) 
nuclear transition with gammas that are somehow perfectly shielded as suggested 
by Axil.  

 

The idea of an LENR with emphasis on “LOW ENERGY” is an  important feature of 
the source of energy in the Rossi reaction.  

 

The flash that has been  observed by many folks IMHO is an initial ionization 
of Li atoms an

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

The notion of a 'flash of gammas' being what is there is just wrong. There
is a steady state production of gammas in these sorts of cold fusion
ecologies. Rossi knows this well and has shared more than enough of his
protocol to confirm that is what he also has in hand. 

 

The use of the moniker LENR was and is never more than a obvious banal dodge
to avoid the howls of outrage against the term 'cold fusion' and all who
dared to work in that venue. There is nothing 'low energy' about these
reactions, rather they are entirely new pathways atoms take in the ecology
of cold fusion where energetic emissions are not favoured. Making minor
adjustments to the atom-ecology environments enhances the emission of the
energetic emissions. 

 

Ain't real science done at the lab bench wonderful! As Thomas Edison said
from his lab bench, 'Hell there are no rules here, we are trying to
accomplish something." 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Fran-

 

Good questions!

 

A good spectrum analyzer would answer questions about the flash of EM
radiation of the Rossi tests.  I assume he knows the answer and that gammas
are not produced that would otherwise harm the observers.  

 

However, I doubt the flash is the result of a large energetic (Mev-scale)
nuclear transition with gammas that are somehow perfectly shielded as
suggested by Axil.  

 

The idea of an LENR with emphasis on "LOW ENERGY" is an  important feature
of the source of energy in the Rossi reaction.  

 

The flash that has been  observed by many folks IMHO is an initial
ionization of Li atoms and formation of a significant electrical current
across the dusty plasma  of the Rossi reactor.  A charge may  accumulate
rapidly on the population of nano-Ni particles as individual LENR happens to
the various particles.  The flash may be the signal used by the control
system to change resonant conditions to reduce the LENR transition
probability in the population of nano-Ni particles to avoid high
temperatures and nano-particle sintering.  

 

Bob Cook 

 

  _  

From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> >
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:56:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems 

 

Axil, your distinction does answer my question whether the polariton
condensate alone is a source of LENR, you are saying polariton condensates
and nano geometry of metal surfaces can produce LENR and dangerous gamma
radiation alone without any fuel. I know you mentioned the super
absorbtion/radiance features of a polariton condensate as a
thermalizer/downshifter but wasn't sure if the "pumping source" was over
unity or you were just using external energy to create a polariton
condensate shield / radiator to activate fuel contained in the cavity. Was
the claim of a Gamma spike in early Rossi demo possibly an example of pumped
polariton condensate where pockets of the nickel powder metal surfaces were
starved for fuel or it simply hadn't yet loaded into the lattice?

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 4:05 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

I would like to draw a fundamental distinction between two classes of LENR
systems: Fueled and unfueled systems. In the 2011 time-frame when Rossi saw
gamma, he was running an unfueled system,so was Piantelli and Celani. Russ
George is now experimenting with an unfueled system.

The development of LENR fuel came latter as an innovation by Rossi. I
speculate that Rossi found that when he reused ash from his reactors, they
were very LENR active. Rossi perfected LENR fuel and started to use it in
his tube reactors. The fuel was self contained and could be loaded in air.
With this fuel, the hydrogen nickel reaction did not seem to matter anymore.
Lugano is an example,

Also gamma commissions went away when using LENR Fuel.

I beleive that the active agent in LENR fuel is ultra dense hydrogen. Rossi,
me356, the ECCO reactor and the LION reactor all use LENR fuel. Gamma will
not come from these systems since ultra dense hydrogen is a superconductor.
UDH has a near perfect Q factor and forms a condensate immediately and
instantly.

I have advised any LENR reactor builders who will lessen to produce LENR
fuel directly by acquiring a Holmlid UDH generator. Just load that UDH into
a tube reactor and you are good to go.

 

RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

You are being semantically retentive, my use of the words 'metal foils' of
course included 'sheets of lead.' Every freshman in nuclear science or more
properly atom-ecology knows about Kev-Mev photons and lead, any who don't
aren't worth the repeated breath to natter at them about it. Every
caricature of internet denizens in 'man caves' comes to mind when I read
this sort of comment and I wish those images were not so likely to be true.
I too sometimes resemble such too closely.

 

Zumwalt was a man/partner from whom I learned first hand what the word
charisma meant. He was as admirable as he was admiral.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/show-them-just-a-little-thigh-
you-know-they-will-want-to-see-a-whole-lot-more/  If I close my eyes I can
still feel the warmth of his smile and the welcoming firmness of his hand
shake, there are few in my life that I can say that about. 

 

The importance of these lovely cold fusion Gammas is that they satisfy once
and for all the most ardent cold fusion sceptic's wisecracks that became
science killing meme's from the first days of cold fusion who demanded that
without the gammas there could be no cold fusion. Thus began the reign of
fraudulent fomented outrage calling the work of Fleischmann and Pons and
anyone who dared to work in the field purveyors of 'pathological science'
and 'frauds.'  To the despicable men who practiced so like Huizinga, Close,
Lewis, Taubes, and more,  too bad only some of you are dead, though those
who are have an excuse for not apologizing for their ignorant self-serving
anti-science egotistical tirades, the remaining living sychophants should
simply stay under the dark slimy rocks that are their personal ecologies. 

 

Cold fusion is not one single simplified  process that must be shoehorned
into aging dogma or refuted, it is a facet of a vast complex and all but
invisible atom ecology. 

 

 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Russ-

 

Metal foils do not do much in reducing Mev EM radiation-it takes lots of
electrons like occur in a lead plate to reduce the EM energetic  radiation.
I think your purchase of a NaI detector is a wise decision. 

 

What business were you in with Zumwalt? 

 

He was an anti-nuclear-power advocate per my recollection.   He liked cheap
small surface ships.  Its ironic that the Zumwalt class DDG 1000 is likely
not sea worthy in heavy seas.   It is powered by an electric motor or
motors, but has no apparent exhaust above or below the water line.  I
concluded it must be a nuclear powered near-surface submarine in disguise as
a surface ship.  It may even be a LENR powered vessel given the Class
designation without a "N".

 

Bob Cook

 

 

  _____  

From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:27:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems 

 

Bob,

 

It's not hard to bracket with attenuating metal foils of different elements
and thicknesses the energy ballpark of the energetic emissions reaching the
Geiger. Having done this I promptly ordered a decent NaI Gamma Spectrometer
which I should have up and running within a week. The bracketed 'gamma' also
comes with an observable half-life that fits with likely reactions.

 

I have been known all my life for doing 'crowd science' and collaborating
with kindred scientists by packing my kit and conducting my experiments in
their labs. Few came to do the same in my lab, ces't la vie. The internet is
such a zoo filled with all manner of wild-life. The abundance of trolls and
would be trolls on the net is only surpassed by the number of posturing
wanna bees that all too often are revealed as bot flies. Amongst these are
of course some kindred souls and it is because of these, you are one, that I
keep butting my head up against the social, or more the anti-social, media. 

 

It is, in my experience, a constant characteristic of internet denizens that
anyone sharing something of interest is set upon by those who want to be
gifted everything that person might know without so much as a how do you do
my name is . introduction. 

 

In addition every field of science, especially frontier sciences, is
overshadowed by vultures seeking to consume whatever they can prey upon.
Some such vultures are professionals and state sponsored. It behoves one to
have some standards for engaging in exchanges of ideas. One of my business
partners Admiral Bud Zumwalt used to admonish me saying "Russ, just show
them a little thigh, you know they will want to see a whole lot more. Make
them do something for the rest of show."

 

 

Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

 

  

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.c

RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

Bob,

 

It's not hard to bracket with attenuating metal foils of different elements
and thicknesses the energy ballpark of the energetic emissions reaching the
Geiger. Having done this I promptly ordered a decent NaI Gamma Spectrometer
which I should have up and running within a week. The bracketed 'gamma' also
comes with an observable half-life that fits with likely reactions.

 

I have been known all my life for doing 'crowd science' and collaborating
with kindred scientists by packing my kit and conducting my experiments in
their labs. Few came to do the same in my lab, ces't la vie. The internet is
such a zoo filled with all manner of wild-life. The abundance of trolls and
would be trolls on the net is only surpassed by the number of posturing
wanna bees that all too often are revealed as bot flies. Amongst these are
of course some kindred souls and it is because of these, you are one, that I
keep butting my head up against the social, or more the anti-social, media. 

 

It is, in my experience, a constant characteristic of internet denizens that
anyone sharing something of interest is set upon by those who want to be
gifted everything that person might know without so much as a how do you do
my name is . introduction. 

 

In addition every field of science, especially frontier sciences, is
overshadowed by vultures seeking to consume whatever they can prey upon.
Some such vultures are professionals and state sponsored. It behoves one to
have some standards for engaging in exchanges of ideas. One of my business
partners Admiral Bud Zumwalt used to admonish me saying "Russ, just show
them a little thigh, you know they will want to see a whole lot more. Make
them do something for the rest of show."

 

 

Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

  

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Russ-

 

How do you know you are getting a "gamma signal" using a Geiger counter?

 

Separately, you note:

 

"By the way I am willing to engage privately with truly interested
participants in this important field provided they introduce themselves and
have something of equivalent value to offer in exchange, that's the way
science and society has always worked."

 

I note that the close-knit exchange of technical ideas is the opposite of
open science and is not the way science and society "always worked".
Although  such a model of science and society  has evolved over the last 100
years to be an acceptable model for the current closed science community, it
is slowly losing favor to an open flow of technical ideas, with relative
value determined by individual mental processes, more or less  supportive of
societal values at large.  

 

As a progressive political advocate, I am optimistic that the free flow of
ideas is supportive of society at large. 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Russ <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 12:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my
experiment and its 'lovely gammas' being 'unfueled'. That is most certainly
not the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared 'fuel mix'
that is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. A number of
other fuel mix experiments have been run in parallel showing no such gamma
signal save one other.  I use a tiny amount of fuel, a volume equal to 5-10
grains of rice, but it is cold fusion 'fuel' that was chosen with guidance
of the atom-ecology of the environment it would be subjected to and create.
By the way I also prepare and load this fuel in air, a fact that might be a
big tip to those skilled in the art. As my planned progression of fuel mixes
go into the oven(s) over the next few weeks I expect/hope more about the
specific characteristics of the atom-ecology where cold fusion is prevalent
will be revealed.

 

I have spent some decades preparing and working with experiments that
produced what my friend Martin Fleischmann called 'high fugacity deuterium',
aka UHD systems. In my opinion no one truly 'skilled in the art' of cold
fusion would do otherwise.  'Search for the nuclear smoke' was the
admonishment at the beginning of cold fusion some 30 years ago, the best
advice from the best minds of the time was 'if you have nuclear fire you
must have nuclear smoke.' Fleischmann after some years fessed up to cold
fusion peers and noted that the hotter one runs cold fusion experiments the
better! Limited of course by what the hot environment does to the fuel
components. Heat is the enemy of high fugacity. 

 

In my work I began by utilizing mass spec services from the top laboratories
as well as building my own low mass helium spectrometers. This

RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my 
experiment and its ‘lovely gammas’ being ‘unfueled’. That is most certainly not 
the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared ‘fuel mix’ that 
is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. A number of other fuel 
mix experiments have been run in parallel showing no such gamma signal save one 
other.  I use a tiny amount of fuel, a volume equal to 5-10 grains of rice, but 
it is cold fusion ‘fuel’ that was chosen with guidance of the atom-ecology of 
the environment it would be subjected to and create. By the way I also prepare 
and load this fuel in air, a fact that might be a big tip to those skilled in 
the art. As my planned progression of fuel mixes go into the oven(s) over the 
next few weeks I expect/hope more about the specific characteristics of the 
atom-ecology where cold fusion is prevalent will be revealed.

 

I have spent some decades preparing and working with experiments that produced 
what my friend Martin Fleischmann called ‘high fugacity deuterium’, aka UHD 
systems. In my opinion no one truly ‘skilled in the art’ of cold fusion would 
do otherwise.  ‘Search for the nuclear smoke’ was the admonishment at the 
beginning of cold fusion some 30 years ago, the best advice from the best minds 
of the time was ‘if you have nuclear fire you must have nuclear smoke.’ 
Fleischmann after some years fessed up to cold fusion peers and noted that the 
hotter one runs cold fusion experiments the better! Limited of course by what 
the hot environment does to the fuel components. Heat is the enemy of high 
fugacity. 

 

In my work I began by utilizing mass spec services from the top laboratories as 
well as building my own low mass helium spectrometers. This sort of hands on 
experimentation is what it takes to make, find, and deliver cold fusion. While 
cold fusion heat needs to be present and is the useful palpable technology I  
principally was interested in and observed 4He in vast amounts 100ppm or more, 
far above the 5.22 ppm of helium in air and almost never any penetrating 
emissions. Many of those searches for penetrating emissions used state of the 
art LN2 cooled large germanium spectrometers and a variety of similar state of 
the art neutron – all failing to see the penetrating emissions sought. 

 

These social media forums are sometimes useful and a few grains of good ideas 
sometimes are found amongst the abundance of chaff. But the anonymous internet 
makes it impossible to put a measure of trust in what is posted, especially by 
those who lack the courage of their convictions, interest, and intentions to 
make themselves known. That results in such blather as what this reply is about 
that I have used an unfueled experiment. 

 

By the way I am willing to engage privately with truly interested participants 
in this important field provided they introduce themselves and have something 
of equivalent value to offer in exchange, that’s the way science and society 
has always worked. The work I do is on a single small lab bench with very 
limited resources, progress might expand geometrically with bench space and 
additional helping hands and minds. Those wanting to be part and add to the 
venture are welcome, those only wanting to add to their inner vulture are not. 
Adventure vs. Advulture, ever it has been so.   

 

Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

I would like to draw a fundamental distinction between two classes of LENR 
systems: Fueled and unfueled systems. In the 2011 time-frame when Rossi saw 
gamma, he was running an unfueled system,so was Piantelli and Celani. Russ 
George is now experimenting with an unfueled system.

The development of LENR fuel came latter as an innovation by Rossi. I speculate 
that Rossi found that when he reused ash from his reactors, they were very LENR 
active. Rossi perfected LENR fuel and started to use it in his tube reactors. 
The fuel was self contained and could be loaded in air. With this fuel, the 
hydrogen nickel reaction did not seem to matter anymore. Lugano is an example,

Also gamma commissions went away when using LENR Fuel.

I beleive that the active agent in LENR fuel is ultra dense hydrogen. Rossi, 
me356, the ECCO reactor and the LION reactor all use LENR fuel. Gamma will not 
come from these systems since ultra dense hydrogen is a superconductor. UDH has 
a near perfect Q factor and forms a condensate immediately and instantly.

I have advised any LENR reactor builders who will lessen to produce LENR fuel 
directly by acquiring a Holmlid UDH generator. Just load that UDH into a tube 
reactor and you are good to go.

 

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

[Russ]

Sorry Bob but you are wrong, see the gammas on demand in cold fusion.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5597-atom-ecology/

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com  
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 6:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

 

Fran and Axil-

 

I do not consider that actual gammas ever come into existence in the
LENR/BEC reaction Axil suggests.  If they did ,some would get out and be
observed.  The reaction occurs by an ultra-fast  phase-like transition of a
coherent (entangled) system without the generation of particles or EM
radiation with anything different than a black body spectrum associated with
the reacted coherent system temperature.  The new system temperature is
inconsistent with resonance conditions (including magnetic field strength)
required to make a nuclear transition likely.

 

Rossi's dusty plasma reactor assures nano-particle coherent systems stay
adequately cooled to avoid sintering (fusing) of the metal lattice with
resulting undesirable changes in the resonant conditions and destruction of
characteristics of repeatable nuclear/BEC transition reactions.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

  _  

From: Roarty, Francis X  >
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 4:04:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR 

 

Axil, Your paragraph snipped below makes me question a relationship to
Casimir effect, does your scenario exist even when the pumping of the cavity
is just virtual particles? Is that enough to form a BEC and a basis for
Casimir effect rejecting longer virtual particles in the cavity. the effect
only occurs in conductive plates so the electron cloud and potential for
polaritons is present. I'm wondering if "nonequilibrium driven disapative
systems" is related to the vacuum density in these cavities. I assume it
applies to both Rossi and Mills geometries but you are concentrating on the
conversion and shielding aspect.. What synergy do you predict between this
shielding/conversion aspect and the actual source of the gamma? Does your
theory require gas atoms in the cavity or are you saying that just energy
alone pumped into the cavity will suffice?

Fran

Axil said[snip][This kind of BEC is a Condensate that forms in
nonequilibrium driven-dissipative systems. The polariton needs to be pumped
with energy because it loses energy from the cavity that contains it. If
more energy feeds the polaritons than leaks out of the cavity in which the
polariton forms, it can live and grow in power. The amount of nuclear energy
that the polariton BEC can thermalize is a function of the power that is
feed into the Polariton BEC and the amount of power that the Polariton BEC
loses over a given time(AKA the Q factor).[/snip]

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2018 3:22 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

 

 hacking radiation  

 

should read

 

 Hawking radiation  

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:

The polariton BEC acts as a analog black hole. It thermalizes gamma via
hacking radiation which is a thermal level emmision. The heat produced by
hacking radiation is recovered as energy from the vacuum since the anti
photon falls back into the BEC. This BEC also produces light whose frequency
is a function of the density of the polariton condensate. It has been said
that Rossi's QX reactor produces light from red to blue based on its power
level.

 

The final emission type is muon production. 

 

for more info, see

 

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00822148/file/Flayac-2012CLF22262.pdf

 

2.4 Sonic black holes and wormholes in spinor polariton condensates  (page
116)

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Roarty, Francis X
 > wrote:

Axil, would your scenario support effects on gas atoms between these
surfaces and Casimir/London forces? I like that it explains thermalizing the
gamma.

 

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com  ] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 11:42 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

 

Sometimes radiation is produced by the LENR reaction. Why does this occur?

 

It is my belief that the LENR process that thermalizes nuclear level
radiation is Bose Einstein Condensation (BEC). If a condition of BEC
circumscribes the LENR reaction, the BEC will absorb that nuclear level
radiation and downshift it into the thermal frequency range.

 

But for a BEC to be created, doesn't the temperature need to be at super low
temperatures near absolute zero?

 

There are two kinds of BEC. The BEC that requires super low 

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

Since the mischugenon was so named by Edward Teller in conversation with me on 
the basis of his work with me and my unique data set showing them. I have 
renamed the ‘mischugenon’ as the ‘Telleron’ in respect to the great man who 
befriended and helped me so much in this work.  So the name for these strange 
particles is not open for debate as they are rightly named in honor of Teller 
whose genius and determined efforts are nearly unsurpassed in the world of 
atom-ecology. 

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 3:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

 

I’m jumping into this thread a bit late but the concept of a “mystery” 
radiation or particle is intriguing, especially in the context of Holmlid’s 
muons. (which as Bob Higgins sez are unlikely to be muons).

 

Could Holmlid be seeing something else instead of muons (mesons, pions, kaons, 
etc) ? My answer is: yes, almost certainly.

 

Holmlid faces an insurmountable physics problem by almost ignoring the charge 
of muons. He is, in effect, inventing a new particle – a chargeless muon. That 
is NEVER going to fly.

 

Instead it would make far more sense to characterize the mystery particle in 
ways that mesh with standard physics. Start by giving it a new name.

 

However, the name meshugganon is a bit crazy  even to one who loves Yiddish. 
What about Ferron ?

 

The best candidate particle missing from the discussion even though it has been 
published to a limited audience is the work of John P Wallace, who is perhaps 
the leading expert in the USA on the subject of  iron. 

 

He is almost obsessive, it would seem – which is a good thing for science.

 

Here is one reference to this particle which is basically a carrier of spin. 
Nothing makes more sense in terms of applicability to Holmlid’s mystery than a 
particle which is unique to iron and represents quanta of spin energy.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

 

 

*   AA: Muons will get through all of that light material with no problem. 
But muons will be captured by the iron body of a pancake detector. The muon can 
then canalize  fission reactions in the iron and the gas in the pancake 
detector will register radiation generated by the fission reaction…. If you 
place some more iron or lead between the experiment and the detector head, and 
the counts go up.. then you are seeing muons.

 

If Wallace is correct – iron will give a stronger response than any other metal 
to a flux of the mystery particle – including nickel or lead.

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

This gets into the age old 'lumper' vs. 'splitter' academic game. Sure some
Geigers can see betas. In my experiments the emissions have to make it
through a gauntlet of materials, mm thick ceramic, many mm thick quartz,
fire brick, and of course plenty of air before they reach the front face of
the Geiger. Since of course no one but an armchair idiot would trust only
one Geiger and would not test various inserted attenuating materials and
metals it is not really 'lumping' to declare that in this case Geigers
cannot detect betas.' 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Russ George suggested that Geiger tubes do not record betas. 

 

I would guess that high energy betas (depending upon the window composition)
should be recorded by Geiger tubes.  Russ's beta sources that he used to
check his tubes may have produced only soft betas.  

 

Maybe Russ could identify the energy of his beta sources.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

  _  

From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 4:28:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

When Ed Storms reported on this, he had more than one pancake tube.  One had
a mica window and the other two were plastic.  I believe he said that the
"strange radiation" he encountered activated something in the mica window.
The tube with the mica window became activated and had a particular decay
rate that he measured.  He could bring the other, plastic window'ed tubes
close to the mica window and they would detect emissions from it.

 

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:33 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

We have three identical Geiger's that I switch positions to constantly
challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as
well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the
precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be
intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the
experiment. So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more
precision and care, an effort in process at this moment.  

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com <mailto:aethe...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

 

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect? 

Could you ground the shields?

Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to
the spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count
at multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced
in a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either
gammas or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known
beta sources and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have
recently renamed these 'Tellerons' in honour of my colleague Edward Teller
who helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their
existence decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that
will bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and
Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*
<https://ww

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

I am happy to hear peoples ideas with reasons behind those ideas. But to engage 
in testing others ideas often means one has to set aside ones own ideas. That 
is obviously an infinitely losing game as individuals are but one person and 
the world wide web is an infinite number of others ideas. Science has always 
been a combination of inspiration and perspiration though it is in the sweating 
in the performance that the donnas are separated from the primadonnas.   

 

Watch and wait or join me and make a difference. 

 

The greatest threat to the world is waiting for someone else to save it. 

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Still, I have a reason for considering that this might possibly work better in 
the vertical plane, and not by producing an artifact,

 

So I guess you have tried it in different orientations?

 

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

We have three identical Geiger’s that I switch positions to constantly 
challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as 
well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the 
precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be 
intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the experiment. 
So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more precision and 
care, an effort in process at this moment.  

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com <mailto:aethe...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are 
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

 

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect? 

Could you ground the shields?

Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to the 
spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate 
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the 
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count at 
multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in 
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced in 
a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either gammas 
or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known beta sources 
and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have 
recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller who 
helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their existence 
decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that will 
bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the 
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter 
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com 
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*  
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2461-new-energy-world-symposium-in-stockholm-on-june-18-2018/?postID=84069#post84069>
 #54

 

Regarding Alan glow tube test...

 


 <http://www.thunder-energies.com/> THUNDER ENERGIES,  a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


 

 
<http://www.thunder-energies.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-18/11-articles/19-article-10>
 http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10

 

Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

We have three identical Geiger’s that I switch positions to constantly 
challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as 
well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the 
precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be 
intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the experiment. 
So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more precision and 
care, an effort in process at this moment.  

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are 
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

 

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect? 

Could you ground the shields?

Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to the 
spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate 
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the 
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count at 
multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in 
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced in 
a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either gammas 
or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known beta sources 
and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have 
recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller who 
helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their existence 
decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that will 
bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the 
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter 
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com 
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*  
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2461-new-energy-world-symposium-in-stockholm-on-june-18-2018/?postID=84069#post84069>
 #54  
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/image-proxy/?key=0d11eccc9d848e360a155c07d099e36304d77de115e3bea87fefdc5793131f93-aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGVuci1mb3J1bS5jb20vYXR0YWNobWVudC80NzY2LXRoZS10ZXN0LXBuZy8%3D>
 

 

Regarding Alan glow tube test...

 


 <http://www.thunder-energies.com/> THUNDER ENERGIES,  a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


 

 
<http://www.thunder-energies.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-18/11-articles/19-article-10>
 http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10

 

Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 
desired neutron CPS;

2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of 
tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and

 

3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high current 
rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.

As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus creating a 
plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the proton and the 
electron along a magnetic field line with the appropriate spin and other 
couplings; an engineering means called triggers compress the electron inside 
the proton, by supplying the missing energy (which is about one million 
electron Volts, 1 MeV).

Display More

 

Sometimes a theorist can save an experimenter a lot of work by avoiding 
duplicating existing technology.

 

 

Santilli thinks that neutrons can be formed out of a union of protons and 
neutrons. This is nonsense. What Sant

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate 
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the 
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count at 
multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in 
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced in 
a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either gammas 
or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known beta sources 
and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have 
recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller who 
helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their existence 
decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that will 
bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the 
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter 
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern  > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil  >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*  

 #54  

 

 

Regarding Alan glow tube test...

 


  THUNDER ENERGIES,  a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


 

 

 http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10

 

Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 
desired neutron CPS;

2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of 
tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and

 

3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high current 
rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.

As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus creating a 
plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the proton and the 
electron along a magnetic field line with the appropriate spin and other 
couplings; an engineering means called triggers compress the electron inside 
the proton, by supplying the missing energy (which is about one million 
electron Volts, 1 MeV).

Display More

 

Sometimes a theorist can save an experimenter a lot of work by avoiding 
duplicating existing technology.

 

 

Santilli thinks that neutrons can be formed out of a union of protons and 
neutrons. This is nonsense. What Santilli is producing are muons. the same 
particle that Alan is generating. The US government is using cosmic ray 
generated muons to detect nuclear material in shipping containers now.

 


Cosmic-Ray Muons Reveal Hidden Void in the Great Pyramid


 

 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/n…oid-in-the-great-pyramid/


 

 

Muon Thomography are well known as a means to detect nuclear material

 

Innovations In Nuclear Detection: Muon Tomography

  
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/khan1/

 

 

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Russ]

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell  
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

 

JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

 

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.

 

 

Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

 

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

 

- Jed

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[Russ]

Here’s a link to an image of one very special use of the right metamaterial  

 

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/972582613809618944

 

 

From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

 

I’d love to read a list of candidates for ‘metamaterials’ that might have 
practical utility as in easy to make and deposit. Any suggestions posted here 
would be a start on such a list. Thanks

 

From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 7:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Evidence of UDH interaction with neutrino (was 1/f squared)

 

 

Re: the possibility that new discoveries will turn up a metamaterial which can 
reacts with neutrinos to a much greater extent than expected could be bolstered 
by evidence from cosmology presented below. There are many lose ends, however.

 

Could UDH be used in two ways – both as the target for laser pulses (Holmlid 
Effect) and secondarily an absorber of the resultant muon -> neutrino bursts? 
Neutrinos carry away over 99% of the energy of the Holmlid Effect but are 
poorly absorbed by all elements. What a waste.

 

Even if it were possible, protons are being disintegrated into pions then muons 
– with a mass/energy of 106 MeV each and then converted into much lower level 
x-rays if they do interact. OTOH this energy level is still thousands of time 
more favorable than burning hydrogen – so who cares about the low overall 
efficiency? Anyway this post proposes a novel way to use UDH as both fuel for 
laser irradiation– which converts into massive levels of muons which then 
decays into neutrinos…which neutrinos are then absorbed in a secondary system 
using UDH to capture some of the energy which is otherwise lost. UDH is far 
denser than U or any heavy element.

 

One of the most interesting findings in recent cosmology has been the discovery 
of a universal emission line at 3.56 keV which is associated with Dark Matter. 
This emission line has turned up in the core of every galaxy which has been 
studied - and there is an intuitive explanation. Any number of theorist have 
associated a dense form of hydrogen with Dark Matter. Yet the inherent conflict 
is that if Dark Matter is really dark it should not emit at 3.56 keV … unless 
of course, it is actually being irradiated as a target by an external source of 
energy and that source, by default, would be the neutrino flux. 

 

Conclusion of somewhat circular argument: If we should find that indeed Dark 
Matter can be identified as UDH or one of the other similar conceptions such as 
DDL, then a likely reason we see the characteristic x-ray is not from decay but 
from an interaction with neutrinos – which interaction then inflates the dark 
matter back to hydrogen. In short, Dark Matter may have a cross section for 
neutrino absorption which makes it useful as a way to convert the mass/energy 
of neutrinos into x-rays which can then be downshifted into usable energy. This 
could be implemented with the Holmlid setup or a variant.

 

The fact that Holmlid sees a small level of muon production from UDH at ambient 
conditions (which has NOT been irradiated with the laser) is thereby explained. 
The ambient case is  indicative of the rate of interaction with Earth’s 
background neutrino flux (from cosmic rays). As a practical matter, this 
conversion rate of UDH is too low to be useful without the laser – where 
Holmlid is getting massively more neutrinos compared to the background rate – 
100 trillion times more per unit area.

 

This rambling proposal would all fit together nicely except for the lack of 
independent verification which may be forthcoming from Taggett/TERN. 

There is no recent news from them:

http://ternresearch.com/news-and-papers

 

 

[Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[Russ]

I’d love to read a list of candidates for ‘metamaterials’ that might have 
practical utility as in easy to make and deposit. Any suggestions posted here 
would be a start on such a list. Thanks

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 7:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Evidence of UDH interaction with neutrino (was 1/f squared)

 

 

Re: the possibility that new discoveries will turn up a metamaterial which can 
reacts with neutrinos to a much greater extent than expected could be bolstered 
by evidence from cosmology presented below. There are many lose ends, however.

 

Could UDH be used in two ways – both as the target for laser pulses (Holmlid 
Effect) and secondarily an absorber of the resultant muon -> neutrino bursts? 
Neutrinos carry away over 99% of the energy of the Holmlid Effect but are 
poorly absorbed by all elements. What a waste.

 

Even if it were possible, protons are being disintegrated into pions then muons 
– with a mass/energy of 106 MeV each and then converted into much lower level 
x-rays if they do interact. OTOH this energy level is still thousands of time 
more favorable than burning hydrogen – so who cares about the low overall 
efficiency? Anyway this post proposes a novel way to use UDH as both fuel for 
laser irradiation– which converts into massive levels of muons which then 
decays into neutrinos…which neutrinos are then absorbed in a secondary system 
using UDH to capture some of the energy which is otherwise lost. UDH is far 
denser than U or any heavy element.

 

One of the most interesting findings in recent cosmology has been the discovery 
of a universal emission line at 3.56 keV which is associated with Dark Matter. 
This emission line has turned up in the core of every galaxy which has been 
studied - and there is an intuitive explanation. Any number of theorist have 
associated a dense form of hydrogen with Dark Matter. Yet the inherent conflict 
is that if Dark Matter is really dark it should not emit at 3.56 keV … unless 
of course, it is actually being irradiated as a target by an external source of 
energy and that source, by default, would be the neutrino flux. 

 

Conclusion of somewhat circular argument: If we should find that indeed Dark 
Matter can be identified as UDH or one of the other similar conceptions such as 
DDL, then a likely reason we see the characteristic x-ray is not from decay but 
from an interaction with neutrinos – which interaction then inflates the dark 
matter back to hydrogen. In short, Dark Matter may have a cross section for 
neutrino absorption which makes it useful as a way to convert the mass/energy 
of neutrinos into x-rays which can then be downshifted into usable energy. This 
could be implemented with the Holmlid setup or a variant.

 

The fact that Holmlid sees a small level of muon production from UDH at ambient 
conditions (which has NOT been irradiated with the laser) is thereby explained. 
The ambient case is  indicative of the rate of interaction with Earth’s 
background neutrino flux (from cosmic rays). As a practical matter, this 
conversion rate of UDH is too low to be useful without the laser – where 
Holmlid is getting massively more neutrinos compared to the background rate – 
100 trillion times more per unit area.

 

This rambling proposal would all fit together nicely except for the lack of 
independent verification which may be forthcoming from Taggett/TERN. 

There is no recent news from them:

http://ternresearch.com/news-and-papers

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Russ]

Nothing is better than field notes from observers of nature and its
ecologies. The jewel in this report is a big part of the solution to cold
fusion. It answers the question of how is the apparent energy of cold fusion
disseminated broadly instead of being locally destructive. That this layer
of UDD is able to withstand the laser, for more time than it ought to, is
quite sufficient evidence of the energy distribution characteristic of UDD,
and of the miracle CF clearly displays. We've known since Martin and Stan
showed it to be, nearly 30 years ago, that UDD is formed, they called it
high 'fugacity' but it is the same state. 

 

The high fugacity deuterium, HFD/HDD, is very much more flexible to the thin
layer of UDD in this work as it can and surely does exist in a variety of
bulk atom-ecologies. Clearly in some of those special atom ecosystems we
find cold fusion becomes prevalent. By the way such HFD is stable as Martin
used to say being 'gamma phase'.  In my work when sono-loaded palladium was
packed with HFD that HFD remained indefinitely stable as was evidenced in
x-ray diffraction studies of said material carried out by premier national
lab colleagues on the samples they assisted me in hands on effort to produce
on demand for them. Well not all of it was 'stable' as a great deal of it
was observed to have transformed into 4He deep inside the bulk metal. In
those helium rich ecologies the meta, palladium,  indeed was melted and
vapourized , but nearby the HFD/HDD remained in the less active sonofusion
zones. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

Dave-

 

I had a similar question as to a measure of the energy produced by the laser
and the temperature of the material under the D protective coating. 

 

The following questions arise:

1.  Can H form the same protective coating?  
2.  Does the UDD have spin equal to 1  with its magnetic moment that
will not respond to the laser input?  I doubt it.
3.  Could the UDD be an  assemblage of Cooper pairs  with anti-parallel
spin  equal to 0 or a  BEC that reflects the laser photons?
4.  Are there minute impurities in the UDD that do absorb some of the
laser energy  and eventually get the UDD composite hot enough to come apart?
5.  Does the energy of the laser get transformed into potential energy
of the Cooper pairs suggested above during the long irradiation period?-
6.  Does increasing the power of the laser beam reduce the time required
to "blast thru" the protective coat  of UDD?
7.  How does a change of laser frequency change the results?

 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Dave Roberson  
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to
cut the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited
by the laser was measured?

 

Dave

 

Sent from Mail   for Windows
10

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

 

This is good to see. 

 

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and
determined to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on
Holmlid - who is drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that
is unique in a number of ways. 

 

Holmlid's work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication.
Holmlid's recent patent application is almost a "how-to" since it discloses
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 

 

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be
revived. New game.

 

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine. at least so long as
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But
Pandora's box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil  

 

Holmlid replicator

 

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-stu
dying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

 

JonesBeene wrote:

 

Do "dark projects" 

RE: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Russ]

Clearly the stainless steel parts in said tube furnaces have not 'combusted'
in spite of being in air at 1000 C for 48 hours or more. Speaking of oxygen
is fruitless as noone of the experiments is conducted in other than air. 

 

The kanthal wire that is the heater is well characterized as having
aluminium that migrates to the surface and forms a protective oxide. When
that oxide is disturbed, as in scratched off during handling, it leads to
oxidation of the rest of the kanthal metal and failure. Undisturbed the
kanthal seems durable at 1000 C in air.

 

There is plenty of utility in examining the witness temperatures of various
materials melting and oxidation effects. 

 

 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 3:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

Melting points are irrelevant. Stainless steel combusts at 1,000C in oxygen.
Tungsten combusts to WOx at 800C

Iron powder slowly oxidizes at room temperature in handwarmers. 

 

The combustion can be extremely rapid and high temperature in the case of
thermite reactions.

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:47 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments 

 

I wonder if "the  fervent practice of conflation" means that the fusion meme
that has been the mainstay of LENR theory for so long should now be retooled
to somehow  fit into an as of yet unfathomable  understanding of the LION
reactor meltdown. Russ is among those who are clearly confused by the LION
reactor meltdown. Here is his analysis as follows: 

 

Melting Miasma - The intact Kanthal wire is a witness to the temperature not
reaching the melting point of kanthal which is listed as being 1500 C. The
alumina block melts above 2000 C, the quartz melts at just under 1700 C. So
if the quartz melted likely the kanthal which was in contact with the quartz
might be expected to melt, not seen. Surely the alumina foam which was
outside of the quartz melting at 2000 C would not 'melt' without the
intervening kanthal showing melting which would occur at 1500 C. If during
the oxidation of the copper that is clearly apparent, that very hot copper
oxidation process was capable of perhaps breaking the quartz and that copper
oxide invaded the surrounding materials it might well have bonding with all.
Copper oxide melts at 1326 C. Copper melts at 1085 C. Nickel melts at 1455
C, don't forget the tiny 2.5 mm diameter 10 micron thick nickel pads with
the diamonds attached to them that are the purported fuel are clearly seen
and did NOT melt. Nor did the stainless steel bolt that plugged the reactor
tube, stainless steels melt between 1400-1500 C depending on the alloy.

All theses known materials and melting points bear witness to many
temperatures that might have been reached in the hot 'reaction' zone. In the
'dummy' test runs conducted at Alan's, the maker of the tube furnace test
bed, at 1000 C. in these dummy runs without any anomalous fuels, aka the
nickel diamond discs, the aggressive hot chemistry of the copper oxide and
is very clearly seen. It has fused/bonded itself to the quartz for example.
The silver foil that underlaid the copper wire winding at the distal end has
a melting point 961 C, is apparent this temperature was reached as the
silver appears to have moved by capillary action into the copper/copper
oxide material and also appears to have been an effective brazing metal on
the quartz, something it is known to do in common practice when making metal
seals on quartz lab wear. All, or almost all, the copper was converted to
copper oxide at 1000 C, this was not the case in a duplicate test at 800 C
where considerable of the copper wire remained as metal though it was
oxidized on the surface. The replication with power and thermal data may
tell the tale, patience is going to be required before we might make sense
of this miasma. Hopefully no one reports seeing the 'face of Jesus' in the
miasma before the replication and more extensive data is in hand, that would
really confuse matters.

 

 

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

What's to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite
offered by fervent practice of conflation.

 

From: Alberto De Souza [mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com
<mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-
well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-
forum.com%2Fforum%2Fthread%2F5518-mfm

RE: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Russ]

Indeed I am confused by the Lion which is why I am helping perform some careful 
control experiments to sort it all out. Looking first of course to hot copper 
oxide chemistry as the obvious factor that is clearly engaged. Cooked and now 
cooking are quite a number of close approximations of the Lion device and 
conditions, all sans the fusion fuel. Soon some fuelled replications will be in 
the ‘easy bake oven’… The lonely overstuffed arm chair has been jilted for the 
slimmer lab stool.  There are  sound cold fusion paths in these very hot 
deuterated environs where the elusive aspects of atom-ecology can be studied. 
Stay tuned as the data will soon be able to speak for itself rather than being 
represented by the soothsayers and tea leave readers. 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:47 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

I wonder if "the  fervent practice of conflation" means that the fusion meme 
that has been the mainstay of LENR theory for so long should now be retooled to 
somehow  fit into an as of yet unfathomable  understanding of the LION reactor 
meltdown. Russ is among those who are clearly confused by the LION reactor 
meltdown. Here is his analysis as follows:

 

Melting Miasma - The intact Kanthal wire is a witness to the temperature not 
reaching the melting point of kanthal which is listed as being 1500 C. The 
alumina block melts above 2000 C, the quartz melts at just under 1700 C. So if 
the quartz melted likely the kanthal which was in contact with the quartz might 
be expected to melt, not seen. Surely the alumina foam which was outside of the 
quartz melting at 2000 C would not 'melt' without the intervening kanthal 
showing melting which would occur at 1500 C. If during the oxidation of the 
copper that is clearly apparent, that very hot copper oxidation process was 
capable of perhaps breaking the quartz and that copper oxide invaded the 
surrounding materials it might well have bonding with all. Copper oxide melts 
at 1326 C. Copper melts at 1085 C. Nickel melts at 1455 C, don't forget the 
tiny 2.5 mm diameter 10 micron thick nickel pads with the diamonds attached to 
them that are the purported fuel are clearly seen and did NOT melt. Nor did the 
stainless steel bolt that plugged the reactor tube, stainless steels melt 
between 1400-1500 C depending on the alloy.

All theses known materials and melting points bear witness to many temperatures 
that might have been reached in the hot 'reaction' zone. In the 'dummy' test 
runs conducted at Alan's, the maker of the tube furnace test bed, at 1000 C. in 
these dummy runs without any anomalous fuels, aka the nickel diamond discs, the 
aggressive hot chemistry of the copper oxide and is very clearly seen. It has 
fused/bonded itself to the quartz for example. The silver foil that underlaid 
the copper wire winding at the distal end has a melting point 961 C, is 
apparent this temperature was reached as the silver appears to have moved by 
capillary action into the copper/copper oxide material and also appears to have 
been an effective brazing metal on the quartz, something it is known to do in 
common practice when making metal seals on quartz lab wear. All, or almost all, 
the copper was converted to copper oxide at 1000 C, this was not the case in a 
duplicate test at 800 C where considerable of the copper wire remained as metal 
though it was oxidized on the surface. The replication with power and thermal 
data may tell the tale, patience is going to be required before we might make 
sense of this miasma. Hopefully no one reports seeing the 'face of Jesus' in 
the miasma before the replication and more extensive data is in hand, that 
would really confuse matters.

 

 

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

What’s to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite 
offered by fervent practice of conflation.

 

From: Alberto De Souza [mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com 
<mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being 
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031

 

RE: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Russ]

What’s to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite 
offered by fervent practice of conflation.

 

From: Alberto De Souza [mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being 
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031

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

[Russ George]

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" <ahern_br...@msn.com> 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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
> *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-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9B
> dyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz
> 8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%3D%3D
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnmat5065.epdf%3Fshared_access_token%3DClp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9BdyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%253D%253D=02%7C01%7C%7Cf19c67444e5149a60c0a08d56d5181d1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636535119197213620=J%2FbRC%2FwYbHc16eKADvMFS0iigbz%2BaJsEj9JNH6kGo90%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> *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 <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *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.
>
>
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/a-new-
> twist-in-the-dark-matter-tale.html
> <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fmission_pages%2Fchandra%2Fnews%2Fa-new-twist-in-the-dark-matter-tale.html=02%7C01%7C%7Cf19c67444e5149a60c0a08d56d5181d1%7C84df9e7f

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

[Russ]

d inertia (QI)? And what about 
his use of QI to explain galactic mechanics without dark matter?  Does the 
emdrive mistake void the concept of QI?

 

(The Ted talk has been deleted from youtube apparently.

 

Bob Cook

 

From:  <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Bob Higgins

 

I have read McCulloch's book.  His proposition fails in causality.  Filters do 
not form with a filled state, they have a finite impulse response that he 
hadn't addressed when I asked him about it. 

 

Russ < <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here’s Mike McCulloch’s TedX talk last Thursday. It is remarkable work.   
<https://youtu.be/ZsGZsgd-944> https://youtu.be/ZsGZsgd-944  

 

Mike is what one might call as ‘armchair physics anti-matter’ as he annihilates 
the fiction of dark matter with straight forward math and real data, 
eliminating the dark matter fudge that has made a sticky mess of science for a 
long time. 

 

 

 

 

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

[Russ]

Here's Mike McCulloch's TedX talk last Thursday. It is remarkable work.
https://youtu.be/ZsGZsgd-944  

 

Mike is what one might call as 'armchair physics anti-matter' as he
annihilates the fiction of dark matter with straight forward math and real
data, eliminating the dark matter fudge that has made a sticky mess of
science for a long time. 

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Russ]

In the world aptly described where, science progresses funeral by funeral,
this was an observation about the naysayers, not the innovators. The rare
innovator and their innovations are lost funeral by funeral and there is no
tally of the numbers and importance of the losses inflicted upon this world
by the countless pissant not puissant naysayers. The baby boom generation
educational system history will show became little more than pimped
professorial puppy mills. There parents could purchase for their offspring
yet another most expensive and pretentious 'sticker' and the world became
overwhelmed with lost science puppies. The puppies with no outlet for said
training have in most cases moved on to normal lives. Sadly more than a few
have become armchair cranks, malcontents, critics - collectively trolls. The
internet has proven to be an almost perfect puddle for said failing foolish
puppies to troll, splash, and piddle in. On top of this anonymous posting,
the perfect prescription for 'anti-social media' has removed the last
semblance of humanity in science as the plentiful puppies proceed into
prognosticating grumpy old dogs fouling the pathways of science that no one
cleans up after. What separates real scientists from the puppies is time out
of the armchair at the lab bench, and NO, 'theory' is not synonymous with
experiment. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:10 AM
To: ROGER ANDERTON ; vortex-l@eskimo.com;
c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 

Roger-

 

I agree with your timely addition regarding "science" excluding different
thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein's editorial cited below uses the
term "science community" instead of your term "science" to designate the
social entity  which excludes different thinking.  

 

The following from Hagelstein's editorial in which he discusses the fields
of nuclear and condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:

 

"The current view within the scientific community is that these fields have
things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then
the problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in
1989, but now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion
labs is much clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very big effect;
it is reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate energetic
products; there are many replications; and there are other anomalies as
well. Condensed matter physics and nuclear physics together are not
sufficiently robust to account for these anomalies. No defense of these
fields is required, since if some aspect of the associated theories is
incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to break it, so that we
can focus on developing new theory that is more closely matched to
experiment."

 

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment's "science
community."  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by
financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.

 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real
data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

 

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

 

"Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will
be no continuity of effort."

 

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace
afforded by the likes of Mills, 

Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding,
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry
"science community" will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: ROGER ANDERTON  
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  ; c...@googlegroups.com
 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 


>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking.
This is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs
"funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph
by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up 

RE: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion TimesImprovement In Yield

[Russ]

I can confirm the D vs. H experiment shows Pd, Ti, Ag are highly active cold
fusion quantum materials when loaded with D, no similar effect with H. No
effect in Ni with D or H in my experience. Highly active means heat, 4He,
high Z isotope ratio shifts. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield

 

Axil-

 

Did you leave Ni out of your list of LENR capable metals on purpose? B

 

The surface arrangement of electrons and high magnetic field coupling to
nuclear species is a feature of the good LENR metals IMHO.  The examination
of the surface electron configuration (density) should identify likely LENR
candidates with the potential for formation of the heavy fermions.  I think
this is the message from the paper at  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03899.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:08:53 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield 

 

Paintelli tells us that most transition metals are LENR
capable...titanium...copper...tungsten...silver. 

 

On order to prove that this quantum metal hypothesis is the cause of LENR,
all these metals loaded by both deuterium and protium need to be addressed
by experiment.

 

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:34 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>  <bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

Axil-

 

As I read Russ's article, the identification of the LENR  to reported theory
assumes that the Pd cold fusion lattice is in fact a WKSM system/heavy
fermion system.  Note that the lattice for Ce3Bi4Pd3 is similar to a more
pure Pd lattice.  It remains to be seen how different the electron
configuration is for the two lattices.

 

  In addition what about Ni lattices?

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 12:43 PM 
To: vortex-l <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 


Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield

 

Reference: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03899 

 

Weyl-Kondo Semimetal in a Heavy Fermion System

 

I did not see where " deuterate palladium ecosystem" is found to be a
Weyl-Kondo semimetal.

 

The materials used in the experiments for  Weyl-Kondo semimetal were
CeRu4Sn6 and Ce3Bi4Pd3.

 

 

 

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

In this new paper the Weyl-Kondo deuterate palladium ecosystem is seen to
provide more than sufficient conditions for COLD FUSION to occur.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/12/21/weyl-kondo-quantum-semimetal-d
efines-deuterated-palladium/ 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:56 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield

 

IMHO, the muons come from hadronization of the energy stored by the metallic
hydrogen. The energy transferred from hadron decay to the metallic hydrogen
accumulates and is eventually converted to mesons. This energy storage
mechanism might be disrupted through the destruction of the metallic
hydrogen in a runtime cycle. Such an energy store release might be
accomplished with the arc discharge to produce a magnetic field strong
enough to release the energy stored by the metallic hydrogen before enough
is accumulated to catalyze meson production.

 

As another way,  a thick blanket of filbe could also convert the muons to
heat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:08 PM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

From: Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> 

 

*   But Holmlid get a high energy reaction from excitation from a very
low powered laser. A petawatt laser is extreme overkill.

 

 

Yes - but the problem with the Holmlid approach (if we take his claims at
face value) is that the output energy is largely in the form of muons.

 

There is no obvious way to capture muons efficiently since their decay will
occur far away from the reactor. IOW it is hard to convert that kind of
reaction into a usable form and it may be hard to scale. Perhaps that
detail/problem (conversion) is what Holmlid is working on now. I would love
to see his comments on this paper from Hora.

 

In contrast, the boron fusion output is mostly energetic alpha particles,
which can be thermalized easily or better yet, converted directly into
electricity. Plus, there is some doubt about the identity of Holmlid's
copious muons and no rep

RE: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion TimesImprovement In Yield

[Russ]

In this new paper the Weyl-Kondo deuterate palladium ecosystem is seen to 
provide more than sufficient conditions for COLD FUSION to occur. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/12/21/weyl-kondo-quantum-semimetal-defines-deuterated-palladium/
 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:56 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion TimesImprovement 
In Yield

 

IMHO, the muons come from hadronization of the energy stored by the metallic 
hydrogen. The energy transferred from hadron decay to the metallic hydrogen 
accumulates and is eventually converted to mesons. This energy storage 
mechanism might be disrupted through the destruction of the metallic hydrogen 
in a runtime cycle. Such an energy store release might be accomplished with the 
arc discharge to produce a magnetic field strong enough to release the energy 
stored by the metallic hydrogen before enough is accumulated to catalyze meson 
production.

 

As another way,  a thick blanket of filbe could also convert the muons to heat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:08 PM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

From: Axil Axil  

 

*   But Holmlid get a high energy reaction from excitation from a very low 
powered laser. A petawatt laser is extreme overkill.

 

 

Yes - but the problem with the Holmlid approach (if we take his claims at face 
value) is that the output energy is largely in the form of muons.

 

There is no obvious way to capture muons efficiently since their decay will 
occur far away from the reactor. IOW it is hard to convert that kind of 
reaction into a usable form and it may be hard to scale. Perhaps that 
detail/problem (conversion) is what Holmlid is working on now. I would love to 
see his comments on this paper from Hora.

 

In contrast, the boron fusion output is mostly energetic alpha particles, which 
can be thermalized easily or better yet, converted directly into electricity. 
Plus, there is some doubt about the identity of Holmlid’s copious muons and no 
replication has been published. 

 

If Holmlid were to modify his device for the proton-boron reaction, he could 
change a lot of skepticism into belief since it would be easier to measure the 
results, for one thing.

 

Did you notice the mention of super heavy hydrogen in the Hora paper? That is 
most curious given the recent history of Hora and Holmlid working together. Is 
Hora referring to UDH?

 

It may seem that Hora and Holmlid had some kind of falling-out since there is 
no mention of the earlier work and tons of references with no credits.

 

More questions than answers, as of now. 

 

 

 

Here is Holmlid’s patent application -- which is easily amenable to hydrogen 
boron fusion

https://www.google.com/patents/EP2680271A1?cl=en 

Imagine collecting the dense hydrogen on a substrate of boron, which then 
becomes the target for a laser pulse – or double pulse.

Holmlid suggests the dense state can be manufactured and collected as an 
independent step. The ideal way to convert it in a second step would seem to be 
boron fusion.

Holmlid would be wise to specifically add boron fusion to his application. 

Obviously if the new kind of “ponderomotive fusion” can be made to work with 
normal hydrogen, the dense state should even be better as a starting point…

…unless of course the Hora suggestion is indeed making the dense hydrogen in 
the first pulse and reacting it in the second pulse.

In that case, he should have credited Holmlid.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:When the experts weigh in on real High Technology - BEWARE

[Russ]

For every delusional inventor there are an unlimited and unfettered number of 
delusional self-serving pundits who demand that their mere thoughts having no 
pedigree other than their anonymous keyboard pecking are more than equal to any 
inventors efforts. The crisis of social media is that it allows the fallacy of 
such babbling to appear in the ‘balance.’ The infinite number of puppy mills 
that have bastardized the system of academia into a system where doting parents 
buy their dotard children yet another nice sticker albeit in the form of a 
school certificate has overwhelmed true scientific investigation burying the 
signal of invention in the noise of the delusional.

 

From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:47 PM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: [Vo]:When the experts weigh in on real High Technology - BEWARE

 

Despite the alarms we constantly hear, the risk of high level interference with 
advanced technology (even LENR) is not huge – at least due to competitors in 
the energy sector. 

 

The problem is that most overlooked technology simply DOES NOT work except in 
the mind of a delusional inventor. If it works, the top level interference will 
be minimal.

 

The problems will not come from the energy sector itself – in fact those guys 
will be clamoring to buy-in early to any “real” LENR technology, since the one 
thing they have in excess is money and the one thing they lack is foresight. 
Watch out for a few impediments, however, but probably not at the Federal 
level. A few states could get involved as has happened in the past.

 

Case in point: Apple. 

 

WHEN APPLE WENT PUBLIC ON THIS DATE IN 1980, THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS ORDERED 
INVESTORS TO STAY AWAY !!!

 

Apple issued its IPO to the public on this day in 1980.  The famous 1984 TV 
Commercial came later.

 

The Officials in only one state would not permit individual investors to buy 
Apple stock. Many of the other early computer pioneers were located in Mass 
(Data General, Digital Equipment Corporation, etc now defunct).

 

For Shame ! Almost unbelievable but true. One look at Woz, in the days of 
Archie Bunker … well … the lesson here is clear. You cannot judge a book by its 
cover, as they say, and Apple’s cover story was iffy.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=34bddaeade8a11e79560df69f2c4d98c
 

 =nwtpm

 

The messages is that the top stock experts in the second most advanced 
technology state completely blew it -- and denied any ownership to their 
citizens of the most valuable stock ever issued, from the most valuable company 
ever formed - having surpassed the oil giant Exxon, which is itself almost 
unbelievable.

 

If you have something real in alternative energy, the problem will probably not 
be coming from Rick Perry at DoE and his dumb-and-dumber associates. 

 

But for sure, they will not help either. Apple is a good role model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Russ George]

Rossi knows how to feed gadflies

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

 

Rossi has always used demos to drum up investor interest. Rossi is at a pause 
point in the engineering of the QX and is desirous of a manufacturing deal.

 

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Adrian Ashfield  > wrote:

 

the demo served no net purpose 

1.  Andrea Rossi 

November 29, 2017 at 4:32 PM 
  

Italo R.:
Several days after the Stockholm demo we made a very important agreement, that 
will make faster the start of a massive industrial production. These few days 
have been momentous.
Warm regards,
A.R.

On the lenrforum, moderator Alan Smith said he talked to seven investors, some 
existing.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:UDH, wimps, and dark matter

[Russ George]

Just why this insistence on holding on to quark couples or karasses go on is 
puzzling, when a simple bag model for quarks offers the simpler solution. No 
need for melting quarks if their natural ecological state is melted. It’s just 
about how they decide to emerge into our world where and when the energy and 
matter balance make things interesting for us.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:UDH, wimps, and dark matter

 

But why would such large particles be weakly interacting?

 

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:14 AM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

Recently there have been a flurry of News articles about the lack of success in 
finding DM - but the favored candidate is still the WIMP

 

AFAIK there is no satisfactory definition for WIMPS {after all they are dark 
and hard to observe} other than

 

1.  Weakly interacting to an extreme but massive
2.  Mass-energy of between 50 and 100 GeV fits into current theory
3.  Suspiciously close to the Higgs in mass and other features

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles

 

Since they are weakly interacting to a spectacular degree, they could and 
probably do exist primarily in another dimension or as part of the Higgs field. 
One possible decay channel would be for the Higgs boson to decay to two WIMPs, 
each having a rest mass energy of half of the 126 GeV Higgs or about 63 GeV for 
the WIMP. A putative buckyball of UDH would have about the same mass equal to 
60 atoms of UDH as in the carbon model.

 

This is the candidate for WIMPS not yet considered – and in effect it is UDH in 
the form of a bound H60 buckyball – perhaps hidden in the Higgs field which 
itself is another dimension.

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Russ George]

Yes the paper does help. I like the pilot wave convention as surely something 
of that sort is required to explain the cold fusion process which I have been 
working on for so many years. It takes some doing to convert deuterium to 4He 
and even 3He but that surely is irrefutable. 

 

It is curious that the EM drive which is so far ‘outside of the box’ of 
classical physics seems to be close to ‘cold fusion’ I presume we have simply 
expanded the ‘box’ and are thus able to see the relationships. 

 

Thanks for the paper. I am eagerly awaiting some super cooled EM drive data. 

 

Russ 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 7:37 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece 
That Explains How The EM Drive Works

 

Russ,

 

Does this paper help?

 

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

 

 

 

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Alas once again the world of vulture science has placed this seemingly 
interesting paper behind a paywall. We need a grand inquisitor to take on the 
world of science again but this time to apply the screws to those in science 
who put knowledge behind paywalls. The world cannot afford nor should it 
tolerate this sort of perverse capitalism. Science trolls greedily guarding the 
bridges to knowledge need to be eliminated.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 8:23 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece 
That Explains How The EM Drive Works

 

What the pilot wave theory applied to the EM drive does not explicitly say is 
that a coherent wave pattern acts like a large particle. The Em drive becomes a 
large particle. It goes to reason if the EM drive where made coherent then the 
EM drive would be very much more powerful because the coherent resonant pilot 
wave would coherently coupled with the EM drive making everything a single 
giant particle.  A superconductive EM drive would do that.

 

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com> > wrote:

This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM 
Drive Works

http://flip.it/R11OHO

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Russ George]

Alas once again the world of vulture science has placed this seemingly 
interesting paper behind a paywall. We need a grand inquisitor to take on the 
world of science again but this time to apply the screws to those in science 
who put knowledge behind paywalls. The world cannot afford nor should it 
tolerate this sort of perverse capitalism. Science trolls greedily guarding the 
bridges to knowledge need to be eliminated.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 8:23 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece 
That Explains How The EM Drive Works

 

What the pilot wave theory applied to the EM drive does not explicitly say is 
that a coherent wave pattern acts like a large particle. The Em drive becomes a 
large particle. It goes to reason if the EM drive where made coherent then the 
EM drive would be very much more powerful because the coherent resonant pilot 
wave would coherently coupled with the EM drive making everything a single 
giant particle.  A superconductive EM drive would do that.

 

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jack Cole  > wrote:

This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM 
Drive Works

http://flip.it/R11OHO

 

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno latest

[Russ George]

Bob,

 

One can sputter the daylight with Pd in a simple D2 plasma under very simple 
conditions!

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 11:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Mizuno latest

 

Jed,  can I make a request?  Acknowledging your fluency in Japanese and 
relationship with Mizuno ...

In Mizuno's paper, he describes the deposition the preparation of the Ni and 
the Pd with a good deal of text, but in the final part of the preparation (page 
8, figure 10) he describes heating the ceramic heater wrapped in Pd wire to 
700-800°C for 10-20 hours to deposit Pd on the Ni surface.  This may be the 
most important part of the process, yet he only spent 1 small paragraph 
describing the deposition.  

The melting point of Pd is 1550°C and the boiling point of Pd is 2960°C.  
Clearly, at the specified temperature of the ceramic heater, the vapor pressure 
of the Pd is very, very low.  So, without plasma, it is hard to understand how 
any Pd is deposited at all.  Mizuno only describes D2 as being in the chamber - 
there is no Ar that is normally used in sputtering (energetic Ar ions are used 
in sputtering to have a better probability of knocking off atoms of the metal 
due to the high mass of Ar).  Mizuno doesn't describe a DC plasma condition 
that would have been used for striking a glow near the ceramic heater with Pd 
wire for deposition.

Can you ask Mizuno if he can provide an explanation of the mechanism of Pd 
deposition used in conjunction with the ceramic heater wound with the Pd wire?  
Was it an evaporation process, sputtering, or ion plating technique?  Was a 
plasma active during the Pd deposition?  Was it a deuterium plasma?  Was there 
a DC voltage applied between the heated Pd wire and the cathode?

Also, Mizuno shows SEM photos of the Ni mesh cathode surface before and after 
the treatment.  The after photo shows micron scale bulbous growth that I 
surmise from his deposition method cannot be all Pd.  It appears that the 
surface morphology of the Ni has been vastly altered, and probably has only a 
small film thickness of Pd on top of that.  His Ni mesh cathode has a lot of 
area, and he only has a small amount of Pd wire on the ceramic heater.

Can you ask Mizuno what he believes is the thickness of Pd that he has 
deposited by his final deposition process?  I.E. in Figure 32, how thick is the 
Pd film on top of the Ni? 

 

Regards - Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:Thermionic LENR patent 20170213611

[Russ George]

I recall talking with a guy who helped build the first plutonium
thermoelectric device. He told of using thermocouples which were the same
used in refrigerators of the day and bundling them around the plutonium
core. He took it to President Eisenhower's oval office and placed it on the
president's desk and attached a light bulb to it to show it was generating
electricity. Ike approved and a great many were made. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 3:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thermionic LENR patent 20170213611

 

Kevin-

 

That's a great link and indications of things to come. 

 

A higher temperature application may use high temperature thermocouples to
achieve higher efficiencies than thermionic or thermo-tunneling technology.
I believe that space craft use the high temperature provided by Pu-238 decay
to generate electricity via thermos- couple 

Technology.  It is old hat technology from the 1960's ! 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Kevin O'Malley  
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:54 PM
To: vortex-l  
Subject: [Vo]:Thermionic LENR patent 20170213611

 

Openly mentions LENR and Andrea Rossi...


METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR HIGH EFFICIENCY ELECTRICITY GENERATION USING LOW
ENERGY THERMAL HEAT GENERATION AND THERMIONIC DEVICES
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent Application 20170213611 Kind Code: A1

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0213611.html

Abstract:
A system and method are provided for generating electric power from
relatively low temperature energy sources at efficiency levels not
previously available. The present system and method employ recent
advances in low energy nuclear reaction technology and
thermionic/thermotunneling device technology first to generate heat
and then to convert a substantial portion of the heat generated to
usable electrical power. Heat may be generated by a LENR system
employing nuclear reactions that occur in readily available materials
at ambient temperatures without a high energy input requirement and do
not produce radioactive byproducts. The heat generated by the LENR
system may be transferred through one or more thermionic converter
devices in heat transfer relationship with the LENR system to generate
electric power.




Inventors:
Cox, Rodney T. (North Plains, OR, US)
Walitzki, Hans (Portland, OR, US)
Application Number:
13/893318
Publication Date:
07/27/2017
Filing Date:
05/13/2013
View Patent Images:
Download PDF 20170213611 PDF help
Export Citation:
Click for automatic bibliography generation
Assignee:
Borealis Technical Limited (London, GB)
International Classes:
G21D7/04; G21D1/00; G21G1/02; H01J45/00
Attorney, Agent or Firm:
BOREALIS TECHNICAL LIMITED (23545 NW SKYLINE BLVD NORTH PLAINS OR 971339204)
Claims:
1. A high efficiency electric power generating system comprising one
or more low energy nuclear reaction generating means for producing a
reliable source of heat and one or more thermionic converter means in
heat transfer relationship with said low energy nuclear reaction
generating means for receiving said reliable source of heat, wherein
said thermionic converter means is configured to efficiently generate
electric power from said reliable source of heat at an efficiency
within the range from about 10% of Carnot to about 80% of Carnot
efficiency.

2. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said low
energy nuclear power reaction generating means is designed to use low
cost reactants to safely produce a heat generating reaction.

3. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said
thermionic converter means comprises at least a pair of electrodes
separated by a gap, and each one of said pair of spaced electrodes has
an Avto metal surface configuration on a surface of said electrode
facing said gap.

4. The electric power generating system of claim 3, wherein said
thermionic converter means further comprises a first active area in
thermal contact between said low energy nuclear reaction generating
means and one of said electrodes and a second active area in thermal
and electrical contact between another of said electrodes and electric
power destination means.

5. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said
source of heat comprises a heat transfer fluid selected from heat
transfer fluids comprising liquids and gasses.

6. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said low
energy nuclear reaction generating means comprises barrier means
designed and positioned to contain any radioactivity produced when
said source of heat is produced.

7. The electric power generating system of claim 1, comprising a
plurality of low energy nuclear reaction generating means positioned
to be in heat transfer relationship with said one or more thermionic
converter means.

8. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein a
plurality of 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Once in a while a tidbit of real value makes it through the vortex. The Ralph 
Waldo Emerson quote on the Hobgoblins of little minds is one such tidbit, 
Thanks!

 

From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 



On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern   > wrote:
>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> impossible.
>
> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor


I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is to 
assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter -- 
whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase space' of 
possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.

Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...



“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little 
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has 
simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the 
wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what 
to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said 
to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, 
to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and 
Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit 
that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”


― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Brian's words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found
here is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy,
aka bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some
basis in observational experimental results they work from, rather what
Brian calls 'witch doctoring' is far more akin to the selling of snake oil. 

 

Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil
in spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to
show an excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There
he's showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold
fusion far in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades.
The folks who have succeeded at doing so just haven't been willing to share
their hard won know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching
for free. 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

 

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
evidence.  There is none.  

 

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

 

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.

  _  

From: Axil Axil  >
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled 

 

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR
reaction deactivates. 

 

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
   > wrote:

Axil-

 

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing
coupling of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however,
with the transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established
that allow nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react
with production of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the
reaction of a electron and a positron.  

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.


On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  >
wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley  >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  >
wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Obscenity is also the endless spewing of hate that comes from your mouth. Your 
hate mongering is amongst the most obscene that takes place on Vortex. And of 
your take or leave it advice that is classic troll-speak that has always been 
the pitiful recourse of those who do nothing but pontificate from their arm 
chairs. Get a real life. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

This endless trollification by the unflushable malcontents that did not get 
their free feed in the trial are festering into a terrible stench. Give it a 
f*ckng break or at least go see your doctors and get some new meds, there are 
remarkably good meds for senile agitation these days.

 

Obscenity is uncalled for. No one is forcing you to read messages here. If you 
do not wish to read a message, you can ignore it or delete it. If you do not 
wish to see anything from an author, you can block him.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Doesn’t someone here have a toilet plunger to help the damned vortex flush out 
all the turds that are stuck here. This endless trollification by the 
unflushable malcontents that did not get their free feed in the trial are 
festering into a terrible stench. Give it a f*ckng break or at least go see 
your doctors and get some new meds, there are remarkably good meds for senile 
agitation these days. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:

 

The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case.

 

Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is the 
reason. It might be because they determined Rossi has no more money. There is 
no point to suing someone who cannot pay. Here is another possible reason. 
Lawyers tell me that it was mainly a contract dispute, and I.H.'s counter-suit 
regarding the contract was weak.

 

I myself have no idea why they settled. However, I am sure the Penon report is 
not "credible" in this universe according to our laws of physics. It was a 
gross violation of thermodynamics, as Smith pointed out. Also because Florida 
is not located in a vacuum in outer space. I am pretty sure of that.

 

Perhaps the people at I.H. worried that a jury might be as gullible as you are, 
and the jury might think the Florida could be in a vacuum, because what do 
those scientists know, anyway? They are a bunch of elitist know-it-alls with 
their "laws" of "physics." They are so sure of themselves, they think that when 
you take photo of a 15,000 pound machine with pipes running to the ceiling, the 
image has to show up in the camera! Why can't it be invisible??? Huh? You tell 
me! And it was equipped with an anti-gravity machine which is why the mezzanine 
didn't collapse. You didn't think of THAT, did you, Mr. Elite Scientist.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Russ George]

Here here… the comment about the bogus candles of the Hot Fusion cabals for 
decades utterly outshines even ‘brilliant light’ illumination.

 

What transpires here in this whirling vortex is mostly ever dimming 
‘gaslighting’ by the usual suspects.

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Bob Higgins; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

Bob—

 

Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion 
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.

 

Bob Cook

 

Sent from Mail   for Windows 10

 

From: Bob Higgins  
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even 1W of 
excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry demo done 
was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not published 
on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time period 
(at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and 
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is 
inside his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If 
he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with some measure of 
confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this 
way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of 
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty stuff, 
but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something else.

 

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield  > wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will 
demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required photovoltaics 
are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I have 
trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! 
What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.  
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

 

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

 

[Vo]:Vital Dust

[Russ George]

It turns out that universal chemistry has produced some entirely unexpected 
dusty trails to explaining the answer to the question of life, the universe, 
and everything… http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/03/25/3788/ 

RE: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Russ George]

This link might help with the flurry of nonsense in the Vortex 
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dementia/agitation-elderly 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

 

Jones Beene  > wrote:

 

The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive, melted 
uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.

Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 pounds.

 

That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds of 
U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238. You 
can't just walk in and take the U-235. For one thing, you would be dead in a 
few minutes. For another, you need massive separation plants which have not be 
built in decades, because nuclear bombs use Pu, not U.

 

 

For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed until 1975 by 
the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - depending on how 
much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium...

 

Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 and many other 
radioactive elements, and you would need a giant factory to separate out the Pu.

 

This accident caused many problems, but weapons proliferation is not among 
them. The stuff is 100% theft-proof. It would be far harder to steal than the 
Pu deployed in U.S. and Russian warheads.

 

 

and this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ...

 

No, it is right there. Except for the material blown into the air and the 
surroundings by the hydrogen explosions, and the material being washed into the 
ocean by groundwater.

 

 

melting its way down relentlessly . . .

 

It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the 
accident. It is being washed out by groundwater, which the ice wall was 
supposed to stop. Japanese press reports are unclear about how well the wall is 
working.

 

 

The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl.

 

Actually, it was worse. More than 90 of the radioactive materials were blown 
into the sky, and the fine powder circled the globe several times before 
settling out with rain and weather. The sarcophagus closed the barn door long 
after the horse left.

 

 

Nor did radioactivity ever increase drastically over time.

 

Radioactivity did not increase from Chernobyl because the radioactive material 
was dispersed world-wide, mainly to northern Europe. It has increased at 
Fukushima only because the walls crumbled and groundwater washed the material 
out into areas where it can be detected.

 

 

Even if the total damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted 
"fear-mongering" by the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima 
which could be much worse.

 

Not if the groundwater problem can be fixed. That remains to be seen.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See below.

[Russ George]

Yikes!!!

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:44 AM
To: Jed Rothwell; Vortex
Cc: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug marker; Dr.
Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff
aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley;
Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park;
Valerio Ciampoli; vlad
Subject: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very
exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See
below.

 

The data sheet is a testament to the engineer's competence and pride. He
mixes metric units with English units, such as kg/day for a flow rate
instead of grams/second. This shows a lack of training that is not expected
from a senior engineer. We can bring some competence to this data.

Lets examine one day. I choose April 1 for obvious reasons.  Power input =
10.29 Kilowatts

The next column is in units of kWHr/day  . This is mixing units, but
dividing247000  by 24 hours gets us back t 10.29 kW input.

 

The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1 day/84,600
sec/day = 425.5 G/sec 

The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature  rise
of34.8 degrees C.

Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C

The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:

Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat capacity of
water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)

425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second =
62,191watts 

 

The COP is 62.191/10.29 = 6.04That is outstanding! It is far from a
megawatt output, but it would be worth billions if it could be reproduced.
Rossi does not need higher COPs.

However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows where that
came from?

 

 

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell  >
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:36 PM
To: Vortex
Cc: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett;
doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko
Lietz; jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter
Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski;
Sunwon Park; Valerio Ciampoli; vlad
Subject: Re: [Vo]:asking for short opinion papers 

 

Peter Gluck  > wrote:

 

I would publish with great pleasure your opinion

papers re the ERV Daily Valuation Report of the 1MW 1 year test.

 

You did not describe what data you mean. It is here, in document 128-01 -
Exhibit 1.pdf :

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

 

This data is complete bullshit. It describes physically impossible
phenomena, such as a factory in a perfect vacuum with a pressure 0.0 bar,
and water that is exactly the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree
every day for weeks. The instruments used to collect this data were
completely wrong for the task, and the configuration made it impossible to
use any instruments properly. The major problems were described in Exhibit 5
at the above website:

 

124-06 - Exhibit 5.pdf

 

This data proves beyond question that the 1-year test was fraud. It was
inept fraud, which anyone with a half a brain can see at a glance. People
such as Peter Gluck are incapable of seeing it because they are mesmerized
by Rossi, and deluded by wishful thinking.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:LENR OUTLAST

[Russ George]

Timely news in science if ever there were. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/29/matter-made-with-an-extra-dimension-time-crystals/
 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:31 PM
To: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug 
marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; 
jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley; 
Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park; 
Valerio Ciampoli; vlad; VORTEX
Subject: [Vo]:LENR OUTLAST

 




http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-29-2017-in-lenr-you-must-out-f-f.html

 

 

peter

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Time crystals, aka quantum matter

[Russ George]

>From the paper, "The discovery might sound pretty abstract, but it heralds
in a whole new era in physics - for decades we've been studying matter
that's defined as being 'in equilibrium', such as metals and insulators.

But it's been predicted that there are many more strange types of matter out
there in the Universe that aren't in equilibrium that we haven't even begun
to look into, including time crystals. And now we know they're real." 

Seems like a useful point of view.

 

 

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Time crystals, aka quantum matter

 

It seems that the creation and detailed observation of 'time crystals' is
another shoe falling on the head of physics dogma. That such crystals can be
created is evidence that states of matter that are deeply connection in
here-to-fore quantum domains where they share energy is some of what the
doctor ordered, Dr. Schwinger that is, to diagnose the 'cold fusion' of
Fleischmann and Pons. Clearly there is more to the Cheshire cat than his
grin.
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-
of-matter-time-crystals?perpetual=yes
<http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form
-of-matter-time-crystals?perpetual=yes=1> =1 

[Vo]:Time crystals, aka quantum matter

[Russ George]

It seems that the creation and detailed observation of 'time crystals' is
another shoe falling on the head of physics dogma. That such crystals can be
created is evidence that states of matter that are deeply connection in
here-to-fore quantum domains where they share energy is some of what the
doctor ordered, Dr. Schwinger that is, to diagnose the 'cold fusion' of
Fleischmann and Pons. Clearly there is more to the Cheshire cat than his
grin.
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-
of-matter-time-crystals?perpetual=yes
 =1 

RE: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Russ George]

Way way south!

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

 

Mark LeClair's credibility is somewhere South of Rossi.  He has made no
demonstrations in over four years.

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:49 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area 

 

Mark LeClair has characterized this water crystal which includes its
isolation and photograph. Believe it or not.

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Cavitating bubble collapse doesn't produce metalized water. Long before the
density has risen to such levels the atoms within the collapsing bubble are
very hot, upwards of tens of thousands of degrees, more than sufficient to
be ionized hence the bubble if not filled with water rather ionized species
that are being compressed. The hydrogen therein easily reaches a ultra-dense
plasma state and it is more or less separated from the oxygen. In asymmetric
bubble collapse that I have for 25 years worked with as a tool to create and
inject this ultra-dense hydrogen, or rather deuterium, into various metals
this state of ultra-dense deuterium becomes obviously useful and results in
prodigious cold fusion and production of 4He. Matching work with ordinary
hydrogen does NOT produce anomalous results. Studies on my materials using
x-ray diffraction and other means in  top national labs have revealed very
stable ultra-dense hydrogen stored inside the metal subject material. Very
potent explosive compression of said materials by those accustomed to such
trades in the dark world have NOT resulted in more conventional nuclear
reactions, or so they said. Depending on the metals used an array of
isotopic ratio shifts of interesting nuclei appears that reveals some
expected and unexpected pathways. The technological development path is
hindered by the tremendous efficiency of such sono-fusion which far too
often leads to thermal destruction of the experiment. Technology development
of this method of cold fusion is clearly possible but requires a degree of
sophistication and resources that are beyond my Palo Alto garage tech.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

 

Not only hydrogen can be metalized, so can water. The collapse of the
cavitation bubble can produce pressor high enough to form the metalized
water. IMHO, it is this metalized water that produces the erosion of the
target material seen in cavitation. This metalized water can erode diamond.
This indicates that this as well as all metalized material is protested by a
SHIELD of EMF that keeps it from decomposition. 

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Axil,

Seeing this reference to bubble fusion brings up the memory of Impulse
Devices, Inc and Ross Tessien, the inventor who used to post here on Vortex
a decade ago when it looked like acoustic cavitation was on the verge of
success. 

They were located in Grass Valley CA - and even offered a sonofusion reactor
for sale. Not many were sold. Ross and Impulse Devices owned many patents,
which are listed on the citation below - deriving from Flynn's work, which
also collapsed, so to speak. I checked on a few of them: Expired due to
failure to pay maintenance fee

Sad but true. This indicates that the company saw so little future in their
IP that they let the patent expire rather than pay the fee to keep it in
force. However, in this case the company sold out and the new owners are
pursuing sonochemistry instead of sonofusion. They are called Burst
Laboratories, Inc and have been fairly successful, I have heard. I am not
sure if Ross still follows LENR or not.

I guess one could say even though the sonofusion bubble burst, there was a
silver lining ...

 

 Axil Axil wrote:

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and
reactor therefor 
US 4333796 A

ABSTRACT

Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed.

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Russ George]

Cavitating bubble collapse doesn’t produce metalized water. Long before the 
density has risen to such levels the atoms within the collapsing bubble are 
very hot, upwards of tens of thousands of degrees, more than sufficient to be 
ionized hence the bubble if not filled with water rather ionized species that 
are being compressed. The hydrogen therein easily reaches a ultra-dense plasma 
state and it is more or less separated from the oxygen. In asymmetric bubble 
collapse that I have for 25 years worked with as a tool to create and inject 
this ultra-dense hydrogen, or rather deuterium, into various metals this state 
of ultra-dense deuterium becomes obviously useful and results in prodigious 
cold fusion and production of 4He. Matching work with ordinary hydrogen does 
NOT produce anomalous results. Studies on my materials using x-ray diffraction 
and other means in  top national labs have revealed very stable ultra-dense 
hydrogen stored inside the metal subject material. Very potent explosive 
compression of said materials by those accustomed to such trades in the dark 
world have NOT resulted in more conventional nuclear reactions, or so they 
said. Depending on the metals used an array of isotopic ratio shifts of 
interesting nuclei appears that reveals some expected and unexpected pathways. 
The technological development path is hindered by the tremendous efficiency of 
such sono-fusion which far too often leads to thermal destruction of the 
experiment. Technology development of this method of cold fusion is clearly 
possible but requires a degree of sophistication and resources that are beyond 
my Palo Alto garage tech.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

 

Not only hydrogen can be metalized, so can water. The collapse of the 
cavitation bubble can produce pressor high enough to form the metalized water. 
IMHO, it is this metalized water that produces the erosion of the target 
material seen in cavitation. This metalized water can erode diamond. This 
indicates that this as well as all metalized material is protested by a SHIELD 
of EMF that keeps it from decomposition. 

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Axil,

Seeing this reference to bubble fusion brings up the memory of Impulse Devices, 
Inc and Ross Tessien, the inventor who used to post here on Vortex a decade ago 
when it looked like acoustic cavitation was on the verge of success. 

They were located in Grass Valley CA - and even offered a sonofusion reactor 
for sale. Not many were sold. Ross and Impulse Devices owned many patents, 
which are listed on the citation below - deriving from Flynn's work, which also 
collapsed, so to speak. I checked on a few of them: Expired due to failure to 
pay maintenance fee

Sad but true. This indicates that the company saw so little future in their IP 
that they let the patent expire rather than pay the fee to keep it in force. 
However, in this case the company sold out and the new owners are pursuing 
sonochemistry instead of sonofusion. They are called Burst Laboratories, Inc 
and have been fairly successful, I have heard. I am not sure if Ross still 
follows LENR or not.

I guess one could say even though the sonofusion bubble burst, there was a 
silver lining ...

 

 Axil Axil wrote:

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and 
reactor therefor 
US 4333796 A

ABSTRACT

Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Energy balance paper on AIP

[Russ George]

I am awaiting Holmlid's test of this same experiment while using a thick walled 
cylinder made of gadolinium. Or indeed tests made with a variety of other 
interesting metals with obvious characteristics. Clearly the technological 
methods to improve upon this simple, yet breakthrough, experiment are obvious 
to many. There are more than a few technological paths to follow that offer 
multiplier effects. The 'coincidental' similarities with many of the lessor 
known 'cold fusion' works and this work are likely to result in a unification 
of the two fields albeit most likely in the form of a line not a point.  

While Vortex had some good members it really is a 'peanut gallery' which makes 
it difficult at times. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:21 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Energy balance paper on AIP

http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4928572

This is perhaps the most interesting and controversial of Holmlid's papers. He 
documents a measured gain above breakeven in a copper cylinder, despite 
systemic losses, and suggests that 20:1 gain would be possible in a more 
sophisticated version.

Contrast that with NIF - the National Ignition Facility at Livermore - where 
after at least $25 billion down the tubes, they have not achieved real 
breakeven and probably never will unless they add a step to make UDD for the 
target.

It is a bit of a surprise that the Holmlid paper even appears on AIP since one 
can imagine that the editors have received pressure to have it removed.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Russ George]

Holmlid’s mechanism is more likely a means to make ‘spillover’ hydrogen which 
is ready to become ultra-dense in a conveniently adjacent hydrogen loving 
lattice.  The laser stimulation helps condense the spillover hydrogen into that 
ultra-dense hydrogen form which has a significant character of being stable. 
That unexpected ‘cold fusion ready’ dense hydrogen stability has been 
uncommonly reported by the best cold fusioneers since 1989. 

 

The US Navy definitively described this phenomenal dense hydrogen ‘stability’ 
lasting weeks many years ago in studies of my highly reactive cold fusion 
materials which their scientists collected from my experiments with their own 
hands while I was required to stand aside so that no ‘magician’s trickery’ 
could be possible. They brought their own palladium to my lab, loaded it 
themselves in my apparatus, and removed their palladium when it had clearly 
begun to show massive anomalous heat (hundreds of watts not milliwatts) and 
took it back to their lab for thorough study.  Those who think this field of 
cold fusion is all about truth and justice and good scientific behavior are 
fooling themselves, it is and has been a down and dirty fight over what form of 
energy is allowed in society and simple low cost transformative energy 
technology is fought tooth and claw with ‘alternative facts’ by those with 
established energy to sell and protect.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

 

Re: "Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?"

The experiments of Holmlid explains how these nanoparticles work. IMHO in the 
Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of 
hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection 
foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What 
this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a 
special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green 
laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This 
generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled 
combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin 
wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge 
amounts of energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. 
This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions 
as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of 
the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, 
the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not 
recharge with more nuclear energy.

Holmlid has said that when the collection foil containing this rydberg matter 
is exposed to room light, the production of muons increase dramatically.

These production of muons continues for hours after the light is removed and 
gradually stops over an extended time.

It seems to me, that the UDH is capable of long term energy storage that 
defuses gradually over time. When that energy loss is replensihed by the action 
of applied light, the storage limit is reached and the UDH begines to produce 
muons again.

 

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:55 PM,  > wrote:

Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser source 
IMHO.  

 

Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?

As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to produce 
much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface reaction 
Holmild suggests..  

 

Does anyone know what the reaction of a anti-proton/proton annihilation 
produces—are there typically muons observed or only energetic photons, back to 
back?

 

( The following description from Wikipedia does not seem to apply since the 
input energy is to low—

“ When a   proton encounters its  
 antiparticle (and more generally, if 
any species of   baryon encounters the 
corresponding   antibaryon), the 
reaction is not as simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an 
electron, a proton is a  
 composite 
particle consisting of three   
"valence quarks" and an indeterminate number of  
 "sea quarks" bound by  
 gluons. Thus, when a proton encounters an 
antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may 
annihilate with an   antiquark (which 
more rarely could be a sea quark) to produce a gluon, after which the 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

While I was ‘lobbing insults’ you were not the target. I have found your ideas 
and criticisms well thought out. Some others n Vortex-l not so. 

 

There is still the issue of Holmlid’s work being so very similar to some of the 
cold fusion work in terms of experimental design and operation. That he has 
some hits with similar data is intriguing and very suggestive. I for one read 
Holmlid’s papers with an eye for serendipity not profound independent proof. I 
forgive most for putting forth their ideas as to ‘theory’ especially when such 
ideas come from experimentalists. I have much less regard, often verging on 
utter disregard, for the theories of the armchair crowd though I do read such 
ideas. 

 

It is ‘troll-ism’ to hold single papers in a person’s decades of work to 
scathing critiques most especially when bathed in semantics. As Thomas 
Jefferson once said, “ I have no respect for a man who can spell a word only 
one way.” The same is even more true with scientific semantics. 

 

Progress in made more by active explorers following what seem to be good leads 
and not by those shooting down poor leads. This is why pioneers cross many 
bridges in the light of day and why trolls live festering in the dark and damp 
under said bridges. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's previous 
publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't consider), I 
have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back through his papers 
to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going back to the more solidly 
based work on RM.  I am not questioning his experimental data, just his 
interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he presumes that a solid case for 
the existence of H(0) has already been made.   

For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid 
regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his 
fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or Millsian 
classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after the fact.  
His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion explanation for 
the energy in the particles he measures and how close two protons would have to 
be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his calculation.  Coulombic energy would 
have to be a potential energy (like a compressed spring) that would have to be 
ADDED to get that much energy in an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater 
spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a 
lower Hamiltonian energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  
The foundation for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a 
ridiculous, contradictory case has been made for it.

 

Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That is 
entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the surface 
of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we 
should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his 
data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick layer of 
RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a laser?  How would 
plasmons form in layered structure comprised of dielectric, atom-thick 
superconductive film, and normally conductive metal?  What would be the 
consequences of polaritons in such a system?

Think before lobbing insults.

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinki

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Thanks Eric please do add me to your kill file, nothing could please me more.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.

 

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed and 
close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.  Unfortunately 
the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard to call up.

 

Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog.

 

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here 
they might apply to:

 

1b. Noun 

A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members 
of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous 
disagreements, sex, status, ect. 

A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who 
flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread. 

 

1c. Noun 

A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. 
Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather 
continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member 
of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple 
names to circumvent getting banned. 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

 

But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from the 
lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l often 
digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to add 
you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it is only 
to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of substance, rather 
than being detained in addressing further ad hominem attacks.

 

All the best,

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced. This 
makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming contradiction 
between some of his works.

 

Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old stuff 
from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of some 
reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states a 
different case.

 

Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works and 
theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

 

In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:

.

"They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [ 

 2]. This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [ 

 7]."

 

 J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that 
contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".

 

There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

 

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

 

You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole 
superconductivity,

 

IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills alternative science. 
It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and effort. With all its 
complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy to take on. Holmlid needs 
more validation before people will feel sanguine in investing the time and 
effort to take his science seriously.

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a statement, 
and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go through the string 
of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of faith, but not logical 
support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems to still rely entirely on 
the particle velocities whose measured energy has come entirely from an 
improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".  Coloumbic potential energy 
would have to be stored in the system - I.E. placed there by some process of 
squeezing the atoms into some metastable state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is 
being portrayed as having lower Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one 
would expect ordinary H2 gas as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - 
even more than H(0) since H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to 
Holmlid (see his figure in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other 
works).

Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These 
condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been 
thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just the 
opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2, making the 
local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.  There have been 
molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra computed and matched to 
observed spectra.  The basis and characterization of RM is very strong.  
Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong basis for RM onto his 
conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be only hand-waving - and 
hand-waving with contradictory claims.

H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen 
condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM - though 
Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's description 
of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right angles which form a 
tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.  Evidence is claimed for 
matching rotational 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

 life) of 
the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, 
the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not 
recharge with more nuclear energy.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com 
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the 
D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so that 
both me and your grandmother can understand it.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com 
<mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons?  If the 
data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then resonant 
stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different results 
statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being likely.

 

Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their kinetic 
energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild.

 

Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether the 
standard theory is at risk?  I’ll take a look at this issue myself and report 
back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events, if I can 
figure it out. 

 

Bob Cook

 

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

 

From: Russ George <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of 
detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which we 
cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that distribution. 
This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson beasties which 
presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear reaction rate, aka cold 
fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for worse. For the capture of 
crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it seems a combined 
intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to scintillation detector, aka GMT, 
works just fine provided the reaction rate is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  
more is better remember we are out on a limb here. Any ideas about what might 
‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium as it is the best neutron reflector. Such 
reflectors might improve the containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties 
stay close enough for detection. 

 

Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have our 
di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a transparent 
beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s wrong with this 
computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you are 
saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the 
reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many 
are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his reactor.  The 
decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some probability of a 
decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see mesons -> 
muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more further away from the 
reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path from 
the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged and 
likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting 
photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons 
are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and scintillators basically 
means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They may not be produced in 
Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading the paper to understand the 
case he is claiming.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Bob Higgins wrote:

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 


Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to u

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of 
detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which we 
cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that distribution. 
This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson beasties which 
presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear reaction rate, aka cold 
fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for worse. For the capture of 
crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it seems a combined 
intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to scintillation detector, aka GMT, 
works just fine provided the reaction rate is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  
more is better remember we are out on a limb here. Any ideas about what might 
‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium as it is the best neutron reflector. Such 
reflectors might improve the containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties 
stay close enough for detection. 

 

Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have our 
di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a transparent 
beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s wrong with this 
computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you are 
saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the 
reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many 
are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his reactor.  The 
decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some probability of a 
decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see mesons -> 
muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more further away from the 
reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path from 
the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged and 
likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting 
photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons 
are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and scintillators basically 
means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They may not be produced in 
Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading the paper to understand the 
case he is claiming.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Bob Higgins wrote:

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 


Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to understand. 

At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see the 
reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that time, 
due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons.

As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one 
positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the muon 
but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the particles are 
tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. Thus the reactor is 
transparent to the progenitor particle.

This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then 
calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of muons 
which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a large sphere. 
However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are usable, since they 
start out as a neutral meson.

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Amongst the thousands of scientists who work with CERN most are still driven by 
true scientific curiosity, the holiest of holy's. Alas many are simply 
avaricious testosterone mutants, those sorts of personalities all to often 
float to the top where they are noticeable by all three senses.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 12:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

When you think about it - why would CERN want to test Holmlid's device ?

Isn't it lose, lose, lose for them... if the test is successful? 
Hundreds of lucrative jobs could be lost. Prestige is a stake. Big science is 
at stake. Where is the silver lining for CERN?

Of course, the "science" alone should be the main concern of all scientists, 
but it seldom is.

Mel Brooks tells it like it pretty much like it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his commitment. 
Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a complete fool or 
a disreputable troll.

 

Perhaps you're insinuating something that wasn't suggested or intended?

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

That’s good to hear that Holmlid is using bubble detectors, they are superb for 
this sort of measurement. It’s of course all about how many activations might 
take place.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:30 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid uses bubble detectors to check for neutrons and no bubbles have ever 
been seen.

 

The production of quack soup through heavy element ion collisions that they do 
at CERN have to produce some neutrons.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics 
experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to risk 
the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known without some 
preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated detector to study my 
mischugenon producing technology which is very very similar to Holmlid's tech. 
But minutes before testing I had second thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I 
spent some hours talking over the test and possibilities once again with the 
builders of the instrument who had been so gracious as to loan it to me. We 
collectively decided that if indeed what my data had shown in previous 
instruments were repeated it was very likely it would cause instantaneous 
irreparable damage to the instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved 
somewhat like neutrons which if even a trace were present might produce neutron 
activation. Even the slightest creation of activated species would give a 
signal for the history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was 
many orders of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even 
though I was one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> ]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay:
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at 
once...


Axil Axil wrote:
> Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that
> that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the
> particle physics at CERN.



 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Some of us in the cold fusion experimentalist world offered in public in front 
of witnesses to demonstrate cold fusion to Huizenga, who agreed though insisted 
he’d do so only in a lab of his choosing, the lab agreed, independent 
scientists volunteered to witness. Huizenga being the lying conniving troll 
that he was reneged on his commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a 
credible person is either a complete fool or a disreputable troll. 

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Eric Walker; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Eric---

 

You would think so that the high energy folks at CERN would comment, unless 
they are concerned about their future at CERN.

 

I would pick others to give reputable reports on muons.  

 

I would look to the comments of retired high energy physicists that worked on 
the super collider in Texas or at the Standard Linear Accelerator.   Better 
yet, someone not affiliated with big time physics experiments and/or 
development such as CERN AND  ITER. 

 

   “It’s as dead as ever,” Dr.  

 Huizenga told The New York Times in an interview. “It’s quite unbelievable 
that the thing has gone on for 10 years.”

 

I hope you are not reading from a page out of Huizinga’s debunk book. 

 

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker  
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:

 

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their experiment 
inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that detector will be 
ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle physics at CERN.

 

Good to know.  It will be interesting to hear what the particle physicists at 
CERN report (in contrast to another report from Holmlid or Holmlid and 
Olafsson).

 

Eric

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics 
experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to risk 
the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known without some 
preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated detector to study my 
mischugenon producing technology which is very very similar to Holmlid's tech. 
But minutes before testing I had second thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I 
spent some hours talking over the test and possibilities once again with the 
builders of the instrument who had been so gracious as to loan it to me. We 
collectively decided that if indeed what my data had shown in previous 
instruments were repeated it was very likely it would cause instantaneous 
irreparable damage to the instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved 
somewhat like neutrons which if even a trace were present might produce neutron 
activation. Even the slightest creation of activated species would give a 
signal for the history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was 
many orders of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even 
though I was one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay: 
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at 
once...


Axil Axil wrote:
> Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their 
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that 
> that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the 
> particle physics at CERN.

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when
you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle
accelerator."  Are the necessary conditions present in Holmlid's experiment?


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:29:37 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack 
>the ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the
puzzle.

I agree, however before I accept it, I would prefer to know exactly how the
speed measurements were done. I have a feeling (and it's nothing more than
that), that the response times of the electronics may not properly have been
taken into consideration.

The other point that I would make is to repeat something I said back in 2015
when we first looked at Holmlid. 

It is well known that when you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a
bench top GeV particle accelerator.
So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Holmlid's energetic particles
were the result of such a process. In short "mundane", not extraordinary,
and not indicative of new physics.
Nevertheless, if such a process turns out to be a very efficient means of
creating muons, then it might form the basis of a useful energy source
anyway.
(Through D-D fusion).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack the
ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the puzzle.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made
a complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.)
:)

I think I may have found either my mistake or Einstein's. ;)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

it looks like the Pythagorean relationship, which would seem to imply that
we are looking at perpendicular vectors. However both energy and energy
squared are scalars, so something is wrong. Note also that all the terms
have the dimension of energy squared, implying that the "vectors" have the
dimension of energy.

Note that if Einstein is correct, then Ek is not p*c, which would be where I
made my mistake here below (in my previous email). 

Consider this:-

Et = Ek + Ep (where Et is total energy, Ek is kinetic energy, Ep is
potential
energy)

=> Et^2 = (Ek + Ep)^2 = Ek^2 + 2EpEk + Ep^2

Now compare this to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

It looks very similar except that the term "2EpEk" is missing. That missing
term is exactly what would happen if Ep and Ek were perpendicular vectors,
forming the sides of a right triangle, and Et was the hypotenuse. In which
case according to Pythagoras we get Et^2 = Ek^2 + Ep^2. Now this looks just
like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

The only problem is that Ek & Ep are not vectors, they are scalarsunless
there is some dimension I am ignoring in which energy is the magnitude of a
vector quantity??


>The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit 
>corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit 
>this proposed correction through this comment method.
>
>On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.016
>> >9895
>>
>> I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either 
>> that, or I did).
>>
>> He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.
>>
>> I think this derives from the formula:-
>>
>> (sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.
>>
>> where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).
>>
>> However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.
>>
>> From Einstein we get:-
>>
>> Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).
>>
>> p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.
>>
>> => Ek = m*v*c
>> => Ek/m = v*c
>> => Ek/(mc) = v
>>
>> 500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,
>>
>> So
>>
>> 500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c
>>
>> => v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,
>>
>> 500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The devil is in the details. The presence of helium but absence of tritium
if ‘muon catalyzed fusion’ is present is a puzzling. Unless the channel is
potently redirected to 4He which coherent behavior might allow for.



As for “proton annihilation” Holmlid only says that the experiment does
not exhibit evidence of ‘positron annihilation’. That comment seems to be
about some similar paper from a parallel universe.



From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:43 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.



Regarding:



4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons -
the weak force is not involved at this point.



The weak force must be amplified because all radioactive isotopes produced
by the reactions are instantaneously stabilized including tritium from DD
fusion.



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:



You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this
paper.

This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation."
If is important to use the correct semantics here.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of protons.


2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the
age of the Universe

4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons -
the weak force is not involved at this point.

4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than any
decay event.

5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
reactor.

6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into the
system.

7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
deuterons.

8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost hundreds
of meters away.

7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.

Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton annihilation
to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus breakeven or net gain
requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using deuterium. As of now, Holmlid
has not shown a way to reach breakeven without deuterium fusion being the
primary source of USABLE energy.



On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows:



The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that
this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed
and observed [  16,
 17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions.
>From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the
interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons
correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in
internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the
energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in
various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments,
the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their
decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to
their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.



Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from.
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).



Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle
will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.



Fusion is just as secondary side issue.



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with
fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No
one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion
in deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay
too far away to provide gain.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that it is a 
Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… Here’s my 
historical point of view 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/
 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

 

You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this 
paper. 

This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation." If 
is important to use the correct semantics here.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of protons. 

2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the age 
of the Universe

4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons - the 
weak force is not involved at this point.

4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than any 
decay event. 

5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the 
reactor.

6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into the 
system.

7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze deuterons.

8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost hundreds of 
meters away.

7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3 MeV - 
that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.

Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton annihilation to 
mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus breakeven or net gain 
requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using deuterium. As of now, Holmlid 
has not shown a way to reach breakeven without deuterium fusion being the 
primary source of USABLE energy.

 

On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows: 

 

The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this 
involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and 
observed [ 

 16, 

 17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks 
in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons 
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. 
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 
MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The 
kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In 
the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly 
normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before 
they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.

 

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from. 
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is 
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

 

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can 
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will 
still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

 

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No one 
cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion in 
deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used 
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay too 
far away to provide gain.

Jones

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Let the semantics of the theorists begin…. Arrgggh. That in this complex 
environment the atom ecology and resulting behaviours including fusion is more 
complex than can be semantically dumbed down to one moniker is what is 
described in this paper. Theorists will always look for brain numbing debates 
over minutia while pioneering technologists are happy with helping hints of in 
what general direction one might choose to go next.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:35 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:

 

Holmlid writes:

 

Quote

The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to 
time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even 
the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this 
assumption [ 

 21– 

 23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest 
energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons 
with 14.7 MeV [ 

 57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, 
which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced 
D+D fusion study in D(0) [ 

 14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present 
experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle 
velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the 
laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs  

 4,  

 6 and  

 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent 
that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than 
ordinary fusion.

 

Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of fusion as 
the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words, the primary 
reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons. Kaon production 
points to a amplified weak force decay process working to decay protons and 
neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga electron volts per 
reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted to mesons. There is a 
huge amount of energy consumed in meson production, and a trifling amount to 
heat.

 

As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion fusion 
occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.

 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

 

This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to earlier 
work. There had been an open question about the necessity of deuterium, as 
opposed to protium - but now that is answered.

Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in LENR. 
This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger of ICF 
hot fusion with cold fusion.

However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and 
meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the 
proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with 
protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.

Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by 
laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion 
processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a relatively 
weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear fusion in D(0) 
gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15 

 ]. END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above 
breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium is 
implied.

Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen. But 
with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the mesons, and this 
provides the excess heat, which is not the case with protons. The 24 MeV gamma 
is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 20 MeV indicating that 4 
deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? That is reminiscent of Takahasi's 
tetrahedral theory. 

However, ordinary D+D fusion 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Holy Cow Batman, this stunning comprehensive paper reports the unambiguous
observation of unusual DD fusion with both 4He a 3He pathways. The 4He path
occurs with only 3Mev, the 3He with 14Mev. Further the muons are expelled at
500 Mev. The magic being ultra-dense hydrogen, both deuterium and protium,
which forms in a hydrogen loaded metal which is the laser target. 75% of the
particles emitted are of a mysterious neutral character which the author
muses might be a 'quasi-neutron', clearly such unusual neutron-like particle
are behaving in what some might describe as a 'crazy' manner, aka a
mischugenon as Edward Teller once referred. The energy balance is indeed
interesting with a COP of 450 (this groups vernacular) inferred from the
very high quality measurements. The paper surely offers some practical
guidance to a few of us working on 'cold fusion' technologies, now where did
I put my ray gun. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:58 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

 


Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


 

A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great. I
respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
evidence.

 

The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.

RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear spallation and resonance

[Russ George]

This explanation does not apply to the ‘moving particles’ that are clearly 
involved which though mostly remaining and reacting within the solid state 
matrix are also found as strange ‘particle emissions.’ A hydrino doesn’t bear 
the characteristics of a penetrating particle which clearly said particles are, 
I don’t see hydrinos being both not captured and captured when passing through 
various materials and especially I don’t see hydrinos behaving with such 
materials in accordance with neutron capture cross sections! 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear 
spallation and resonance

 

Gamma mitigation might lie in how nuclear reactions occur inside a Bose 
condinsate.

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:11 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com 
<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> > wrote:

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:50:44 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>Mischugenons however unlike 'hydrinos' do produce irrefutable isotopic
>shifts in recipient nuclei,

During Hydrino fusion, two things can happen:-

1) A proton fuses with the target nucleus, resulting in a change of element.

or

2) A proton & an electron fuse concurrently with the target nucleus resulting in
an isotope shift in the original element, since essentially they combine to
create a new neutron. This is enhanced electron capture. Enhanced, because the
electron is severely shrunken, making it much easier to capture than a normal
atomic electron.

>though the quantity of shifted isotopes is much
>lower

lower or higher?


>than the apparent mischugenon flux as measured/inferred by the
>resulting weak emissions! Perhaps a 'third' miracle is needed, oh shit, will
>it ever all be revealed.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>  
>[mailto:mix...@bigpond.com <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> ]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:36 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
>spallation and resonance
>
>In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:53:41 -0800:
>Hi Russ,
>[snip]
>>Agreed that is the second miracle required! But is there any standing
>>reported evidence for strange mishugenonistic neutron resonance, aka
>>reflected neutrons, that subsequently behave in a manner effecting the
>>lack of 'energetic gamma'-less absorbing of neutrons save perhaps
>>invoking quasi-dark matter-like behavior, nah... ;) Perhaps said
>>resonant conditioned mischugenon/neutrons would behave somewhat like
>>normal neutrons and be captured preferentially by nuclei according to
>>their neutron capture cross-section resulting in only rather weak
>>emissions. Such beasties would be revealed by the pattern of measurable
>>though weak emissions increasing as they passed through thin foils of
>>metals with increasing neutron capture cross sections, I can live with that
>:) That's a neat experiment and result!
>>http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/edward-teller/
>
>Are you the "I" in this tale?
>
>As for "mischugenons" they sound a lot like well shrunken Hydrinos. Not as
>small as neutrons, so they penetrate the electron shells of atoms less
>easily, and need to tunnel into the target nucleus, reducing the reaction
>rate. When they merge with a target nucleus, the resultant energy can be
>carried by the accompanying electron, or by the other proton if the initial
>particle was a Hydrino molecule. The latter possibility in particular might
>account for a considerable reduction in emitted gammas (by many orders of
>magnitude).
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

 

RE: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

[Russ George]

I don’t think anyone is really speaking of “target” nuclei in cold fusion. 
That’s been off the table since the beginning. It’s just semantics as to how to 
describe the ‘many bodies.’  Most assuredly there are moving reactive/fusing 
‘particles’ the evidence for that is clear. Those particles are moving in as 
yet an ill-defined fashion. 

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:24 PM
To: mix...@bigpond.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

 

Robin—

 

I think it’s a mistake to consider a coherent system with target nuclei.

 

Target nuclei make sense in two or three body reactions, but not in a solid 
state coherent system with many bodies coupled together with a single energy 
and spin state at any given instant.  

 

Bob Cook

 

  

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

 

From: mix...@bigpond.com <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

 

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:22:23 -0800:

Hi,

>Something smelts here.

 

:) 

 

Yes, I guess Al might have been lost through vaporization, but K increased 3

fold.

 

Since they used two separate bulbs, any differences could also be a simple

result of variance in manufacture.

Also creation of a plasma in the bulb could result in migration of elements due

to temperature gradients, resulting in localized concentrations.

 

> 

>-Original Message-

>From: mix...@bigpond.com <mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>  
>[mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 

>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:12 PM

>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 

>Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

> 

>In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:15:42 -0500:

>Hi,

>[snip]

>>Microwave Induced Nuclear Transmutation in Compact Flourescent Lamps 

>>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WUlh4c3dJWlh5Rjg/view

>> 

>> From MFMP facebook.

> 

>They talk a lot about the minor changes in P, Si, S, but make no mention of

>the large change in K, Al.

> 

>Regards,

> 

>Robin van Spaandonk

> 

>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

> 

Regards,

 

Robin van Spaandonk

 

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

 

 

RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear spallation and resonance

[Russ George]

Mischugenons however unlike 'hydrinos' do produce irrefutable isotopic
shifts in recipient nuclei, though the quantity of shifted isotopes is much
lower than the apparent mischugenon flux as measured/inferred by the
resulting weak emissions! Perhaps a 'third' miracle is needed, oh shit, will
it ever all be revealed. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
spallation and resonance

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:53:41 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>Agreed that is the second miracle required! But is there any standing 
>reported evidence for strange mishugenonistic neutron resonance, aka 
>reflected neutrons, that subsequently behave in a manner effecting the 
>lack of 'energetic gamma'-less absorbing of neutrons save perhaps 
>invoking quasi-dark matter-like behavior, nah... ;) Perhaps said 
>resonant conditioned mischugenon/neutrons would behave somewhat like 
>normal neutrons and be captured preferentially by nuclei according to 
>their neutron capture cross-section resulting in only rather weak 
>emissions. Such beasties would be revealed by the pattern of measurable 
>though weak emissions increasing as they passed through thin foils of 
>metals with increasing neutron capture cross sections, I can live with that
:) That's a neat experiment and result!
>http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/edward-teller/

Are you the "I" in this tale?

As for "mischugenons" they sound a lot like well shrunken Hydrinos. Not as
small as neutrons, so they penetrate the electron shells of atoms less
easily, and need to tunnel into the target nucleus, reducing the reaction
rate. When they merge with a target nucleus, the resultant energy can be
carried by the accompanying electron, or by the other proton if the initial
particle was a Hydrino molecule. The latter possibility in particular might
account for a considerable reduction in emitted gammas (by many orders of
magnitude).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

[Russ George]

Something smelts here.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:15:42 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Microwave Induced Nuclear Transmutation in Compact Flourescent Lamps 
>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WUlh4c3dJWlh5Rjg/view
>
> From MFMP facebook.

They talk a lot about the minor changes in P, Si, S, but make no mention of
the large change in K, Al.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Speaking of Two Miracles - Knock knock knockin on heaven's door

[Russ George]

When one needs more than one miracle you might need divine assistance.
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/39 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
spallation and resonance

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:50:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Indeed where is the neutron activation, lots of nuclei in the 
>neighborhood yet neither activation nor knock on's is very odd. One 
>miracle to a customer, getting neutrons out of nuclei is the 'one miracle'.

The second is absorbing neutrons without creating any gammas.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear spallation and resonance

[Russ George]

Agreed that is the second miracle required! But is there any standing
reported evidence for strange mishugenonistic neutron resonance, aka
reflected neutrons, that subsequently behave in a manner effecting the lack
of 'energetic gamma'-less absorbing of neutrons save perhaps invoking
quasi-dark matter-like behavior, nah... ;) Perhaps said resonant conditioned
mischugenon/neutrons would behave somewhat like normal neutrons and be
captured preferentially by nuclei according to their neutron capture
cross-section resulting in only rather weak emissions. Such beasties would
be revealed by the pattern of measurable though weak emissions increasing as
they passed through thin foils of metals with increasing neutron capture
cross sections, I can live with that :) That's a neat experiment and result!
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/edward-teller/ 

l Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
spallation and resonance

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:50:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Indeed where is the neutron activation, lots of nuclei in the 
>neighborhood yet neither activation nor knock on's is very odd. One 
>miracle to a customer, getting neutrons out of nuclei is the 'one miracle'.

The second is absorbing neutrons without creating any gammas.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear spallation and resonance

[Russ George]

As for scientific theory and theoreticians Mark Twain said it best, "There is 
something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of 
conjecture out of such trifling investment of fact."

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren 
– nuclear spallation and resonance

 

Hello George,

I am sure you are a more experienced guy in regards to LENR than I am. Probably 
a better sailor. If it only comes down to years I am rather close or just a 
tack ahead (67 years).

I am not drawing any conclusions, I just try to evaluate the circumstances. Not 
always do you need to find a . port, sometimes staying at sea is more 
advantageous.

I do think positive about indications and fair winds is better than no wind. 
Taking advantage of the wind is the crux. Unfortunately the predictions are 
very diverse. Now one can decide to be optimistic and I hope my optimistic 
conclusion is correct but if it is no wind than I just need to wait. Of course 
if it is a storm I have to ride t out.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> 
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Lennart, the old adage ‘any old port in a storm’ is simply not practical. We’ve 
been weathering the storm against cold fusion for nigh unto 30 years. We don’t 
need any old port/theory, some of us have chosen to just weather the storm and 
lumber on. 

 

How Long Have You Been a Sailor ?

 

All my bloomin' life. 

Me mother was a mermaid. 

Me father was King Neptune. 

I was born on the crest of a wave 

And rocked in the cradle of the deep. 

Seaweed and barnacles are me clothes, 

Every tooth in me head is a marlinspike,

The hair on me head is hemp, 

Every bone in me body's a spar, 

And when I spits, I spits tar. 

I'se hard, I is, I am, I are.

 

--- an Old Answer to an Old Question

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com 
<mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear 
spallation and resonance

 

Hello Mats,

I think this is interesting. I understand the critic from Jones and Russ but at 
least it is a theory and it is based on the result of Lugano. Maybe it was not 
such a flawed demo just made so it has too many openings for critic. This also 
enhances the profile of Rossi. He has support from scientists with a lot too 
lose (prestige) if Rossi is a scam as has been indicated here. I cannot wait 
for the next report from Rossi and hopefully a up to date experimental report 
from Lundin / Lidgren. Sounds to me we are slowly progressing towaa realization 
of lenr, keeping essential business secrets until the last  minute before 
market.)Looks good.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> 
+1 916 436 1899 <tel:(916)%20436-1899> 

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Mats Lewan <m...@matslewan.se 
<mailto:m...@matslewan.se> > wrote:

The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog post:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/

 

is now public here:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP 
<https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP=3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP>
 =3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com <http://www.animpossibleinvention.com> 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear spallation and resonance

[Russ George]

Lennart, the old adage ‘any old port in a storm’ is simply not practical. We’ve 
been weathering the storm against cold fusion for nigh unto 30 years. We don’t 
need any old port/theory, some of us have chosen to just weather the storm and 
lumber on. 

 

How Long Have You Been a Sailor ?

 

All my bloomin' life. 

Me mother was a mermaid. 

Me father was King Neptune. 

I was born on the crest of a wave 

And rocked in the cradle of the deep. 

Seaweed and barnacles are me clothes, 

Every tooth in me head is a marlinspike,

The hair on me head is hemp, 

Every bone in me body's a spar, 

And when I spits, I spits tar. 

I'se hard, I is, I am, I are.

 

--- an Old Answer to an Old Question

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear 
spallation and resonance

 

Hello Mats,

I think this is interesting. I understand the critic from Jones and Russ but at 
least it is a theory and it is based on the result of Lugano. Maybe it was not 
such a flawed demo just made so it has too many openings for critic. This also 
enhances the profile of Rossi. He has support from scientists with a lot too 
lose (prestige) if Rossi is a scam as has been indicated here. I cannot wait 
for the next report from Rossi and hopefully a up to date experimental report 
from Lundin / Lidgren. Sounds to me we are slowly progressing towaa realization 
of lenr, keeping essential business secrets until the last  minute before 
market.)Looks good.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> 
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Mats Lewan <m...@matslewan.se 
<mailto:m...@matslewan.se> > wrote:

The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog post:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/

 

is now public here:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP 
<https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP=3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP>
 =3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com <http://www.animpossibleinvention.com> 

 

 

 

 

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear spallation and resonance

[Russ George]

Indeed where is the neutron activation, lots of nuclei in the neighborhood
yet neither activation nor knock on's is very odd. One miracle to a
customer, getting neutrons out of nuclei is the 'one miracle'. 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
spallation and resonance

 

OK they have a patent application now - after almost two years - but where
is the experimental data?

When this was first announced in 2015, my comment then was the same then as
it is now:

"The theory looks a lot like a mashup of W-L cold neutrons and Hagelstein's 
neutron hopping, neither of which have a shread of physical evidence. The do

not show neutron activation which needs to be shown for any such theory to 
work. They accept the flawed Lugano report as accurate and apparently do not

have an accurate understanding of nuclear spallation."
 
In short - this looks like a rather weak effort to me - until they show
neutron activation. 
The patent disclosure seems essentially worthless as it stands now.
 
If and when a reproducible experiment demonstrates substantial neutron
activation of the reactor, then we have something to get excited about.



Mats Lewan wrote:



The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog
post: 

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-e
xplanation-break-through/

 

is now public here:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP

=3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com  

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Memory Alpha, come dip yourself in magic waters

[Russ George]

AI already provides the means for eternal life. The simple choices are
merely about the level of conversation required, that is simply a matter of
the character of the memory and CPU, these are all choices about money as
eternal AI life is surely less costly than a retirement home!
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/16/welcome-to-memory-alpha-and-et
ernal-life/   Perhaps you can forward this to Ray Kurzweil for his
consideration. he can easily afford the 'Wonderland' Memory Alpha Estate.

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Memory Alpha, come dip yourself in magic waters

 

Very clever. Has Ray Kurzweil signed up yet?

BTW - for anyone needing a laugh, here's a bit of parody at the expense of
the guru of google and that Brit who gets way too much airtime ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqaEsEApSE
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqaEsEApSE=1> =1

 

Russ George wrote:

If you don't know whether there is a heaven or hell or anything after life
you've come to the right place. You can reserve your ultrafast quantum
memory real estate on our 'exclusive secure redundant brain server' at
Memory Alpha.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/16/welcome-to-memory-alpha-and-et
ernal-life/ 

 

[Vo]:Memory Alpha, come dip yourself in magic waters

[Russ George]

If you don't know whether there is a heaven or hell or anything after life
you've come to the right place. You can reserve your ultrafast quantum
memory real estate on our 'exclusive secure redundant brain server' at
Memory Alpha.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/16/welcome-to-memory-alpha-and-et
ernal-life/ 

[Vo]:Quantum limits

[Russ George]

In this new paper a NIST lab has cooled a thin metal membrane to below the
predicted quantum limits, on its way to reaching absolute zero. This
experiment might be performed with a deuterated metal membrane with
interesting results depending on the deuteron saturation. I think it likely
that  Ubaldo Mastromatteo of ST Micro might well have the lab to do this in
relatively short order as from the looks of the NIST experiment it's not far
from his cold fusion experiment designs. Could be a way to study some of the
quantum and coherence hypotheses that keep being batted around in this
field. Explosive results might be revealed.
http://phys.org/news/2017-01-physicists-cool-microscopic-quantum-limit.html 

RE: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Russ George]

There is ALWAYS room for error is tiny signals, a few watts IS nothing more 
than a tiny signal!  SRI is simply milking consulting fees as they have always 
done, that is exclusively what they do!

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

 

Jack Cole  > wrote:

 

The input power being mis-measured is one possibility that has not been 
discussed in sufficient detail to know if they have ruled this out.

 

This is not a detailed report. I expect they have ruled it out, by methods not 
described here.

 

 

  Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), that the electrical 
power measurement is bullet-proof.

 

This report describes work done at SRI, mainly by Francis Tanzella, I think. He 
knows what he is doing. I am not saying he couldn't have made a mistake, but he 
is knowledgeable and careful, so I would not worry too much that he measured 
input power incorrectly.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get ;)

[Russ George]

Well my ‘ready kilowatt cold fusion’ system is near to hand, and not being such 
a nervous pussy as to worry about being grabbed that I substitute LENR for the 
term ‘cold fusion’ that’s the better moniker… even with President Trump amongst 
us. Of course you know that the only real way to understand science is to 
adhere to the admonition “data speak to me.” That speaking data always confides 
to anyone listening about IP.  I am far less of a mercurial professor than 
Martin Fleischman, but the older I get the more I am beginning to understand 
his POV.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 12:13 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know 
what you are going to get ;)

 

Russ,

 

I am excited to hear that you are on the verge of developing a high powered 
LERN system that might show the generation of muons as a reaction byproduct. If 
it is not an imposition on your good nature, could you try to detect and verify 
these muons by placing a sheet of silver or other metal over the geiger counter 
as you have described doing in previous posts. A report back to vortex about 
the results of such a test would be great if the report does not violate your 
IP position.

 

Also wishing huge well deserved success in this and all you do. 

Axil

 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Peter,

 

You are always most welcome to echo my blog posts. The New Year has begun and 
after being in hibernation for the past month or so I am beginning to be 
reinvigorated. There is too much to do to deliver several ocean pasture 
restorations this year and get my danged ‘dusty plasma ready kilowatt’ heater 
into production. Only a few bugs left to squash. By the way you’ll be 
interested to know that hot gas phase NiD, aka Quarks, make 4He as do similar 
AgD devices, aka Millquarks!

 

Cold Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net <http://Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net> 

 

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com> 
] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 11:42 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know 
what you are going to get ;)

 

it is my pleasure to sif=gnal your fine paper.

Bob is my good friend too like you, no problem if you have different opinions.

best wishes,

Peter

 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Bob Cook and I disagree about the reality of ‘quarks’, having had the good 
fortune of being tutored many times on quarks by a dear friend who won the 
Nobel Prize for their discovery I favour their existence, Bob does not. They 
are very convenient in understanding the ecology of cold fusion. Now whether 
nucleons exist or not and where is another question. Here’s my post on the 
topic http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/05/quark-gazpacho/ 





 

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 

RE: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get ;)

[Russ George]

Peter,

 

You are always most welcome to echo my blog posts. The New Year has begun and 
after being in hibernation for the past month or so I am beginning to be 
reinvigorated. There is too much to do to deliver several ocean pasture 
restorations this year and get my danged ‘dusty plasma ready kilowatt’ heater 
into production. Only a few bugs left to squash. By the way you’ll be 
interested to know that hot gas phase NiD, aka Quarks, make 4He as do similar 
AgD devices, aka Millquarks!

 

Cold Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 11:42 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know 
what you are going to get ;)

 

it is my pleasure to sif=gnal your fine paper.

Bob is my good friend too like you, no problem if you have different opinions.

best wishes,

Peter

 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Bob Cook and I disagree about the reality of ‘quarks’, having had the good 
fortune of being tutored many times on quarks by a dear friend who won the 
Nobel Prize for their discovery I favour their existence, Bob does not. They 
are very convenient in understanding the ecology of cold fusion. Now whether 
nucleons exist or not and where is another question. Here’s my post on the 
topic http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/05/quark-gazpacho/ 





 

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get ;)

[Russ George]

Bob Cook and I disagree about the reality of 'quarks', having had the good
fortune of being tutored many times on quarks by a dear friend who won the
Nobel Prize for their discovery I favour their existence, Bob does not. They
are very convenient in understanding the ecology of cold fusion. Now whether
nucleons exist or not and where is another question. Here's my post on the
topic http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/05/quark-gazpacho/ 

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Gravity waves are indeed the means for SETI communication as they travel at e8 
times the speed of light as Tom van Flandern showed the speed was at least 
2xe10 c or more! While the usual suspects heaped dogmatic howls on Tom, his 
friend and mine J P Vigier was a staunch supporter of his conclusion as am I. 
Alas both Tom and Jean Pierre are passed but their ideas and wisdom have not.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 8:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

 

There is a more far fetched possibility - that of communications via 
gravitational waves.  There have been a number of papers talking about the 
conversion of EM waves into gravitational waves in certain types of 
superconductors.  If that ever proves to be possible, it would open a whole new 
spectrum - one that could harbor SETI communications.

 

Because gravity appears to have infinite range, assuming there are gravitons, 
they are expected to be massless.  This means they will travel at the speed of 
light.  From this PhysicsForums post [1], I infer that for masses under human 
control which would serve as the source of the gravitons, they will have very 
large wavelengths.  Is there a way to send lots of information over a signal 
with a very low frequency?

 

Gravitons aside, if the alien signal is spread across a spectrum, as you 
mention, I suppose it might be very difficult to detect.  If the transmitted 
signal further involves intentionally taking the background noise and making 
small adjustments to it, you would probably have to be looking for this kind of 
pattern specifically to determine that there was a signal at all.

 

Eric

 

 

[1] 
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/graviton-energy-and-frequency-wavelength.242145/#post-1780881

 

[Vo]:More mass in universe in black holes than stars!

[Russ George]

Curiosity got the best of me and looking at the ratio of stars to black
holes, stars are ~1000 times more common. But black holes contain vast
numbers of 'star equivalent mass', it looks like too close to call as to
whether there is more mass in stars or black holes. Are black holes made up
of 'dark matter'? Does the matter inside a black hole exist as atoms or is
it merely quark soup, the latter it seems. That led to an interesting new
paper that shows that there is a low temperature, aka constrained motion,
boundary between nucleons and quark soup.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170104145736.htm 

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Cold fusion is a piss poor cousin in the enrichment game with fissionable 
species to paths with abundant neutrons.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 

The real problem with LENR is the LENR reaction's preference for the even 
isotopes U238, U232 of the odd isotopes. That make LENR a transuranic element  
enrichment risk.

 

>From my reference:

 

" It was found that the activity of both U isotopes decreased with respect to 
that of Cs. However, the activity of the 238U isotope decreases to a greater 
extent. Thus, the ratio of 235U to 238U becomes bigger than unity. Prior to 
these experiments, we made sure that the specific activity of 137Cs does not 
change noticeably. The real situation is more complicated [3] but this is a 
topic of a separate report. For us, it is important that the transformation can 
also take place outside the plasma channel. This is a rather “unpleasant 
surprise,” because, probably, within several years, when the low-temperature 
transmutation will be studied in more detail, it would be rather easy to devise 
a facile and inexpensive process to enrich uranium. In view of the growth of 
terrorism all over the world, this outcome seems deplorable."

 

It seen that muon fission likes even isotopes more that odd ones.

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:



Whoa -  an observer must possess a great deal of blind hope to imagine that 
weaponization of LENR is impossible simply because neutrons are lacking. In 
fact, dense hydrogen is physically similar to the neutron.

Most importantly, the number of documented runaway LENR reactions makes the 
statement of "impossibility" almost silly, based on experience. It has 
happened. As for slow ramp up - Holmlid shows us the gain can happen in 
nanoseconds.

Let's back track a bit. Neutrons are required for one kind of chain reaction, 
but the modality is broader. A chain reaction is any self-expanding sequence of 
reactions where a reactive product (by-product or emission) causes additional 
reactions to take place. 

The prototypical chain reaction is actually combustion in an internal 
combustion engine, initiated by a spark or by compression. Fission is another 
but there are more including, of course, the domino effect. The key to all 
chain reactions is positive feedback. Positive feedback leads to a 
self-amplifying chain of events. in a number of physical systems including 
these:

1) Chemical reactions of many kinds, esp. combustion
2) The neutron chain reaction of nuclear physics
3) The avalanche cascade - breakdown in gases
4) The avalanche breakdown in semiconductors
5) Population inversion - lasing
6) QM entangled systems of many kinds 
7) Domino effect and meme effect
8) Audio feedback loop
9) Mossbauer effect

Even if neutrons were required for the most energetic kind of weaponization, 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to the neutron that it could substitute -- and 
in the case of Holmlid - exceed by orders of magnitude the gain from the 
nuclear fission chain reaction. 



 Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Most researchers think that a runaway reaction or explosion is impossible for 
three reasons:

 

1. Cold fusion only works with an intact metal lattice.

2. It ramps up relatively slowly, so it would destroy the lattice before it 
could increase to high levels.

3. It is not a chain reaction. In a uranium fission chain reaction, one event 
directly triggers two or more others, and the reaction can increase 
exponentially over a very short time (80 generations in 1 microsecond).

 

I hope that is right.

 

- Jed

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

[Russ George]

Most assuredly definitive Ag transmutation isotope shift data is in hand, no 
dispute possible in that! One path is clearly the insertion of a deuteron into 
some relatively high Z nuclei. Surely that has a coherent pathway. As for prior 
art (rigged patent system nonsense) there is more than one way to skin that 
Mills-Cat. I am OK with sitting back to watch and learn from what Mill’s 
presents, (Rossi as well in that regard). With a few days of laying hands on 
materials (a few milligrams) from either M or E ‘cats’ the definitive isotope 
studies will be complete and reveal all! No question that we know how to do 
that work very well and have well worn paths to follow.  The real problem with 
cold fusion, aka lenr for those faint of heart or soul, is and always has been 
the twin problem of guarded inventors and god awful gawkers (both with innocent 
and avaricious intent).  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:34 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

 

If you patented your work, you may has a prior art claim on your technology 
over Mills. Transmutation occurring in your system will show that you have the 
goods in terms of theory(LENR) as opposed to Mills(hydrino) with no 
transmutation theoretical basis.

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Axil, The titanium experiment you suggest has been done, by me, while Ti is a 
useful cold fusion material it has a far lower NAE cross-section and while this 
is useful in limiting thermal destruction it works against the vitality of the 
technology. Lots of work required down that trail. I am with Mill’s, in my 
experience, silver is by far the most active material, thus it provides the 
most fruitful paths to technology development. Both Mill’s dusty plasma tech 
and my own dusty plasma ‘compact fluorescent simple kilowatt’ tech offer a 
clear path to producing readily and inexpensive to produce and harvestable 
useful cold fusion energy. While theoretical thinking can be useful nothing 
substitutes for real world experimentation!

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto: <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

 

As the SunCell R moves forward over the coming months, certain hard to 
understand problems will develop in that effort that will show that the SunCell 
is really a LENR based system. As a foreshadowing of these development 
problems, I will make a prediction about how the SunCell works as a LENR system 
which if realized will disprove the Hydrino theory as a central mover in the 
way the SunCell functions. This production and its expansion will demonstrate 
how LENR works in the plasma state as a process centered on transition metal 
nanowire production as a condensate from the vapor state.

As background to develop and explain this issue, the boiling point of silver is 
2435 K (2162 °C, 3924 °F). If the high temperature of the plasma inside the 
SunCell keeps the silver vapor from condensing into nanoparticles than the 
dusty plasma based LENR reaction will stop. The SunCell will flicker around the 
boiling point of silver and the plasma temperature will stabilize and hover at 
the 2162C boiling point of silver.

R. Mills has shown two SunCell distinct architectures that have demonstrated 
two separate capiblities, first: high power density, second: long duration and 
self-sustained ignition.

There is a major differences between the full power SunCell unit that has used 
a tungsten electrode and the lower temperature long reaction endurance unit 
used to show self-sustained mode.

In the full power test, Mills used tungsten whose boiling point is 6203 K (5930 
°C, 10,706 °F). There is no temperature limitation problem with nanoparticle 
formation here. In the low power endurance test, the temperature of the plasma 
produced was far below the full power test because the test reactor containment 
structure was stainless steel.

I predict that the Mills SunCell will not work at full power where the 
temperature needs to reach 3000C using the silver liquid electrodes because the 
plasma at that temperature requirement will get far too hot for silver 
condensation. The temperature cap is 2162 °C using silver, its vaporization 
temperature.

As a goldilocks solution, Mills might try a possible high temperature 
replacement for silver: Titanium, boiling point 3560 K (3287 °C, 5949 °F).

I also believe that the shape of the nanoparticle is important. The 
nanoparticle in dusty plasma might need to be reformed into nanowires. Silver 
can produce nanowires and so can titanium.

Titanium has been shown the capability to do this dusty plasma LENR reaction 
function nicely in the exploding foil experiments described here:

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
Georges Lochak, Leonid 

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Whoa indeed, nanoseconds are way to slow for fission!

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 



Whoa -  an observer must possess a great deal of blind hope to imagine that 
weaponization of LENR is impossible simply because neutrons are lacking. In 
fact, dense hydrogen is physically similar to the neutron.

Most importantly, the number of documented runaway LENR reactions makes the 
statement of "impossibility" almost silly, based on experience. It has 
happened. As for slow ramp up - Holmlid shows us the gain can happen in 
nanoseconds.

Let's back track a bit. Neutrons are required for one kind of chain reaction, 
but the modality is broader. A chain reaction is any self-expanding sequence of 
reactions where a reactive product (by-product or emission) causes additional 
reactions to take place. 

The prototypical chain reaction is actually combustion in an internal 
combustion engine, initiated by a spark or by compression. Fission is another 
but there are more including, of course, the domino effect. The key to all 
chain reactions is positive feedback. Positive feedback leads to a 
self-amplifying chain of events. in a number of physical systems including 
these:

1) Chemical reactions of many kinds, esp. combustion
2) The neutron chain reaction of nuclear physics
3) The avalanche cascade - breakdown in gases
4) The avalanche breakdown in semiconductors
5) Population inversion - lasing
6) QM entangled systems of many kinds 
7) Domino effect and meme effect
8) Audio feedback loop
9) Mossbauer effect

Even if neutrons were required for the most energetic kind of weaponization, 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to the neutron that it could substitute -- and 
in the case of Holmlid - exceed by orders of magnitude the gain from the 
nuclear fission chain reaction. 



 Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Most researchers think that a runaway reaction or explosion is impossible for 
three reasons:

 

1. Cold fusion only works with an intact metal lattice.

2. It ramps up relatively slowly, so it would destroy the lattice before it 
could increase to high levels.

3. It is not a chain reaction. In a uranium fission chain reaction, one event 
directly triggers two or more others, and the reaction can increase 
exponentially over a very short time (80 generations in 1 microsecond).

 

I hope that is right.

 

- Jed

 

 

RE: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

[Russ George]

Axil, The titanium experiment you suggest has been done, by me, while Ti is a 
useful cold fusion material it has a far lower NAE cross-section and while this 
is useful in limiting thermal destruction it works against the vitality of the 
technology. Lots of work required down that trail. I am with Mill’s, in my 
experience, silver is by far the most active material, thus it provides the 
most fruitful paths to technology development. Both Mill’s dusty plasma tech 
and my own dusty plasma ‘compact fluorescent simple kilowatt’ tech offer a 
clear path to producing readily and inexpensive to produce and harvestable 
useful cold fusion energy. While theoretical thinking can be useful nothing 
substitutes for real world experimentation!

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

 

As the SunCell R moves forward over the coming months, certain hard to 
understand problems will develop in that effort that will show that the SunCell 
is really a LENR based system. As a foreshadowing of these development 
problems, I will make a prediction about how the SunCell works as a LENR system 
which if realized will disprove the Hydrino theory as a central mover in the 
way the SunCell functions. This production and its expansion will demonstrate 
how LENR works in the plasma state as a process centered on transition metal 
nanowire production as a condensate from the vapor state.

As background to develop and explain this issue, the boiling point of silver is 
2435 K (2162 °C, 3924 °F). If the high temperature of the plasma inside the 
SunCell keeps the silver vapor from condensing into nanoparticles than the 
dusty plasma based LENR reaction will stop. The SunCell will flicker around the 
boiling point of silver and the plasma temperature will stabilize and hover at 
the 2162C boiling point of silver.

R. Mills has shown two SunCell distinct architectures that have demonstrated 
two separate capiblities, first: high power density, second: long duration and 
self-sustained ignition.

There is a major differences between the full power SunCell unit that has used 
a tungsten electrode and the lower temperature long reaction endurance unit 
used to show self-sustained mode.

In the full power test, Mills used tungsten whose boiling point is 6203 K (5930 
°C, 10,706 °F). There is no temperature limitation problem with nanoparticle 
formation here. In the low power endurance test, the temperature of the plasma 
produced was far below the full power test because the test reactor containment 
structure was stainless steel.

I predict that the Mills SunCell will not work at full power where the 
temperature needs to reach 3000C using the silver liquid electrodes because the 
plasma at that temperature requirement will get far too hot for silver 
condensation. The temperature cap is 2162 °C using silver, its vaporization 
temperature.

As a goldilocks solution, Mills might try a possible high temperature 
replacement for silver: Titanium, boiling point 3560 K (3287 °C, 5949 °F).

I also believe that the shape of the nanoparticle is important. The 
nanoparticle in dusty plasma might need to be reformed into nanowires. Silver 
can produce nanowires and so can titanium.

Titanium has been shown the capability to do this dusty plasma LENR reaction 
function nicely in the exploding foil experiments described here:

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev 

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf 
 

These exploding foil experiments vaporize titanium and then produce LENR 
reactions such as fusion, fission and transmutation. This type of experiment 
provides support from my belief that the SunCell is really based on the LENR 
reaction rather than this hydrino myth.

The number exploding wire experiments done in Russia has been extensive, so 
much so that a computer program has been written based on these experimental 
results that predict what the transmutation results will be based on the type 
of material used in the exploding wire or foil. 

There are other SunCell like LENR experiments that have demonstrated solid 
transmutation results. Proton 21 is one.

  
rexresearch.com/adamenko/adamenko.htm

This bring up and interesting question. Is the Proton 21 patent application 
prior art that supersedes the SunCell patent application?

The bottom line, the SunCell is just a variant of these exploding foil dusty 
plasma based experiments.



Silver nanowire

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Conflating nuclear chain reaction energy release with cold fusion mechanisms
is what leads to silly speculation, aka trolling, over weaponization of cold
fusion. It is the far reaching neutron chain reaction process that is common
to fission/fusion weapons that makes them so potent. In cold fusion this
long range stimulated chain reaction mechanism does not exist! In fact cold
fusion reactions are inherently clearly self-limited as when the reaction
condition becomes more and more prevalent the heat released promptly
destroys the NAE through rather mundane melting and vapourization of the
active matrix and surroundings. The challenge in cold fusion is producing
materials that contain NAE's where those NAE's are small enough to limit the
number of adjacent cold fusion reactions so as to limit the amount of
heating. Cold fusion heat is produced in incredibly fast nuclear time frames
but as heat it only moves away from its' birthplace at the speed of
chemistry. There are only a few of we experimentalists who have had the good
fortune to struggle with this heat transfer/melting problem. I believe most
of us who remain active are making good progress in developing technological
skills to manage it.  That there is a perfect linkage/control in effect due
to the commonly known chemical/thermal properties of matter is very well
established.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 

The explosive potential of the cold fusion reaction is centered on the
percentage of energy that is produce by the LENR reaction in the various
energy releases format. 

 

By energy formats I mean the place where the output energy goes such as sub
atomic particle production, heat, light, and/or RF.

 

If a large percentage of the energy format goes toward muon production, then
the muons might catalyze a large amount of fusion and fission. 

 

I have a fear that a runaway LENR reaction might generate a huge amount of
muons where only a small fraction of the output energy goes toward the
production of EMF such as heat and light.

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

This is not a repeat of the suggestion that dense hydrogen is the same
species as "dark matter" ... but there is a good case for that proposition.

It is about "dark" as in evil. If there is a foreseeable downside to LENR,
it is the possibility of weaponization. Not just that - it is the easy
weaponization of commonly available materials, which makes it much scarier
than nukes.

In the past, observers of the LENR scene - who delve into almost every
remote possibility for anomalous energy - have not wanted to talk about the
possibility of a cold-fusion bomb. Even when P reported their amazing
meltdown, the implications were minimized. It is an uncomfortable topic
since for one thing, weaponization could provide Federal regulators with a
ready made excuse, should they want to limit research into the field at the
behest of the fossil fuel industry, for instance.

However, the reality of our technological world - which is fed by the WWW
and knows no boundaries - is that there is no field of human endeavor which
benefits from intentional neglect: the ostrich meme - buying one's head in
the sand. The worst possible approach for any Nation is to look the other
way and ignore the dark side. If there is any likelihood that LENR can do
harm, it is better that we (e.g. the free world) discover it first - so as
to better prepare for the eventual situation where our enemies, or former
friends, will consider the NiH bomb to be a golden opportunity for their own
purposes.

If Holmlid is correct to the extent that irradiating the dense allotrope of
deuterium - UDD - using a small laser - can result in the "quark soup"
disintegration of the target particle into muons, in addition to nuclear
fusion, then the potential to do immense harm cannot be over-estimated. The
destructiveness of the small laser reaction increases by orders of magnitude
over the fissionable nukes - from MeV to GeV. The same situation exists if a
"critical mass" level exists.

Over the years, at least 6 more reports and likely more, have emerged of a
runaway reaction in LENR like the one P reported, or in one case even more
impressive. Any runaway reaction would point to the existence of a
critical-mass parameter.

The suitcase nuke, scary enough but achievable, then evolves into the
water-bottle size, or pen size (laser pointer size) - which is deliverable
by drone and feasible to the wealthy investor of almost any country.



 

RE: [Vo]:RE: Gaslighting

[Russ George]

It is a doubtful verging on histrionic notion that cold fusion ‘muons’ will be 
an issue, the observational evidence by those with data clearly does not 
support such hypothesized fears. Clearly the emission/numbers properties of 
cold fusion are both very much less than conventional physics might suggest and 
further the emissions are at the very least ‘strange’ and not at all typical 
muons, rather being mysterious mischugenons.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2017 5:17 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Gaslighting

 

Perfection can only be realized in heaven, there is always a fly in the 
ointment. IMHO, LENR produces muons. A few muons does not hurt anything. A few 
muons is like a flight across the country in a high flying jet, One cross 
country air trip is not impactful, nothing to think about, but if you spend 
much of your time in the clouds, you might get yourself into trouble.

 

When LENR really gets going full blast and gigawatts are generated in cars, 
trains, planes, boats, houses, everywhere in everything, the muon loading will 
get into the terawatt levels. Muons flowing down the streets will be so thick, 
you can cut them with a knife. And muons are a bitch to shield against. 

 

LENR might need to be confined inside a leakproof  magnetic bottle inside huge 
ITER like reactors to protect the environment from ubiquitous muons. Like CO2, 
muons will need to be sequestered. Moderation in all things except energy 
production. If moderation is not in the plans, then shielding is a must.

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

New Year for clean new energy will surprise you. Decades of old fossil 
'gaslighting' goes dark in a brilliant 'cold fusion' flash as reported on CNN!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/01/2017-the-end-of-the-beginning-energy-breakout/
 

 

[Vo]:RE: Gaslighting

[Russ George]

New Year for clean new energy will surprise you. Decades of old fossil 
'gaslighting' goes dark in a brilliant 'cold fusion' flash as reported on CNN!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/01/2017-the-end-of-the-beginning-energy-breakout/
 

RE: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

[Russ George]

No, Putin is his partner in this, surely you know that.

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Revelation of Donald Trump’s personal secret funding of cold fusion will create 
an international political firestorm as OPEC announces dire sanctions imposed 
upon him.

 

That would be hilarious!

 

Still, it would mean the end of his bromance with Putin. Sad!

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

[Russ George]

Revelation of Donald Trump’s personal secret funding of cold fusion will create 
an international political firestorm as OPEC announces dire sanctions imposed 
upon him. 

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

 

Happy New Year,  Predictions anyone.



Frank Znidarsic 

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Russ George]

There is a report that the Chinese CAST version of the EM drive is a stacked 
series of drives…. Does this mean that the Chinese have seen a multiplier 
effect when directing the ‘thrust’ as feed into a second drive? Or is it just a 
convenient means to conserve space?

 

From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 11:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

 

That's interesting.  That would resolve the conservation violations.

On 12/28/2016 01:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

I've seen some calculations showing that there is a toroidal electric field 
within the device. I wonder if the movement is due the pull of the magnetic 
field of the Earth.

 

2016-12-28 16:43 GMT-02:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com> >:

Just to point something out -- the EM drive obviously doesn't need to be 
outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass.

Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum, 
conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy, and conservation of 
mass.  While data trumps theory, this doesn't seem like the most likely 
explanation of the effect to me.

Gedanken:  Put an EM drive in a box.  Attach it to a wire.  Attach the other 
end of the wire to a pivot (like one of those old gas powered toy planes people 
used to have before the days of radio control).  Let the box with the EM drive 
go.  It will accelerate in a circle, around the pivot point.

Power consumption inside the box is presumably constant.  Power generated 
varies in proportion to the speed of the box (power = force * velocity).  So, 
at some point it'll be generating more power than it's consuming.  And there's 
the violation of CoE.  (With a bit of cleverness you can turn it into a Type I 
perpetual motion machine.)

Meanwhile it's going lickety split around the pivot, with increasing angular 
momentum; with no mass ejection there's no compensating decrease anywhere else. 
 There's the violation of conservation of angular momentum.

And as its velocity increases, its mass increases as gamma*m.  There's the 
violation of conservation of mass.

And violation of linear momentum is obvious.

On the other hand if it doesn't work, then all that's being violated is the 
assumption that the handful of extremely delicate high precision experiments 
that have been done to show the effect were not somehow botched.

I'm not holding my breath on this one. 

 

On 12/28/2016 02:02 AM, David Roberson wrote:

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive on their 
space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  Finally, is that 
device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the orientation 
required for the station?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George  <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

 





 

-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ 

danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com> 

 

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Russ George]

That ‘secondhand news’ from the NASA forum is clearly described as completely 
unsubstantiated speculation…. But then that’s what social media trolling is all 
about. ALL that has been reported to have been said by the Chinese is that the 
test “is not smooth” with no explanation as to what “smooth” means. Let the 
definition of ‘smooth’ games begin!

 

From: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 3:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

 

Dave,

 

The secondhand news is that it is not working in space FWIW.

 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623141#msg1623141

 

Jack

 

 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:08 AM David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote:

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive on their 
space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  Finally, is that 
device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the orientation 
required for the station?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

[Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Russ George]

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.