subject:"\[Vo\]\:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev"

Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus they
have shown?

Because both Ken Sholders and proton-21 produced cold fusion and monopole
fields using sparks.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

>
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> Ed: "the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG."
>
> Jones:  "Note that of late, Rossi's own comments (to JoNP) show that he is
> no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts
> about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime
> reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly,
> the lack of radioactive ash."
>
> Ed:  "the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and
> unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored."
>
> The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced.
>
>
> Why do you say this, Eric?  Do you have evidence I do not know about? Can
> you give a reason why the statements are not correct? On the other hand, I
> can give reasons why I think the statements are correct. If I were
> uncertain, I would say so. However, I think my reasons are strong enough to
> give confidence. What are your reasons for not agreeing?  Science is based
> on choices, not on accepting every claim. The choices are based on
> knowledge. Sometimes they are wrong, but at least the reasons are clear.
> What are your reasons for believing Rossi and DGT?
>
> As for transmutation producing energy, if the rate is great enough,
> transmutation will produce detectable power. The problem is getting
> sufficient rate. No measurement shows a sufficient rate can be produced.
>  In addition, the huge Coulomb barrier stops the reaction, which eliminates
> the claim unless a method to overcome it is identified. I have suggested a
> method, but the rate would nevertheless be small.
>
> As for the magnetic field, this is based on a statement by DGT without any
> evidence being published. This is hearsay evidence. It has no value even in
> law, much less in science.  Of course, a small magnetic effect might occur
> or a small magnetic field might alter the rate. However, no magnetic field
> can be created at the atomic level that is known to cause a nuclear
> reaction. Some very intense magnetic fields have been generated without
> producing fusion, which is the process we are discussing. Why would you
> believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus they have shown?
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

Ed: "the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply  
WRONG."


Jones:  "Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that  
he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and  
has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot  
be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and  
rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash."


Ed:  "the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so  
implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely  
ignored."


The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced.


Why do you say this, Eric?  Do you have evidence I do not know about?  
Can you give a reason why the statements are not correct? On the other  
hand, I can give reasons why I think the statements are correct. If I  
were uncertain, I would say so. However, I think my reasons are strong  
enough to give confidence. What are your reasons for not agreeing?   
Science is based on choices, not on accepting every claim. The choices  
are based on knowledge. Sometimes they are wrong, but at least the  
reasons are clear. What are your reasons for believing Rossi and DGT?


As for transmutation producing energy, if the rate is great enough,  
transmutation will produce detectable power. The problem is getting  
sufficient rate. No measurement shows a sufficient rate can be  
produced.  In addition, the huge Coulomb barrier stops the reaction,  
which eliminates the claim unless a method to overcome it is  
identified. I have suggested a method, but the rate would nevertheless  
be small.


As for the magnetic field, this is based on a statement by DGT without  
any evidence being published. This is hearsay evidence. It has no  
value even in law, much less in science.  Of course, a small magnetic  
effect might occur or a small magnetic field might alter the rate.  
However, no magnetic field can be created at the atomic level that is  
known to cause a nuclear reaction. Some very intense magnetic fields  
have been generated without producing fusion, which is the process we  
are discussing. Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in  
the apparatus they have shown?


Ed Storms


Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

yes, A magnetic field will affect  the direction of the spin of the both
the polariton and the soliton. but that might not affect the LENR reaction
because there is matter all around the soliton, the mega-spin of the
soliton will just zap some other atoms in the area.

One more point, all the solitons are formed into a superconducting BEC and
what the magnetic field will do to the BEC I have not thought about. The
external  magnetic field might destroy the BEC.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:46 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> If I understand what you are saying, I should be able to place a large
> magnet in front of one of these polaritons and it would be attracted to
> it.  Is that correct?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>
>  The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way
> that an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin
> alignment except that the half soliton has only one pole.
> Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet.
> Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and
> no RF involved.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
>> You are describing a strange particle Axil.  It is not clear as to
>> whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or
>> of an AC nature.  Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by
>> this type of ensemble?   Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon
>> not effect the field?  I am not aware of any RF type of system that can
>> generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>>   Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>>
>>  A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This
>> pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are
>> pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the
>> center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current
>> (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons
>> enter into the soliton, they don't exit. By the way, polariton solitons are
>> used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black
>> holes.
>> I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the
>> charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons
>> in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it
>> reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the
>> soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field
>> strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can
>> get huge.
>> LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode
>> on the surface of a copper rod.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps I heard you this time!  Would you expect the increased magnetic
>>> field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR
>>> activity in synchronization?
>>>
>>> I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of
>>> polaritons that you mention.  Where can I locate a straight forward
>>> description of them?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>>   To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>>>
>>>  David,
>>>
>>>  A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it
>>> can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more
>>> magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop.
>>>
>>>  I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it
>>>> skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen
>>>> systems.  It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of
>>>> interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes
>>>> a great deal of sense tha

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

If I understand what you are saying, I should be able to place a large magnet 
in front of one of these polaritons and it would be attracted to it.  Is that 
correct?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an 
iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment except 
that the half soliton has only one pole.
Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet. 
Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and no RF 
involved.






On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

You are describing a strange particle Axil.  It is not clear as to whether or 
not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC 
nature.  Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of 
ensemble?   Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the 
field?  I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field 
unless it is rectified by some means.

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 


Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair 
orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such 
that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the 
soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This 
current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, 
they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to 
understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. 
I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the 
charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in 
the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it 
reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the 
soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field 
strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get 
huge.
LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on 
the surface of a copper rod.








On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Perhaps I heard you this time!  Would you expect the increased magnetic field 
created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in 
synchronization?

I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of 
polaritons that you mention.  Where can I locate a straight forward description 
of them?

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 


To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



David,


A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can 
thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic 
strength in a positive feed back loop. 


I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it skipped my 
thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems.  It is 
interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between 
the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense 
that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the 
magnetic field that permeates the area around them.  If that field is intense 
enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles 
by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against.

A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would 
be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the 
nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant 
would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an 
excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally generated 
rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby 
electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location.

How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is 
of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons 
that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction.  This 
process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation.

A few questions remain that I want answered.  Is the large external magnetic 
field reported by DGT real?  Have they retracted that announcement or do they 
continue to insist that it is reported accurately?

If the field exi

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread Eric Walker

Ed: "the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG."

Jones:  "Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is
no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts
about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime
reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly,
the lack of radioactive ash."

Ed:  "the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and
unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored."

The confidence with which these statements are made seems misplaced.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that
an iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment
except that the half soliton has only one pole.

Think of the soliton as a very strong permanent magnet.

Charge movement does not produce a current. There is no AC frequency and no
RF involved.




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 10:13 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> You are describing a strange particle Axil.  It is not clear as to
> whether or not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or
> of an AC nature.  Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by
> this type of ensemble?   Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon
> not effect the field?  I am not aware of any RF type of system that can
> generate a DC field unless it is rectified by some means.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>
>  A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This
> pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are
> pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the
> center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current
> (whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons
> enter into the soliton, they don't exit. By the way, polariton solitons are
> used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black
> holes.
> I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the
> charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons
> in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it
> reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the
> soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field
> strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can
> get huge.
> LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode
> on the surface of a copper rod.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I heard you this time!  Would you expect the increased magnetic
>> field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR
>> activity in synchronization?
>>
>> I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of
>> polaritons that you mention.  Where can I locate a straight forward
>> description of them?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>>   To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>>
>>  David,
>>
>>  A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it
>> can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more
>> magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop.
>>
>>  I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>>> Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it
>>> skipped my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen
>>> systems.  It is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of
>>> interaction between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes
>>> a great deal of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the
>>> charged particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around
>>> them.  If that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the
>>> motion of those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to
>>> 'push' against.
>>>
>>> A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests
>>> would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including
>>> the nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected
>>> remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes
>>> through an excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally
>>> generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by
>>> nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their
>>> location.
>>>
>>> How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations
>>> penetrate is of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all
>>> of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

You are describing a strange particle Axil.  It is not clear as to whether or 
not the magnetic field generated within the soliton is steady or of an AC 
nature.  Can you verify that a DC magnetic field is generated by this type of 
ensemble?   Why does the AC frequency of the trapped photon not effect the 
field?  I am not aware of any RF type of system that can generate a DC field 
unless it is rectified by some means.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This pair 
orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are pointed such 
that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the center of the 
soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current (whirlpool). This 
current is superconducting. When photons and electrons enter into the soliton, 
they don’t exit. By the way, polariton solitons are used as a research tool to 
understand the behavior of astrophysical black holes. 
I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the 
charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons in 
the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it 
reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the 
soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field 
strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can get 
huge.
LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode on 
the surface of a copper rod.








On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Perhaps I heard you this time!  Would you expect the increased magnetic field 
created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in 
synchronization?

I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of 
polaritons that you mention.  Where can I locate a straight forward description 
of them?

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 


To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



David,


A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can 
thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic 
strength in a positive feed back loop. 


I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it skipped my 
thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems.  It is 
interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between 
the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense 
that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the 
magnetic field that permeates the area around them.  If that field is intense 
enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles 
by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against.

A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would 
be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the 
nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant 
would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an 
excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally generated 
rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby 
electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location.

How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is 
of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons 
that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction.  This 
process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation.

A few questions remain that I want answered.  Is the large external magnetic 
field reported by DGT real?  Have they retracted that announcement or do they 
continue to insist that it is reported accurately?

If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the 
powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE.   How this gets translated into 
a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time.  I anticipate a positive 
feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. 
 There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be 
generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field.   There 
likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a 
logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner.  For example, a 
small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant 
local magnetic field that interacts with

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This
pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons are
pointed such that the polariton ensemble produces a magnetic field at the
center of the soliton perpendicular to the circular polariton current
(whirlpool). This current is superconducting. When photons and electrons
enter into the soliton, they don't exit. By the way, polariton solitons are
used as a research tool to understand the behavior of astrophysical black
holes.

I believe that the magnetic field projections from the soliton screen the
charge of all fermions in the nucleus including the nucleus and all protons
in the neighborhood. When the nucleus and many di-protons pairs around it
reorganizes, gamma energy travels back on the magnetic field lines from the
soliton and the photons gain energy generating increase magnetic field
strengths going forward. The magnetic fields produced by such solitons can
get huge.

LeClair saw a soliton he produced eat through 6 feet of copper as it rode
on the surface of a copper rod.





On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Perhaps I heard you this time!  Would you expect the increased magnetic
> field created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR
> activity in synchronization?
>
> I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of
> polaritons that you mention.  Where can I locate a straight forward
> description of them?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>
>  David,
>
>  A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it
> can thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more
> magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop.
>
>  I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it skipped
>> my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems.  It
>> is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction
>> between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal
>> of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged
>> particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them.  If
>> that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of
>> those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push'
>> against.
>>
>> A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests
>> would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including
>> the nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected
>> remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes
>> through an excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally
>> generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by
>> nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their
>> location.
>>
>> How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations
>> penetrate is of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all
>> of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby
>> fusion reaction.  This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic
>> brake in operation.
>>
>> A few questions remain that I want answered.  Is the large external
>> magnetic field reported by DGT real?  Have they retracted that announcement
>> or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately?
>>
>> If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction
>> between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE.   How this gets
>> translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time.  I
>> anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because
>> of the nature of the field.  There does not seem to be any known reason for
>> such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it
>> begins as a small field.   There likewise is no good explanation for the
>> LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they
>> are connected in some manner.  For example, a small local NAE allows a
>> fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field
>> that interacts with its neighbors.  This field induces some of them to join
>> in leading to additional LENR activity.  The new fusions are somehow able
>>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Perhaps I heard you this time!  Would you expect the increased magnetic field 
created by these polaritons to then be able to cause more LENR activity in 
synchronization?

I suppose I need to have a better understanding of the half soliton of 
polaritons that you mention.  Where can I locate a straight forward description 
of them?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



David,


A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can 
thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more magnetic 
strength in a positive feed back loop. 


I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it skipped my 
thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems.  It is 
interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between 
the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense 
that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the 
magnetic field that permeates the area around them.  If that field is intense 
enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles 
by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against.

A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would 
be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the 
nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant 
would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an 
excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally generated 
rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby 
electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location.

How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is 
of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons 
that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction.  This 
process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation.

A few questions remain that I want answered.  Is the large external magnetic 
field reported by DGT real?  Have they retracted that announcement or do they 
continue to insist that it is reported accurately?

If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the 
powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE.   How this gets translated into 
a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time.  I anticipate a positive 
feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. 
 There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be 
generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field.   There 
likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a 
logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner.  For example, a 
small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant 
local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors.  This field induces 
some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity.  The new fusions 
are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner.  
Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a 
large total magnetic field.  You do not observe one without the other being 
present.  Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be 
sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a 
significant external magnetic field.  The requirement for the correct positive 
feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working 
system.

The above scenario represents my latest thinking.

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



Dave--
 
Muon induced cold fusion was known before  the P-F effect was demonstrated.  
 
I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with 
the event.  Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat 
capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons.  The large B field 
inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the 
deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti 
parallel to the local (internal)  B field.   
 
  I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the 
spin, angular momentum and  transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to 
the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous "quantum 
connected" system.  I have always thought that the He formed in the process 
sta

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

David,

A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it can
thermalize gamma radiation to EUV and convert that radiation to more
magnetic strength in a positive feed back loop.

I will continue to repeat this until it gets through,


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:00 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it skipped
> my thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems.  It
> is interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction
> between the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal
> of sense that some direct interaction takes place between the charged
> particles and the magnetic field that permeates the area around them.  If
> that field is intense enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of
> those charged particles by effectively offering them a medium to 'push'
> against.
>
> A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests
> would be able to reach into every region of the active material, including
> the nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected
> remnant would be expected since the internally generated field passes
> through an excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally
> generated rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by
> nearby electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their
> location.
>
> How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations
> penetrate is of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all
> of the electrons that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby
> fusion reaction.  This process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic
> brake in operation.
>
> A few questions remain that I want answered.  Is the large external
> magnetic field reported by DGT real?  Have they retracted that announcement
> or do they continue to insist that it is reported accurately?
>
> If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction
> between the powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE.   How this gets
> translated into a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time.  I
> anticipate a positive feedback system is generating this behavior because
> of the nature of the field.  There does not seem to be any known reason for
> such a large field to be generated by the DGT device, and of course, it
> begins as a small field.   There likewise is no good explanation for the
> LENR action either, so it seems like a logical conclusion to assume they
> are connected in some manner.  For example, a small local NAE allows a
> fusion which results in the release of a significant local magnetic field
> that interacts with its neighbors.  This field induces some of them to join
> in leading to additional LENR activity.  The new fusions are somehow able
> to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner.  Both increase
> together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a large
> total magnetic field.  You do not observe one without the other being
> present.  Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to
> be sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance
> or a significant external magnetic field.  The requirement for the correct
> positive feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in
> producing a working system.
>
> The above scenario represents my latest thinking.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Bob Cook 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>
>  Dave--
>
> Muon induced cold fusion was known before  the P-F effect was
> demonstrated.
>
> I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved
> with the event.  Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large
> electronic heat capacity associated with effectively heavy S band
> electrons.  The large B field inside the Pd metal would reduce the number
> of possible quantum states for the deuterium particles and cause them to be
> aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti parallel to the local (internal)  B
> field.
>
>   I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that
> involves the spin, angular momentum and  transfer of residual energy via
> spin coupling to the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a
> continuous "quantum connected" system.  I have always thought that the He
> formed in the process starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum
> state and associated energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to
> the lattice electrons (conserving angular m

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The device will look a lot like the recent NI/H reactors. The vender of the
Ni/H reactor who takes polariton production of magnetic solutions most to
heart will dominate the marketplace.



The reaction products of both the DGT reaction and the Rossi reaction match
my latest predictions---heavy low Z element production.


I am sure that will not be Mills.

By the way, I change my mind on occasion when conditions warrant...this is
a good thing.




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> My point is measurement is central to experiment.  If you aren't measuring
> phenomena you seek to explain with similar signal to noise ratios, you need
> a different experiment.
>
> Look, its simple:  If you have the keys to the LENR/Cold Fusio kingdom
> then you should be able to design a device that outperforms, in terms of
> excess energy, any of those that don't have those keys.  Moreover, the
> reaction products should match your theory.
>
> What does this device look like?
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I
>>> am after.
>>>
>>
>> Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions.
>>
>>
>>> Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear
>>> products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other
>>> processes and I see no indication that they performed the required
>>> measurements.
>>>
>>
>> One of the characteristics of photo nuclear reactions is that this
>> reaction type usually occurs in even(protons) even(protons) elements.
>>
>> Also photofusion should not produce radioactive isotopes.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or "cold
>>> fusion" processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess
>>> heat in commercial devices.
>>>
>>
>> There is an important strength component of the EMF LENR causation.
>>
>>
>>> While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance
>>> to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call "cold
>>> fusion" or "LENR" and it is clearly not producing anything like excess
>>> energy.
>>>
>>
>> Excess energy is a quantity consideration, not a quality consideration.
>> The Ni/H reactor produces lots of excess heat because it has lots of
>> reactions going on per second.
>>
>> A pinch of uranium may be fissioning and not produce measurable heat, but
>> a A-bomb produces lots of fission per nanosecond and it produces lots of
>> excess heat. It is a matter of quantity with the  quality being equal.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Bob, I was not thinking about Muon type cold fusion.  I guess it skipped my 
thoughts since I have been concentrating on nickel hydrogen systems.  It is 
interesting to see that you have been seeking some form of interaction between 
the reactant atoms and a magnetic field since it makes a great deal of sense 
that some direct interaction takes place between the charged particles and the 
magnetic field that permeates the area around them.  If that field is intense 
enough, one might expect it to restrain the motion of those charged particles 
by effectively offering them a medium to 'push' against.

A slow moving magnetic field of the sort that I understand DGT suggests would 
be able to reach into every region of the active material, including the 
nuclei.   The relatively slow moving nature of the externally detected remnant 
would be expected since the internally generated field passes through an 
excellent metallic conductor.  I also suspect that any locally generated 
rapidly changing magnetic field variations would be absorbed by nearby 
electrons in the lattice due to an induced 'E field' at their location.

How far into the metal lattice the rapid magnetic field variations penetrate is 
of interest.  It seems logical to assume that essentially all of the electrons 
that intercept that field would get a kick from a nearby fusion reaction.  This 
process reminds me of how I visualize a magnetic brake in operation.

A few questions remain that I want answered.  Is the large external magnetic 
field reported by DGT real?  Have they retracted that announcement or do they 
continue to insist that it is reported accurately?

If the field exists, my suspicion is that there is some interaction between the 
powerful magnetic field and the individual NAE.   How this gets translated into 
a positive feedback effect escapes me at this time.  I anticipate a positive 
feedback system is generating this behavior because of the nature of the field. 
 There does not seem to be any known reason for such a large field to be 
generated by the DGT device, and of course, it begins as a small field.   There 
likewise is no good explanation for the LENR action either, so it seems like a 
logical conclusion to assume they are connected in some manner.  For example, a 
small local NAE allows a fusion which results in the release of a significant 
local magnetic field that interacts with its neighbors.  This field induces 
some of them to join in leading to additional LENR activity.  The new fusions 
are somehow able to add to the initial guiding field in a positive manner.  
Both increase together to result in a significant amount of LENR activity and a 
large total magnetic field.  You do not observe one without the other being 
present.  Also, unless the parameters are correct allowing the coupling to be 
sufficient, you do not observe a significant amount of LENR performance or a 
significant external magnetic field.  The requirement for the correct positive 
feedback environment could easily explain the difficulty in producing a working 
system.

The above scenario represents my latest thinking.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



Dave--
 
Muon induced cold fusion was known before  the P-F effect was demonstrated.  
 
I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with 
the event.  Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat 
capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons.  The large B field 
inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the 
deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti 
parallel to the local (internal)  B field.   
 
  I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the 
spin, angular momentum and  transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to 
the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous "quantum 
connected" system.  I have always thought that the He formed in the process 
starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated 
energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons 
(conserving angular momentum)  and hence vibrational phonons--heat.  Linear 
momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process.  
 
Also, apparently similar (perceived the same)  physical phenomena have 
differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. 
 I tend to agree with Axil.   His comment that if you look deep enough (the 
picture will make  sense) is the basis for scientific investigation.   
 
 
Bob Cook (Stalecookie)  (My first response to this blog.)
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   David   Roberson 
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23   PM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

I would first hold off judgment and disbelief until I see if the claim is
self-consistent. Then I move on to consistencies with other examples of
similar claims: there have been many claims about monopole production in
the long history of cold fusion, next I move on to consistency with known
science and engineering.

This is why I brought up this research as follows:

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

If a ball of light cannot produce a magnetic field, I would disbelieve the
claim. However, if a ball of polaritons are likely to produce a anaople
magnetic field and it looks like a monopole (no it is a monopole, the holy
grail of many in the hunt for cold fusion over many years), I would choose
to believe that the Ni/H reactor can produce monopole magnetic fields and
that these fields are central to cold fusion.

Next, I would wait with anticipation for any new bit of research that DGT
might release to see if the monopole nature of the magnetism is further
supported.




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Axil, if I believed DGT, I would be interested. However, I person has to
> draw the line when information has no support. Where do you draw the line?
> Do you believe everything you are told?
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and
> unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored.
>
> It is a conundrum of human nature that people beg and pled for info to be
> shared about the Ni/H reactor research and then when it is made available,
> unless it fits into the existing mindset, it can be safely ignored.
>
> It might also be that the background to understand how meta-materials,
> polaritons and quantum/nano optics works is not yet developed enough. This
> stuff is quite new and a specialty.
>
> For example, people who have limited background in the proper disciplines
> may think that an invisibility cloak is witchcraft but it has been built.
>
> Just the fact that by heating up a pinch of nickel dust can produce the
> magnetic output of a superconducting MRI machine is quite amazing in itself.
>
> If a person has just a small modicum of curiosity, such a scientific
> claim (I say accomplishment) would prompt a desire to figure out what is
> going on and not consider it a waste of time.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>>
>> I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we must
>> not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other
>> reaction is taking place than the suspected one.  It is prudent to begin
>> with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for
>> results that do not quite match our expectations.
>>
>> It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different
>> processes are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the issue
>> and it is premature to declare victory.
>>
>> For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible
>> way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need
>> to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals.
>> If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole
>> new series of paths become possible.  I have been considering the
>> application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally
>> powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple
>> into each other.  A large scale version of this phenomena would not have
>> been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate
>> power.  The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the
>> temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to
>> initiate.
>>
>>
>> I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise
>> to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for
>> neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by
>> transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic
>> fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can
>> be safely ignored.  Although CF was rejected based on incorrect
>> interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A
>> person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

From: Jed Rothwell 
Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has
several distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and
HTSC, which is different from SC.
Point taken. I guess there are different modes. A lot of
underlying similarity though.

How do you know SC and HTSC are different things? 

The experts seem to agree that in conventional superconductivity, electrons
are paired (Cooper pairs) and this is mediated by lattice phonons whose
kinetic excursion is suppressed to almost nothing but what is left is
important. In HTSC - high temperature superconductivity - the explanation is
different: electron pairing is not mediated by phonons, which must be more
widely spaced, but by spin waves known as quasi-particles similar to magnons
(para-magnons). There are actually several theories that are above my pay
grade.

One of the reasons that HTSC seems similar to LENR, in general, is that
Cooper pairs of protons do exist - and would be the direct analogy; and spin
waves or magnons would be the mediation. Thus the Letts/Cravens effect is
tied back to the magnons. 

One thing which LENR may be missing, based on HTSC principles is that there
could be an advantage to establishing a high current flow of protons through
the lattice by some kind of mechanical pumping. No one is doing this AFAIK.



<>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Jones Beene  wrote:

 Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has several
> distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and HTSC,
> which is different from SC.
>

Point taken. I guess there are different modes. A lot of underlying
similarity though.

How do you know SC and HTCS are different things? Sez who?

>  Not to mention biological conduction in neurons and semiconductors.
>

That's overstating it, I think. Biological conduction is more like a
store-and-forward message relay system (telegraphy or the Internet.)

> Curiously, hydrogen embrittlement is somewhat similar to LENR . . .
>

Yes. Mizuno makes that point.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Axil, if I believed DGT, I would be interested. However, I person has  
to draw the line when information has no support. Where do you draw  
the line? Do you believe everything you are told?


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so  
implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely  
ignored.


It is a conundrum of human nature that people beg and pled for info  
to be shared about the Ni/H reactor research and then when it is  
made available, unless it fits into the existing mindset, it can be  
safely ignored.


It might also be that the background to understand how meta- 
materials, polaritons and quantum/nano optics works is not yet  
developed enough. This stuff is quite new and a specialty.


For example, people who have limited background in the proper  
disciplines may think that an invisibility cloak is witchcraft but  
it has been built.


Just the fact that by heating up a pinch of nickel dust can produce  
the magnetic output of a superconducting MRI machine is quite  
amazing in itself.


If a person has just a small modicum of curiosity, such a  
scientific  claim (I say accomplishment) would prompt a desire to  
figure out what is going on and not consider it a waste of time.






On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:


On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:

I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we  
must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that  
some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one.  It is  
prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to  
keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our  
expectations.


It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different  
processes are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle  
the issue and it is premature to declare victory.


For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no  
possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known  
and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might  
come from unexpected locals.  If the magnetic field reported by DGT  
turns out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become  
possible.  I have been considering the application of positive  
feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic  
field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each  
other.  A large scale version of this phenomena would not have been  
possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate  
power.  The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once  
the temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying  
process to initiate.


I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not  
wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example,  
the claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy  
produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for  
intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by  
any evidence they can be safely ignored.  Although CF was rejected  
based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to  
be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts.


Ed Storms



Dave



-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do  
this, assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what  
nature reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single  
process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior.  Of course  
this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be  
a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the  
observations.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Axil,

It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion  
reactions are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and  
not us.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we  
look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation  
and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems  
are cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi  
says that his early systems produced gammas.


The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always  
exclude the production of gammas.



On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene   
wrote:

From: Eric Walker

Jed Rothwell wrote:

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have  
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.


It is true th

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread Bob Cook

Dave--

Muon induced cold fusion was known before  the P-F effect was demonstrated.  

I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with 
the event.  Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat 
capacity associated with effectively heavy S band electrons.  The large B field 
inside the Pd metal would reduce the number of possible quantum states for the 
deuterium particles and cause them to be aligned, spin-wise, parallel or anti 
parallel to the local (internal)  B field.   

  I have an idea about the synthesis of He from the deuterium that involves the 
spin, angular momentum and  transfer of residual energy via spin coupling to 
the electronic structure of the lattice, assuming a continuous "quantum 
connected" system.  I have always thought that the He formed in the process 
starts out as an excited He* with a high spin quantum state and associated 
energy which is rapidly (instantaneously) released to the lattice electrons 
(conserving angular momentum)  and hence vibrational phonons--heat.  Linear 
momentum and kinetic energy is not involved in the process.  

Also, apparently similar (perceived the same)  physical phenomena have 
differing causes--the issue is in what's apparent and what really is the cause. 
 I tend to agree with Axil.   His comment that if you look deep enough (the 
picture will make  sense) is the basis for scientific investigation.   
 

Bob Cook (Stalecookie)  (My first response to this blog.)
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


  I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we must not 
put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction 
is taking place than the suspected one.  It is prudent to begin with the most 
likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do 
not quite match our expectations.

  It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes 
are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is 
premature to declare victory.

  For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible way 
for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to 
remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals.  If the 
magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of 
paths become possible.  I have been considering the application of positive 
feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and 
some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other.  A large scale 
version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi 
or DGT had systems with adequate power.  The way nickel looses it gross 
magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow 
the underlying process to initiate.

  Dave

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

My point is measurement is central to experiment.  If you aren't measuring
phenomena you seek to explain with similar signal to noise ratios, you need
a different experiment.

Look, its simple:  If you have the keys to the LENR/Cold Fusio kingdom then
you should be able to design a device that outperforms, in terms of excess
energy, any of those that don't have those keys.  Moreover, the reaction
products should match your theory.

What does this device look like?


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I
>> am after.
>>
>
> Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions.
>
>
>> Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear
>> products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other
>> processes and I see no indication that they performed the required
>> measurements.
>>
>
> One of the characteristics of photo nuclear reactions is that this
> reaction type usually occurs in even(protons) even(protons) elements.
>
> Also photofusion should not produce radioactive isotopes.
>
>
>>
>> Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or "cold
>> fusion" processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess
>> heat in commercial devices.
>>
>
> There is an important strength component of the EMF LENR causation.
>
>
>> While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance
>> to those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call "cold
>> fusion" or "LENR" and it is clearly not producing anything like excess
>> energy.
>>
>
> Excess energy is a quantity consideration, not a quality consideration.
> The Ni/H reactor produces lots of excess heat because it has lots of
> reactions going on per second.
>
> A pinch of uranium may be fissioning and not produce measurable heat, but
> a A-bomb produces lots of fission per nanosecond and it produces lots of
> excess heat. It is a matter of quantity with the  quality being equal.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I
> am after.
>

Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions.

> Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular nuclear
> products that must be discriminated from those that would arise from other
> processes and I see no indication that they performed the required
> measurements.
>

One of the characteristics of photo nuclear reactions is that this reaction
type usually occurs in even(protons) even(protons) elements.

Also photofusion should not produce radioactive isotopes.

>
> Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or "cold
> fusion" processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess
> heat in commercial devices.
>

There is an important strength component of the EMF LENR causation.

> While Simakin's device may have some aspects that bear some resemblance to
> those devices, it is clearly not what most people would call "cold fusion"
> or "LENR" and it is clearly not producing anything like excess energy.
>

Excess energy is a quantity consideration, not a quality consideration. The
Ni/H reactor produces lots of excess heat because it has lots of reactions
going on per second.

A pinch of uranium may be fissioning and not produce measurable heat, but a
A-bomb produces lots of fission per nanosecond and it produces lots of
excess heat. It is a matter of quantity with the  quality being equal.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Ed, the magnetic field interaction has some traction.  DGT, Dennis Craven, and 
Rossi all have mentioned observations that suggest magnetic interaction.  If I 
recall, one of the government labs found correlation as well.  It may be a 
blind alley as you appear to believe, but what if a strong clue to some LENR 
behavior is lurking within the data?

Of course, I have long been seeking some form of coupling between adjacent NAE 
that leads to the explosive crater phenomena.  Phonons, photons, or perhaps a 
shared magnetic environment might assist in some way to organize group 
behavior.  I also harbor the thought that an extreme magnetic field might be 
the mechanism which offers fusion energy a slow escape process.  We assume that 
a magnetic field can reach through the electron cloud and into the nucleus 
freely.  The same in not true for electric fields.

That is just a couple of reasons that I find magnetic interactions attractive 
to ponder.  It may be a dead end, but it has possibilities.

As you say, there are many ways to waste time and each has to choose his path.  
You come down hard against the W-L theory, but for some reason many including 
NASA seem convinced that they are moving ahead.  I tend to agree with you on 
that one and perhaps we are both wrong.

What was that dark shadow that just passed through the doorway? :-)

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev




On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:


I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we must not put 
on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is 
taking place than the suspected one.  It is prudent to begin with the most 
likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do 
not quite match our expectations.
 
 It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes 
are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is 
premature to declare victory.
 
 For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible way 
for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to 
remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals.  If the 
magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of 
paths become possible.  I have been considering the application of positive 
feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and 
some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other.  A large scale 
version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi 
or DGT had systems with adequate power.  The way nickel looses it gross 
magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow 
the underlying process to initiate.



I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise to 
waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for neutron 
production by W-L and for significant energy produced by transmutation are 
clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so 
implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored.  
Although CF was rejected based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, 
a line has to be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing 
ghosts. 


Ed Storms

 
 Dave
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Edmund Storms 
 To: vortex-l 
 Cc: Edmund Storms 
 Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
 
 
 
Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, 
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The 
simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that 
assumption fits the behavior.  Of course this fit might result from luck, but 
this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does 
not fit the observations. 

 
 
Ed Storms
 
 
On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:
 

Axil,
  
  It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions 
are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and not us.
  
  Dave
   
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
-Original Message-
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
  
  
 
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep 
enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in 
a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, 
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his 
early systems produced gammas. 
  

  
  
 The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the 
production of ga

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Also, the claim for intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and
unsupported by any evidence they can be safely ignored.

It is a conundrum of human nature that people beg and pled for info to be
shared about the Ni/H reactor research and then when it is made available,
unless it fits into the existing mindset, it can be safely ignored.

It might also be that the background to understand how meta-materials,
polaritons and quantum/nano optics works is not yet developed enough. This
stuff is quite new and a specialty.

For example, people who have limited background in the proper disciplines
may think that an invisibility cloak is witchcraft but it has been built.

Just the fact that by heating up a pinch of nickel dust can produce the
magnetic output of a superconducting MRI machine is quite amazing in itself.

If a person has just a small modicum of curiosity, such a scientific  claim
(I say accomplishment) would prompt a desire to figure out what is going on
and not consider it a waste of time.




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

>
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we must
> not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other
> reaction is taking place than the suspected one.  It is prudent to begin
> with the most likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for
> results that do not quite match our expectations.
>
> It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different
> processes are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the issue
> and it is premature to declare victory.
>
> For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible
> way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need
> to remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals.
> If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole
> new series of paths become possible.  I have been considering the
> application of positive feedback involving the interaction of a locally
> powerful magnetic field and some form of nuclear fusion process that couple
> into each other.  A large scale version of this phenomena would not have
> been possible to observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate
> power.  The way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the
> temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process to
> initiate.
>
>
> I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not wise
> to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the claim for
> neutron production by W-L and for significant energy produced by
> transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for intense magnetic
> fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by any evidence they can
> be safely ignored.  Although CF was rejected based on incorrect
> interpretation of what is possible, a line has to be drawn somewhere. A
> person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-
> From: Edmund Storms 
> To: vortex-l 
> Cc: Edmund Storms 
> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>
>  Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,
> assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals.
> The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out
> that assumption fits the behavior.  Of course this fit might result from
> luck, but this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an
> approach that does not fit the observations.
>
>  Ed Storms
>  On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:
>
> Axil,
>
> It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion
> reactions are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and not us.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
>
>  The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look
> deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does
> Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems,
> Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says
> that his early systems produced gammas.
>
>  The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude
> the production of gammas.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>   *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>
>>  These discussions about "suppr

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Consider various physical effects in metals that have been discovered over
the centuries, such as magnetism, conducting electricity, the thermoelectric
effect (and its opposite manifestation the Peltier effect), the photovoltaic
effect, hydrogen embrittlement, piezoelectricity, and superconductivity.
Each of these has one mechanism, and only one mechanism, as far as I know.

 

It seems unlikely to me that anomalous nuclear effects in highly loaded
metal hydrides are caused by many different phenomena with different
physical principles. I do not think there are any other physical effects in
metals which have two or more different disparate causes.

 

In biology you sometimes find mechanisms, organs and so on that evolved
independently, but came to resemble one another, such as the body shape of
dolphins and fish. That's another story entirely.

 

Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has several distinct
forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and HTSC, which is
different from SC. Not to mention biological conduction in neurons and
semiconductors.

 

At any rate, the difference between LENR and the simpler physical effects is
found in the mysteries of QM tunneling in the context of two intertwined
mechanisms - the reactant and the lattice which can experience tunneling
effects in markedly different ways. 

 

Thus, hydrogen reacting within a nickel lattice would be a different
reaction from deuterium reacting within palladium, both in the output, the
ash and the radiation. The difference is sufficient to call them: two
different types of LENR. QM tunneling is a basic paradigm shift in
understanding, and it changes everything - to the extent that hydrogen
reacting with an alloy of nickel and barium can be a different reaction than
Ni-H.

 

Curiously, hydrogen embrittlement is somewhat similar to LENR, and could be
labeled as yet another form of LENR in which the thermal gain is relatively
insignificant. Thanks for bringing that up. It also emphasizes the point
that LENR can be low gain, high gain or endothermic. 

 

The most amazing detail of Ahern's EPRI work was in the discovery
(rediscovery) of LENR endotherm.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:

I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we  
must not put on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that  
some other reaction is taking place than the suspected one.  It is  
prudent to begin with the most likely concepts to explore and to  
keep our eyes wide open for results that do not quite match our  
expectations.


It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different  
processes are identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the  
issue and it is premature to declare victory.


For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no  
possible way for cold fusion to occur according to what was known  
and the doors need to remain open to new discoveries that might come  
from unexpected locals.  If the magnetic field reported by DGT turns  
out to be real, then a whole new series of paths become possible.  I  
have been considering the application of positive feedback involving  
the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and some form  
of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other.  A large  
scale version of this phenomena would not have been possible to  
observe before Rossi or DGT had systems with adequate power.  The  
way nickel looses it gross magnetic characteristic once the  
temperature reaches a threshold might allow the underlying process  
to initiate.


I agree Dave, keeping an open mind is important. However, it is not  
wise to waste time on a claim that is clearly wrong. For example, the  
claim for neutron production by W-L and for significant energy  
produced by transmutation are clearly wrong. Also, the claim for  
intense magnetic fields by DGT are so implausible and unsupported by  
any evidence they can be safely ignored.  Although CF was rejected  
based on incorrect interpretation of what is possible, a line has to  
be drawn somewhere. A person can waste a lot of time chasing ghosts.


Ed Storms


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,  
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature  
reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single  
process. It turns out that assumption fits the behavior.  Of course  
this fit might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be  
a good start - better than an approach that does not fit the  
observations.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Axil,

It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion  
reactions are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and not  
us.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we  
look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and  
so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are  
cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi  
says that his early systems produced gammas.


The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always  
exclude the production of gammas.



On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene   
wrote:

From: Eric Walker

Jed Rothwell wrote:

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have  
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.


It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about  
the suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds  
pretty far-out.  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first  
place.


That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ 
Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas  
should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The  
original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his  
belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at  
that demo.


Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP)  
show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to  
copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - 
> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been  
hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash.


Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation  
whatsoever in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in  
mind.


Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton  
reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen  
as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics  
which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only  
happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

I agree with your approach Ed.  I just wanted to point out that we must not put 
on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some other reaction is 
taking place than the suspected one.  It is prudent to begin with the most 
likely concepts to explore and to keep our eyes wide open for results that do 
not quite match our expectations.

It would not come as a big surprise if eventually a few different processes are 
identified.   Time and experimentation will settle the issue and it is 
premature to declare victory.

For example, if you go back to the time before P&F there was no possible way 
for cold fusion to occur according to what was known and the doors need to 
remain open to new discoveries that might come from unexpected locals.  If the 
magnetic field reported by DGT turns out to be real, then a whole new series of 
paths become possible.  I have been considering the application of positive 
feedback involving the interaction of a locally powerful magnetic field and 
some form of nuclear fusion process that couple into each other.  A large scale 
version of this phenomena would not have been possible to observe before Rossi 
or DGT had systems with adequate power.  The way nickel looses it gross 
magnetic characteristic once the temperature reaches a threshold might allow 
the underlying process to initiate.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this, 
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The 
simplest assumption is to explore only a single process. It turns out that 
assumption fits the behavior.  Of course this fit might result from luck, but 
this approach would seem to be a good start - better than an approach that does 
not fit the observations.


Ed Storms

On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Axil,
 
 It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions 
are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and not us.
 
 Dave
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
 
 
 
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep 
enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelli in 
a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, 
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his 
early systems produced gammas. 
 

 
 
 The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the 
production of gammas.
 
 

 
 
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
From: Eric Walker 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been around 
since the beginning of cold fusion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the 
suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.  
Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  
 
 
 
 
That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi 
originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been 
witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the 
first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an 
expert for testing at that demo. 
 
 
 
Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he 
is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts 
about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime reaction 
for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of 
radioactive ash.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH.  
He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  
 
 
 
 
Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) 
only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” 
well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. 
Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would 
describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field 
of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this 
theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do 
not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon.
 
 
 
 
Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low 
threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his 
hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both 
counts, and that

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am
after.  Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular
nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise
from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the
required measurements.

Furthermore, you are making bold claims about what we call LENR or "cold
fusion" processes that are apparently producing large amounts of excess
heat in commercial devices.  While Simakin's device may have some aspects
that bear some resemblance to those devices, it is clearly not what most
people would call "cold fusion" or "LENR" and it is clearly not producing
anything like excess energy.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> One more point,
>
> I remember studying an experiment were transmutation was offset from the
> primary reaction site (NAE) by some very long distance but the
> transmutation at the remote site was weaker than at the crater(NAE) in the
> lattice.
>
> This indicated to me that an EMF causation was at play because the remote
> reaction was offset by such a long distance.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how
>> Photofission works.
>>
>> This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space
>> between the gold nanoparticles.
>>
>> Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not
>> produce the reaction.
>>
>> I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that
>> catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf
>>
>>
>>   Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au
>> nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission
>> and the transmutation that fission can produce.
>>
>>  Abstract
>> Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in
>> aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally
>> studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the
>> wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor
>> laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions
>> before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and
>> gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time
>> gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear
>> reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated
>> nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different
>> channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and
>> nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear
>> transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are
>> discussed.
>>
>>  Here is another paper:
>>
>>  I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism
>> can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also
>> causes thorium to fission.
>>  See references:
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ
>>
>>
>>   I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic
>> underpinnings of LENR.
>>
>>
>>
>> Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in
>> topology.
>>
>> These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments
>> with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated?
>>
>> "Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
>> targets in heavy water"
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830
>>
>>
>>  Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au
>> nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf
>>
>> Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and
>> why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds
>>> like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design
>>> required to differentiate your theory from others.  What you are saying, if
>>> I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear
>>> products of a particular kind will result from your experiment.
>>>
>>> What is lacking is the experimental protocol.
>>>
>>> What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate "photofusion" so
>>> that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Consider various physical effects in metals that have been discovered over
the centuries, such as magnetism, conducting electricity, the
thermoelectric effect (and its opposite manifestation the Peltier effect),
the photovoltaic effect, hydrogen embrittlement, piezoelectricity, and
superconductivity. Each of these has one mechanism, and only one mechanism,
as far as I know.

It seems unlikely to me that anomalous nuclear effects in highly loaded
metal hydrides are caused by many different phenomena with different
physical principles. I do not think there are any other physical effects in
metals which have two or more different disparate causes.

In biology you sometimes find mechanisms, organs and so on that evolved
independently, but came to resemble one another, such as the body shape of
dolphins and fish. That's another story entirely.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

One more point,

I remember studying an experiment were transmutation was offset from the
primary reaction site (NAE) by some very long distance but the
transmutation at the remote site was weaker than at the crater(NAE) in the
lattice.

This indicated to me that an EMF causation was at play because the remote
reaction was offset by such a long distance.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how
> Photofission works.
>
> This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space
> between the gold nanoparticles.
>
> Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not
> produce the reaction.
>
> I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that
> catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts.
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf
>
>
>   Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au
> nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.
>
>
>
> It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and
> the transmutation that fission can produce.
>
>  Abstract
> Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in
> aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally
> studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the
> wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor
> laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions
> before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and
> gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time
> gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear
> reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated
> nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different
> channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and
> nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear
> transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are
> discussed.
>
>  Here is another paper:
>
>  I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can
> change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also
> causes thorium to fission.
>  See references:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ
>
>
>   I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic
> underpinnings of LENR.
>
>
>
> Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in
> topology.
>
> These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments
> with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated?
>
> "Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
> targets in heavy water"
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830
>
>
>  Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au
> nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf
>
> Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and
> why transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds
>> like you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design
>> required to differentiate your theory from others.  What you are saying, if
>> I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear
>> products of a particular kind will result from your experiment.
>>
>> What is lacking is the experimental protocol.
>>
>> What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate "photofusion" so
>> that measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> One more important point, the contents of the topological
>>> defects(cracks, pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works,
>>> the cracks are superconducting. This is called topological
>>> superconductivity. There is only one environment where this
>>> superconductivity can happen at high temperature, and that is
>>> photons/polaritons condensation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the
 input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in
 nature.


 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
> important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.
>
> Then, you might ask yourself why

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Edmund Storms  wrote:

Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,
> assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals.
> The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process.
>

This is the default assumption for most research. It is Occam's razor,
which is sometimes expressed as: do not multiply entities unnecessarily.

This is a rule of thumb. It is not a physical law, or even an observation
of nature. It is the kind of thing you might preface by saying, "it is
generally a good idea to . . ." (not multiply entities / check for leaks
after you join two pipes together / conduct initial flight tests in good
weather / etc.)

It is certainly not a joke. You would be a fool to ignore this dictum.

What I have in mind with the "conservation of miracles" idea is similar,
but perhaps a little different. It seems unlikely there are many different
ways to produce anomalous heat from hydrides and yet they have all been
hidden for the last 150 years. If there are many different mechanisms, it
seems likely that some would be far easier to discover that others, and
someone would have stumbled over an easy one long ago, rather than having
them all appear after March 1989. People discovered things like the Seebeck
effect (thermoelectricity) in 1821 because that wasn't hard to detect. They
did not discover the transistor effect until 1948 because that called for
very pure materials and new theory.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely

based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.

First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still
with us, Rossi notwithstanding.

 

McKubre did not mean it is a miracle. That was a joke. He meant what I said
in the next sentences:

. . . It is not likely that there are many different, totally unrelated,
heretofore undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal
lattice. 

 

Why not? QM has shown us clearly Ockham was always a joke, and that atomic
processes are always far more complicated, not less complicated than what we
want them to be without QM- due to tunneling, time reversal and other
strange features. And who said anything about "totally unrelated"? Of course
they are all related by QM if nothing else. 

 

The "undiscovered" part of the history of LENR is the key to understanding
the multiple routes to thermal gain - in what it implies about the ignorance
of the mainstream (and even about the continuing ignorance of some segments
of the LENR community, many who still reject or do not understand QM). 

 

When the first route to LENR was discovered, the Pd-D route in 1989 - then
that discovery alone implies that other latent routes are likely to be there
- instead of less likely. This is because the first discovery affirms the
ignorance of all scientists in the first case. 

 

It is merely an issue of vanity which makes any scientific observer think -
that because he was fooled once, he can't be fooled many times. Vanity,
vanity. That and absurd appeals to "Ockham".

 

The truth is that being fooled the first time makes it more probable that
the same observer (mainstream science, or even one-track coldfusionistas)
suffer from a systemic problem of analysis, which until it has been
remedied, will cause the observer to fail again and again - and consequently
miss other different, but somewhat related, routes to LENR. At least a
dozen.

 

Therefore and to the contrary, I think it could be very likely to be many
routes to thermal gain with H2, and in fact all the evidence points that way
- all of them unknown prior to 1989 but with the common denominator of
hydrogen isotopes, which are entirely or partially confined in a lattice,
usually involving QM tunneling. Often "confinement" will imply greatly
increased density of the reactant, loss of molecular identity, and loss of
freedom of movement.

 

Pd-D is very different from Ni-H, but not unrelated. QM tunneling can exist
in either case with vastly different results. Clearly Ni-H produces no
helium and usually no gammas. Clearly deuterium in nickel is less likely to
give excess heat and helium, than in Pd and nickel does almost nothing in
Pd. In no way are the reactions the same, but neither are they totally
different. 

 

Most reactions give no gammas, others a few gammas but these cannot be the
same reaction because of the gammas. Same with transmutation. All the dozen
of so LENR "miracles" are based on the mega-miracle of QM but it is
remarkable how often this is overlooked.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how
Photofission works.

This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space
between the gold nanoparticles.

Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not
produce the reaction.

I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze
the LENR reaction as I have explained to vortex in past posts.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf

  Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au
nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.

It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and
the transmutation that fission can produce.

 Abstract
Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in
aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally
studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the
wavelength of 1.06 - 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor
laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions
before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and
gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 - 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time
gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear
reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated
nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different
channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and
nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear
transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are
discussed.

 Here is another paper:

 I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can
change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also
causes thorium to fission.
 See references:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

  I have been looking for a theory that supports the Nanoplasmonic
underpinnings of LENR.

Composite fermions look good so far. For one thing, LENR is rooted in
topology.

These experiments are conclusive for me. These Nanoplasmonic experiments
with uranium can be done inexpensively, why are they not replicated?

"Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
targets in heavy water"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830

 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au
nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf

Critics of LENR are hard put to explain these series of experiments and why
transmutation and fission are demonstrated by them.

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 3:16 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like
> you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design
> required to differentiate your theory from others.  What you are saying, if
> I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear
> products of a particular kind will result from your experiment.
>
> What is lacking is the experimental protocol.
>
> What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate "photofusion" so that
> measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks,
>> pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are
>> superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is
>> only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high
>> temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the
>>> input and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in
>>> nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
 important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.

 Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might
 draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences.

 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

> This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has
> two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting
> nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura.  Or the final nucleus fissions, aka
> Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must
> conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,  
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature  
reveals. The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process.  
It turns out that assumption fits the behavior.  Of course this fit  
might result from luck, but this approach would seem to be a good  
start - better than an approach that does not fit the observations.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Axil,

It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion  
reactions are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and not  
us.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look  
deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so  
does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold  
systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi  
says that his early systems produced gammas.


The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always  
exclude the production of gammas.



On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene   
wrote:

From: Eric Walker

Jed Rothwell wrote:

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have  
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.


It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about  
the suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds  
pretty far-out.  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first  
place.


That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ 
Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas  
should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original  
lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that  
there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo.


Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP)  
show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to  
copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni ->  
Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been  
hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash.


Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever  
in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.


Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton  
reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen  
as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics  
which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens  
on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it  
is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have  
been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but  
of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do  
not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change  
very soon.


Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very  
low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).   
He has his hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears  
otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation  
is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due  
to a side channel.


The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not  
exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say -  
by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In  
all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be  
witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating,  
and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one  
part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb.


I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain  
Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order  
find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma  
study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not  
find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with  
his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE -  
essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of  
a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be  
gammaless.


It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and  
suppressed. “Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas  
in the Rossi reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup  
can be easily explained as external.


Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for  
now, we are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction,  
in this thread.


Jones

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Axil,

It is premature for us to draw the conclusion that all cold fusion reactions 
are the same process.   Nature decided this issue and not us.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev


The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep 
enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelliin a 
nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems, 
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that his 
early systems produced gammas. 


The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the 
production of gammas.




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:



From:Eric Walker 
 



Jed Rothwell wrote:


 

These discussions about "suppressing" gammarays and neutrons have been around 
since the beginning of cold fusion.


 


It is true that some people in this thread have beenarguing about the 
suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, thissounds pretty far-out.  
Better not to have powerful gammas in the firstplace.  
 

That is really the crux ofthe Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi 
originally proposed a reaction inwhich substantial gammas should have been 
witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release.The original lead shielding (in the first 
demo) was indicative of his beliefthat there were gamma and he hired an expert 
for testing at that demo. 
 
Things changed. Note thatof late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he 
is no longer pushing the transmutationof nickel to copper, and has doubts about 
any theory. In fact, we know that Ni-> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the 
reasons which have been hashedand rehashed- particularly, the lack of 
radioactive ash.

 


Jones wants to say that there is no penetratingradiation whatsoever in NiH.  He 
no doubt has his reversible proton fusionin mind.  
 

Well, yes - the RPF reversibleproton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) only 
came into play as a last resort– and it was chosen as the “one and only” 
well-known nuclear reaction in all ofphysics which did not produce gammas. 
Problem is, of course, it only happens onthe sun; and QCD, which would describe 
the level of exotherm (it is a strong forcereaction) is not my field of 
expertise. I have been attempting to partner withan expert in QCD on this 
theory, but of course, most of them are negative onLENR to begin with and do 
not want to have their name associated with Rossi.That will change very soon.

 
Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there isabove a very low 
threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him). He has his 
hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bearsotherwise on both counts, 
and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seenand is perhaps inherent to 
NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel. 
 

The problem with anysuggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma 
radiation from thestart (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the 
reaction itself – can becalled “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where 
gammas can witnessed, theywill be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas 
are highly penetrating, andeven1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. 
Actually even one part per billionwould stand out like a sore thumb.
 
I do not mind belaboringthe main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s 
results, if Rossi is forreal - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless 
starting point. This is dueto the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with 
top notch instrumentation, couldnot find any gammas over hours of study at high 
thermal release, with hisprobes place under the original lead shielding. HE 
FOUND NONE - essentially abackground level. The importance of “none” instead of 
a few, cannot beoveremphasized. The underlying reaction must be gammaless.
 
It is not sufficient tosuggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. “Leakage” 
prevents thatsuggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor during 
operation and theones seen at startup can be easily explained as external. 
 
Things could be differentfor other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are 
only concerned with an analysisof the Rossi reaction, in this thread.
 
Jones

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like
you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design
required to differentiate your theory from others.  What you are saying, if
I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear
products of a particular kind will result from your experiment.

What is lacking is the experimental protocol.

What kind of apparatus would be required to initiate "photofusion" so that
measurable phenomena predicted by your theory would be present?

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks,
> pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are
> superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is
> only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high
> temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input
>> and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
>>> important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might
>>> draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
 This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has
 two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting
 nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura.  Or the final nucleus fissions, aka
 Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must
 conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this
 process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained.
 The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules.

 Ed Storms

 On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

 this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear
 ash.

 You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
 energy in
 the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
 Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one
 62Ni
 fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and
 that is the
 reaction:-

 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV

 However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more
 possible
 exothermic reactions, e.g. :-

 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces
 iron.
 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV

 The last 4 produce lighter elements.

 There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also
 for the
 daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-

 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV

 Note the many light elements/isotopes.

 Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements,
 fission
 becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can
 see this
 by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent
 addition of
 *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.

 Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely
 shrunken Hydrino
 molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron,
 so I
 think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of
 other
 atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.

 And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.

 Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't
 necessarily mean
 that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.

 Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more
 likely
 fission becomes

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Jones Beene  wrote:

> JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely
> based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.
>
> First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
> past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is
> still
> with us, Rossi notwithstanding.

McKubre did not mean it is a miracle. That was a joke. He meant what I said
in the next sentences:

. . . It is not likely that there are many different, totally unrelated,
heretofore undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal
lattice. It seem intuitively likely that all of these methods are somehow
related at some level.

> But that irregularity in itself is
> indicative of there being many energetic pathways of variable probability.
>

They can still all be of the same basic nature, explainable with the same
basic physics. This seems likely. Irregularity is not multiplicity. Every
snowflake is supposedly unique -- I assume based on the number molecules of
water and the different ways they can be arranged. Every person is unique,
because there are so many ways DNA can be arranged to make viable person.
However, this does not mean that each snowflake has unique properties, or
that people are not all the same species, with a great deal in common
biologically.

> In short, a dozen different versions of LENR could be on the low side :-)
>

Is this not like saying there are many different versions of fire? Some
with smoke, some without, some at high temperatures, some at lower
temperatures. That makes no sense. These is only one. Depending on
conditions it acts differently.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks,
pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are
superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is
only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high
temperature, and that is photons/polaritons condensation.




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input
> and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
>> important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.
>>
>> Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might
>> draw a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>
>>> This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has
>>> two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting
>>> nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura.  Or the final nucleus fissions, aka
>>> Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must
>>> conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this
>>> process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained.
>>> The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules.
>>>
>>> Ed Storms
>>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear
>>> ash.
>>>
>>> You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
>>> energy in
>>> the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
>>> Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one
>>> 62Ni
>>> fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and
>>> that is the
>>> reaction:-
>>>
>>> 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV
>>>
>>> However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more
>>> possible
>>> exothermic reactions, e.g. :-
>>>
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron.
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV
>>>
>>> The last 4 produce lighter elements.
>>>
>>> There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for
>>> the
>>> daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-
>>>
>>>
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV
>>>
>>> Note the many light elements/isotopes.
>>>
>>> Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements,
>>> fission
>>> becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can
>>> see this
>>> by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent
>>> addition of
>>> *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.
>>>
>>> Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken
>>> Hydrino
>>> molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron,
>>> so I
>>> think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of
>>> other
>>> atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.
>>>
>>> And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.
>>>
>>> Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't
>>> necessarily mean
>>> that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more
>>> likely
>>> fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to
>>> be
>>> magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4
>>> protons may
>>> also be possible, e.g. :-
>>>
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV
>>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni +

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled  
into it when I became aware of some experimental results that did  
not fit into the conventional picture.  Once I dipped my toe into  
the water I quickly came to realise how much information was  
available, some of which did seem to provide a pointer that might  
explain what had been seen.  I have hypothesies on this and other  
scientific things, some of which I have been working on for over 30  
years, but it is my custom when explaining them to other people to  
finish with "But I may be wrong".  I hope this means that I can give  
up opinions if circumstances dictate.


I find it also useful to be able to say "I understand your  
hypothesis, and it may be right (indeed it may well have  
advantages), but for the moment science is probably best served if  
you continue with your hypothesis and I with mine, and hopefully  
experimental evidence suggested by our two hypothesies will be such  
that we find out who was right before we die".


I agree Nigel, many variations are plausible. However, these must be  
in agreement about basic features of the process. I'm looking for the  
basic features all explanations must contain. Also, people need to be  
guided effectively to look for the important behavior. Right now  
people make the effect work on occasions and report whatever they  
think is important or were able to detect.


A new phenomenon of nature has been discovered, similar to but more  
important than the discovery of fission of uranium. A whole new kind  
of nuclear interaction has been revealed. Getting the understanding  
right is important and essential to using this energy in commercial  
application.


Right now two battles are being fought. One with the skeptics outside  
the field who deny funding and the other in the field about how the  
process works.  Mankind will not benefit until these battles are won.  
Meanwhile, the consequences of using conventional energy just gets  
worse.  This is not a game of wits. This impacts on the future of  
mankind.


Ed Storms


Nigel

On 03/02/2014 16:49, Edmund Storms wrote:
Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize.  
My present book has 750 citations to essential information. How  
many people do you think have read these papers? My data base  
contains 4700 papers, which is more than available on LENR.org


I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to  
all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without  
violating any laws of nature and without introducing novel  
mechanisms.  I can predict a whole range of behavior that can be  
looked for to test the model.  Some of this behavior has been seen  
and is unexplained and some would be expected but ignored.  The  
phenomenon has only a few novel features that I have identified.  
The rest can be explained by accepted laws of nature.  
Unfortunately, this requires a book length justification because  
acceptance requires a person to give up strongly held opinions.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say  
definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying  
mechanism.  It seems likely that at least some of the different  
sets of experimental results will have a common underlying  
mechanism, and it is well worth trying to make   
progress by looking for common factors that might point to  
possible underlying mechanisms.  But there may well be outliers  
that dont fit in, which may, or may not indicate that it is  
hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple mechanisms   However  
a hypothesis should suggests some novel experiments (ie is to a  
degree testable and can make predictions) which, as has already  
been said, is the whole point of a hypothesis.   If it does not  
then it is of no great help.


I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X  
underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels  
on a pinhead.


Nigel

On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote:



From:Axil Axil

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we  
look deep enough.


That is absurd.

There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In  
fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions  
of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input
and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
> important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.
>
> Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw
> a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has
>> two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting
>> nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura.  Or the final nucleus fissions, aka
>> Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must
>> conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this
>> process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained.
>> The collection below was not calculated using the correct rules.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash.
>>
>> You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
>> energy in
>> the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
>> Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni
>> fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that
>> is the
>> reaction:-
>>
>> 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV
>>
>> However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more
>> possible
>> exothermic reactions, e.g. :-
>>
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron.
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
>> 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV
>>
>> The last 4 produce lighter elements.
>>
>> There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for
>> the
>> daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-
>>
>>
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
>> 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV
>>
>> Note the many light elements/isotopes.
>>
>> Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission
>> becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see
>> this
>> by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent
>> addition of
>> *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken
>> Hydrino
>> molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so
>> I
>> think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of
>> other
>> atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.
>>
>> And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.
>>
>> Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily
>> mean
>> that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.
>>
>> Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely
>> fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be
>> magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4
>> protons may
>> also be possible, e.g. :-
>>
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV
>> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV
>> 1H+

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.

Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw
a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has two
> consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting nuclei
> remains in tact, aka Iwamura.  Or the final nucleus fissions, aka Miley et
> al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that must conserve n
> and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern this process. These
> rules, when applied allow the observations to be explained. The collection
> below was not calculated using the correct rules.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash.
>
> You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
> energy in
> the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
> Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni
> fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that
> is the
> reaction:-
>
> 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV
>
> However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more
> possible
> exothermic reactions, e.g. :-
>
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron.
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV
>
> The last 4 produce lighter elements.
>
> There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for
> the
> daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-
>
>
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV
>
> Note the many light elements/isotopes.
>
> Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission
> becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see
> this
> by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent
> addition of
> *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.
>
> Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken
> Hydrino
> molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I
> think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of
> other
> atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.
>
> And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.
>
> Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily
> mean
> that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.
>
> Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely
> fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be
> magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons
> may
> also be possible, e.g. :-
>
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has  
two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting  
nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura.  Or the final nucleus fissions,  
aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that  
must conserve n and p. I'm gradually identifying the rules that govern  
this process. These rules, when applied allow the observations to be  
explained. The collection below was not calculated using the correct  
rules.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light  
nuclear ash.


You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add  
enough energy in

the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only  
one 62Ni
fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and  
that is the

reaction:-

1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV

However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more  
possible

exothermic reactions, e.g. :-

1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces  
iron.

1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV

The last 4 produce lighter elements.

There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also  
for the

daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-


1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV

Note the many light elements/isotopes.

Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements,  
fission
becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one  
can see this
by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent  
addition of

*two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.

Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely  
shrunken Hydrino
molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a  
neutron, so I
think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells  
of other

atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.

And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.

Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't  
necessarily mean

that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.

Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more  
likely
fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules  
to be
magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4  
protons may

also be possible, e.g. :-

1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The assay of Rossi reaction ash says that 10% was iron. This reaction looks
like a good bet to be the main one in Rossi's reactor

1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash.
>
> You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
> energy in
> the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
> Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni
> fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that
> is the
> reaction:-
>
> 1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV
>
> However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more
> possible
> exothermic reactions, e.g. :-
>
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron.
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
> 1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV
>
> The last 4 produce lighter elements.
>
> There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for
> the
> daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-
>
>
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
> 1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV
>
> Note the many light elements/isotopes.
>
> Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission
> becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see
> this
> by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent
> addition of
> *two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.
>
> Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken
> Hydrino
> molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I
> think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of
> other
> atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.
>
> And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.
>
> Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily
> mean
> that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.
>
> Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely
> fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be
> magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons
> may
> also be possible, e.g. :-
>
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV
> 1H+1H+1H+1H+

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread Nigel Dyer

I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled into it 
when I became aware of some experimental results that did not fit into 
the conventional picture.  Once I dipped my toe into the water I quickly 
came to realise how much information was available, some of which did 
seem to provide a pointer that might explain what had been seen.  I have 
hypothesies on this and other scientific things, some of which I have 
been working on for over 30 years, but it is my custom when explaining 
them to other people to finish with "But I may be wrong".  I hope this 
means that I can give up opinions if circumstances dictate.


I find it also useful to be able to say "I understand your hypothesis, 
and it may be right (indeed it may well have advantages), but for the 
moment science is probably best served if you continue with your 
hypothesis and I with mine, and hopefully experimental evidence 
suggested by our two hypothesies will be such that we find out who was 
right before we die".


Nigel

On 03/02/2014 16:49, Edmund Storms wrote:
Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My 
present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many 
people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700 
papers, which is more than available on LENR.org


I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to 
all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without violating 
any laws of nature and without introducing novel mechanisms.  I can 
predict a whole range of behavior that can be looked for to test the 
model.  Some of this behavior has been seen and is unexplained and 
some would be expected but ignored.  The phenomenon has only a few 
novel features that I have identified. The rest can be explained by 
accepted laws of nature. Unfortunately, this requires a book length 
justification because acceptance requires a person to give up strongly 
held opinions.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say 
definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying 
mechanism.  It seems likely that at least some of the different sets 
of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and 
it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common 
factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms.  But 
there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not 
indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple 
mechanisms   However a hypothesis should suggests some novel 
experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions) 
which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a 
hypothesis.   If it does not then it is of no great help.


I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X 
underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on 
a pinhead.


Nigel

On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Axil Axil

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look 
deep enough.


That is absurd.

There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In 
fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of 
hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

this post  changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash.

You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
energy in
the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one 62Ni
fission reaction that is exothermic if only one proton is added, and that
is the
reaction:-

1H+62Ni => 59Co + 4He + 0.346 MeV

However, if 2 protons are added simultaneously, there are many more possible
exothermic reactions, e.g. :-

1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV  < this one produces iron.
1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV

The last 4 produce lighter elements.

There are also similar reactions for the other Ni isotopes, and also for the
daughter products of the initial reactions, e.g. :-


1H+1H+64Zn => 66Ge + 10.202 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 65Ga + 1H + 3.942 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 62Zn + 4He + 7.321 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 3.860 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 54Fe + 12C + 4.827 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 50Cr + 16O + 3.571 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 42Ca + 24Mg + 1.055 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 36Ar + 30Si + 3.239 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 37Ar + 29Si + 1.417 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 38Ar + 28Si + 4.782 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 35Cl + 31P + 2.029 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 33S + 33S + 1.746 MeV
1H+1H+64Zn => 34S + 32S + 4.522 MeV

Note the many light elements/isotopes.

Generally speaking by the time one gets to the mid-range elements, fission
becomes much less likely when only a single nucleon is added (one can see
this
by checking neutron absorption cross sections). However concurrent addition
of
*two* protons could be a whole different kettle of fish.

Why do I even consider two proton additions? Because a severely shrunken
Hydrino
molecule is electrically neutral and even more massive than a neutron, so I
think it may be possible for it to pass through the electron shells of other
atoms and approach the nucleus, just as neutrons do.

And they bring two protons to the party *at the same time*.

Note that just because a reaction is exothermic, that doesn't necessarily
mean
that it will happen frequently/easily or even at all for that matter.

Furthermore, the more energy/mass that is initially added, the more likely
fission becomes. Since it is also possible for two Hydrino molecules to be
magnetically bound together, reactions involving the addition of 4 protons
may
also be possible, e.g. :-

1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ge + n + 10.750 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 66Ge + 24.037 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Ga + 3H + 4.007 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 64Ga + 2H + 8.108 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 65Ga + 1H + 17.778 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Zn + 5He + 7.372 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 62Zn + 4He + 21.156 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + 3He + 9.692 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Cu + 7Li + 3.859 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Cu + 6Li + 6.667 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 61Cu + 5Li + 12.713 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Ni + 10Be + 3.707 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Ni + 9Be + 7.144 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 58Ni + 17.696 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 59Ni + 7Be + 7.795 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 6Be + 8.507 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Co + 11B + 7.769 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Co + 10B + 6.398 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 57Co + 9B + 9.338 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Fe + 14C + 7.721 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Fe + 13C + 10.230 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Fe + 12C + 18.662 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 55Fe + 11C + 9.239 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 56Fe + 10C + 7.316 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Mn + 15N + 10.550 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Mn + 14N + 10.252 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 53Mn + 13N + 11.752 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 54Mn + 12N + 0.627 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Cr + 18O + 6.010 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49Cr + 17O + 8.549 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50Cr + 16O + 17.406 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 51Cr + 15O + 11.003 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 14O + 9.819 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47V + 19F + 5.899 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48V + 18F + 6.011 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 49V + 17F + 8.415 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 50V + 16F + 0.951 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ti + 22Ne + 7.983 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Ti + 21Ne + 7.147 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 46Ti + 20Ne + 13.575 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 47Ti + 19Ne + 5.591 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 18Ne + 5.580 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Sc + 25Na + 0.410 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Sc + 24Na + 2.949 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Sc + 23Na + 8.128 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Sc + 22Na + 5.408 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 45Sc + 21Na + 5.662 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 39Ca + 27Mg + 4.271 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 40Ca + 26Mg + 13.471 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 41Ca + 25Mg + 10.740 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 42Ca + 24Mg + 14.890 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 43Ca + 23Mg + 6.292 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 44Ca + 22Mg + 4.275 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 37K + 29Al + 5.425 MeV
1H+1H+1H+1H+62Ni => 38K + 28Al + 8.061 MeV
1H+1H+1H

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My  
present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many  
people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700  
papers, which is more than available on LENR.org


I'm trying to apply the fewest number of assumptions as possible to  
all observed behavior. I find that this is possible without violating  
any laws of nature and without introducing novel mechanisms.  I can  
predict a whole range of behavior that can be looked for to test the  
model.  Some of this behavior has been seen and is unexplained and  
some would be expected but ignored.  The phenomenon has only a few  
novel features that I have identified. The rest can be explained by  
accepted laws of nature. Unfortunately, this requires a book length  
justification because acceptance requires a person to give up strongly  
held opinions.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:

I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say  
definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying  
mechanism.  It seems likely that at least some of the different sets  
of experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and  
it is well worth trying to make progress by looking for common  
factors that might point to possible underlying mechanisms.  But  
there may well be outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not  
indicate that it is hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple  
mechanisms   However a hypothesis should suggests some novel  
experiments (ie is to a degree testable and can make predictions)  
which, as has already been said, is the whole point of a  
hypothesis.   If it does not then it is of no great help.


I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X  
underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels  
on a pinhead.


Nigel

On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote:



From:Axil Axil

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we  
look deep enough.


That is absurd.

There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In  
fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of  
hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread ChemE Stewart

I agree with QED.

We humans live in a weakly ionizing quantum vacuum, which varies in
concentration in our atmosphere, creating low pressure disturbances and is
conductive.  Based upon observation, it is ionizing oxygen in our
atmosphere and forming water vapor as well as weakly ionizing the
water/ocean at times and triggering blooms and hypoxia.  It is probably the
ionization energy behind photosynthesis.

This dark matter streams from the Sun, goes through inflation forming
strings in our atmosphere which are decaying all of the time creating our
weather in the jet streams and streaming to the core of the Earth, weakly
interacting on humans and the Earth in a weakly ionizing effect we call
gravity.

That is my Macro explanation of something that is quantum in Nature

Stewart




On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> From: Jed Rothwell
> AA: The cold fusion reaction must be the
> same for all systems if we look deep enough.
> JB: That is absurd.  There is not the least bit of evidence
> for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen
> energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
> JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely
> based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.
>
> First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
> past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is
> still
> with us, Rossi notwithstanding. But that irregularity in itself is
> indicative of there being many energetic pathways of variable probability.
> As is Mills and the extraordinary variety of findings of transmutation or
> no
> transmutation, helium-e or tritium or helium-4 etc.
>
> Second, there is nothing in physics related to the silly notion of
> "conservation of miracles". It is merely a reflection of the ignorance of
> the observer.
>
> Thirdly, hydrogen makes up most of the Universe - perhaps 90% of what we
> can
> see, and up to 99% of all mass, if dark matter is hydrogen in a DDL (deep
> Dirac level). Thus, it could be opined that if there were such a parameter
> as "miracles" (inherent ignorance) then the vast majority of those should
> be
> relate to hydrogen.
>
> In short, a dozen different versions of LENR could be on the low side :-)
>
> You can compare this to combustion, which works differently
> with different materials. Sometimes it produces smoke; sometimes it
> doesn't.
> Sometimes it is rapid in an explosion, sometimes slow. As Chris Tinsley
> often pointed out, taking a broader view, you can even say that metabolism
> is a form of combustion.
> QED
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, points to no
transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the cold fusion
reaction. This points to photofusion.

The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus
before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear spin points to photofusion.

The clue that transmutation is not due to fission which cannot happen
because of  negative energy coming out of the fission reaction or multiple
separate serial fusion events because multiple lighter elements are
produced by fusion; so the cause must be a result of one massive fusion
reaction  of many diprotons into the nickel atom. This points to a total
removal of nuclear repulsion for all these nucleons which all combine
into two or more lighter  resultant nuclei. Also the production of all
those highly concentrated cooper pairs of protons point to suspension of
nuclear repulsion.



On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On 2/3/14, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > Let us discuss this reference:...
>
> No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which
> would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
> >
> >> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and
> >> experimental testing.
> >>
> >> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows
> >> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by
> >> economic those experiments may be quite practical.
> >>
> >> What is your experimental test?
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff
> >>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great
> >>> joy.
> >>>
> >>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by
> >>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil.
> >>>
> >>>  In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the
> >>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the
> >>> references I list.
> >>>
> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf
> >>>
> >>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies
> >>> can
> >>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is
> called
> >>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as
> >>> simple
> >>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even
>  more
>  so than ChemE.
> 
>  Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
>  demonstration of that knowledge?
> 
> 
>  On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:
> 
> > Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is
> suppressed
> > (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons
> do
> > not
> > excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
> > kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have
> >>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about
> >> the
> >> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty
> >> far-out.
> >>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is
> more
> >> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled
> >> out by
> >> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our
> >> attention.
> >>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in
> >> the
> >> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
> >> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it
> >> will
> >> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after
> it
> >> takes
> >> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is
> >> allowed,
> >> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much
> of
> >> the
> >> recent thread.
> >>
> >> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever
> >> in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed
> >> wants to
> >> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low
> threshold
> >> is
> >> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his
> hydroton
> >> in
> >> mind.  I've argued that th

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

From: Jed Rothwell 
AA: The cold fusion reaction must be the
same for all systems if we look deep enough.  
JB: That is absurd.  There is not the least bit of evidence
for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen
energetic reactions of hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.
JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely
based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. 

First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at all - is still
with us, Rossi notwithstanding. But that irregularity in itself is
indicative of there being many energetic pathways of variable probability.
As is Mills and the extraordinary variety of findings of transmutation or no
transmutation, helium-e or tritium or helium-4 etc.

Second, there is nothing in physics related to the silly notion of
"conservation of miracles". It is merely a reflection of the ignorance of
the observer.

Thirdly, hydrogen makes up most of the Universe - perhaps 90% of what we can
see, and up to 99% of all mass, if dark matter is hydrogen in a DDL (deep
Dirac level). Thus, it could be opined that if there were such a parameter
as "miracles" (inherent ignorance) then the vast majority of those should be
relate to hydrogen. 

In short, a dozen different versions of LENR could be on the low side :-)

You can compare this to combustion, which works differently
with different materials. Sometimes it produces smoke; sometimes it doesn't.
Sometimes it is rapid in an explosion, sometimes slow. As Chris Tinsley
often pointed out, taking a broader view, you can even say that metabolism
is a form of combustion. 
QED


<>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread Nigel Dyer

I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say 
definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying 
mechanism.  It seems likely that at least some of the different sets of 
experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and it is 
well worth trying to make progress by looking for common factors that 
might point to possible underlying mechanisms.  But there may well be 
outliers that dont fit in, which may, or may not indicate that it is 
hopelessly wrong, or there might be multiple mechanisms   However a 
hypothesis should suggests some novel experiments (ie is to a degree 
testable and can make predictions) which, as has already been said, is 
the whole point of a hypothesis.   If it does not then it is of no great 
help.


I feel that to state categorically at the moment that there are X 
underlying mechanisms is akin to stating that you can fit X angels on a 
pinhead.


Nigel

On 03/02/2014 15:19, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Axil Axil

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look 
deep enough.


That is absurd.

There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, 
the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen 
when loaded into condensed matter.

Fwd: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Begin forwarded message:

From: Edmund Storms 
Date: February 3, 2014 9:28:49 AM MST
To: "torulf.gr...@bredband.net>" 
Cc: Edmund Storms 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Good point Torulf. I believe the environment is important to make  
the Hydroton, but once made it will complete its task regardless of  
the environment. Nevertheless, many sources of energetic radiation  
can be proposed without having to use the Hydroton.  If materials  
are subjected to sufficient local energy, normal nuclear reactions  
will result. These emit the normal energetic radiation and are  
outside of a discussion about LENR.

LeClair entered this energy level in his experiments. Also, evidence  
exists for unusual kinds of radiation being emitted, with the EV  
being one example. The nuclear world is still not understood, but I  
choose to explore on only one part of this large unknown.

Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:15 AM,  > wrote:

I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation.

The reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take "long" time for a  
nuclear reaction.

The energy is released as a sequence of many photons.

And the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment.

There may be some events in the metal how may destroy the NAE and  
interrupt ongoing nuclear reactions.

If the hydrogen pair already have released some energy the reaction  
may it not go back. Instead it will realise

the remaining energy in one high energy photon or as particles, but  
not so high energy as in a hot fusion reaction.

 Torulf

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:01:20 -0700, Edmund Storms > wrote:

On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we  
look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation  
and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems  
are cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi  
says that his early systems produced gammas.
The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always  
exclude the production of gammas.
First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC  mechanism  
is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this  
mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the  
words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of  
nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which  
produce radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation,  
transmutation makes a little heat and a little radiation, and  
fractofusion makes occasional energetic radiation. Only a little  
of the radiation is energetic, none of which is produced by cold  
fusion. That feature makes LENR unique.
Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is  
simply WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not  
needed to explain the energy.  We should leave Rossi out of the  
discussion and focus on published information from many competent  
sources.
Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible  
assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments,  
which prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers.  I will  
send them to your personal address.

Ed

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene   
wrote:

From: Eric Walker

Jed Rothwell wrote:

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons  
have been around since the beginning of cold fusion.

It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing  
about the suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this  
sounds pretty far-out.  Better not to have powerful gammas in the  
first place.

That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ 
Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial  
gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release.  
The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of  
his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert for  
testing at that demo.

Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP)  
show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to  
copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni  
-> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have  
been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive  
ash.

Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation  
whatsoever in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion  
in mind.

Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton  
reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was  
chosen as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all  
of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course,  
it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the  
level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field  
of expertise. I have been attempting to part

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread torulf.greek



I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation. 

The
reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take "long" time for a nuclear
reaction. 

The energy is released as a sequence of many photons. 

And
the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment. 

There may be
some events in the metal how may destroy the NAE and interrupt ongoing
nuclear reactions. 

If the hydrogen pair already have released some
energy the reaction may it not go back. Instead it will realise 

the
remaining energy in one high energy photon or as particles, but not so
high energy as in a hot fusion reaction. 

 Torulf 

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014
09:01:20 -0700, Edmund Storms  wrote: 

On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil
Axil wrote: 

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems
if we look deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation
and so does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are
cold systems, 
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold
only. Rossi says that his early systems produced gammas. 

The bottom
line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the
production of gammas.   
 First of all Axil, we apparently agree that
one BASIC mechanism is causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree
about what this mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear
about the words used to describe this behavior because several kinds of
nuclear reactions take place at the same time, each of which produce
radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation, transmutation makes
a little heat and a little radiation, and fractofusion makes occasional
energetic radiation. Only a little of the radiation is energetic, none
of which is produced by cold fusion. That feature makes LENR unique. 


Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply
WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not needed to
explain the energy. We should leave Rossi out of the discussion and
focus on published information from many competent sources.  

Third,
the process can be explained using only a few plausible assumptions.
Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments, which prevents me from
giving everyone the latest papers. I will send them to your personal
address. 

Ed

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene 
wrote:

FROM: Eric Walker   

Jed Rothwell wrote: 

These
discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been around
since the beginning of cold fusion.  

It is true that some
people in this thread have been arguing about the suppression of
MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out. Better not
to have powerful gammas in the first place.   

That is really the crux
of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi originally proposed a
reaction in which substantial gammas should have been witnessed at 10 kW
of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the first demo) was
indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an expert
for testing at that demo.  

Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi's
own comments (to JoNP) show that he is no longer pushing the
transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts about any theory. In
fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons
which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of
radioactive ash.

Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating
radiation whatsoever in NiH. He no doubt has his reversible proton
fusion in mind.  

Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion
suggestion (diproton reaction) only came into play as a last resort -
and it was chosen as the "one and only" well-known nuclear reaction in
all of physics which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it
only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of
exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I
have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory,
but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do
not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very
soon. 

Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a
very low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).
He has his hydroton in mind. I've argued that the evidence bears
otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is
both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a
side channel.  

The problem with any suggestion including Ed's, which
does not exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to
say - by the nature of the reaction itself - can be called "leakage." In
all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be
witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and
even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per
billion would stand out like a sore thumb. 

I do not mind belaboring
the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

On 2/3/14, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Let us discuss this reference:...

No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which
would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories.


>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and
>> experimental testing.
>>
>> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows
>> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by
>> economic those experiments may be quite practical.
>>
>> What is your experimental test?
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff
>>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great
>>> joy.
>>>
>>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by
>>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil.
>>>
>>>  In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the
>>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the
>>> references I list.
>>>
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf
>>>
>>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies
>>> can
>>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called
>>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as
>>> simple
>>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even
 more
 so than ChemE.

 Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
 demonstration of that knowledge?


 On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do
> not
> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell
>> wrote:
>>
>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have
>>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>>>
>>
>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about
>> the
>> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty
>> far-out.
>>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled
>> out by
>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our
>> attention.
>>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in
>> the
>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it
>> will
>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it
>> takes
>> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is
>> allowed,
>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of
>> the
>> recent thread.
>>
>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever
>> in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed
>> wants to
>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold
>> is
>> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton
>> in
>> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts,
>> and
>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps
>> inherent
>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this
>> discussion
>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has
>> been a
>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever
>> it is
>> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that
>> is
>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology
>> confuses
>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as
>> gammas.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi
> originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been
> witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the
> first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired
> an expert for testing at that demo.
>
>
>
> Things changed.
>

That is where things get really interesting.  Things did change, and by the
time we get to Bianchini's report, given in connection with the Elforsk
test, no "gammas" were seen.  I do not recall what the threshold were set
to for his measuring device, or even what type of device he used (e.g., GM
counter, NaI scintillation counter, etc.).  But whatever it was, I don't
recall him measuring anything above ambient.

There are two points to be made in this connection.  The first is that
Rossi has mentioned using 62Ni and 64Ni.  I long thought the explanation
for this was that these two isotopes are more reactive (although I didn't
necessarily buy this explanation).  I now suspect that that's not why
they're being used at all.  Instead, these isotopes after proton capture go
to stable isotopes of copper -- 63Cu and 65Cu.  In these two isotopes,
there is no beta-plus decay and no beta-minus decay.  That means, in
particular, no 511 keV annihilation photons for the beta-plus decays, which
would occur in huge quantities in a vigorous reaction with unenriched
nickel.  Remember when Rossi had all of the people evacuate the room during
one of his demos?

A second point to make is that a careful distinction must be made between
(1) the "missing gamma" that would normally occur during a nickel proton
capture reaction and (2) all of the activity that would happen after doing
a run with unenriched nickel.  It seems that (1) is simply not an issue,
whatever is going on.  My supposition is that (2) is relevant and that it
has been brought under control, possibly through improvements in the
enrichment process.  Here it is easy to confuse ourselves by using the term
"gamma" loosely -- there's low-level penetrating radiation, and there are
the high-energy photons that are often seen as one of the daughters of a
nickel proton capture reaction.  I'm saying that it would seem that
low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and expected in an NiH
reaction with unenriched nickel, and that the nuclear-origin gammas are not.

> The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude
> gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature
> of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in
> physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no
> exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out
> like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like
> a sore thumb.
>

This is an important point to be a stickler about, and you're right to
emphasize it.  It was also made in connection with neutrons in the WL
description -- if there's any significant leakage at all of gammas in a kW
reaction, bystanders are going to be in great danger.  So I think that's an
important gating factor -- aside from a few blips here and there, an
explanation should not involve any gammas (of type 1, above, and not
lower-energy penetrating radiation of type 2).  I don't think the
explanation I've been playing around with suffers from any issues on this
count -- I've sort of taken a phenomenological approach, effectively
defining away the problem of high-energy gammas, on the assumption that the
hidden mechanism (perhaps relating to electrons) will eventually be
understood.  It's a cop-out, but only sort-of.

>  Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we
> are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread.
>

Yes -- I get the sense that things are different between NiH and PdD in at
least one important respect.  If there is proton capture in p+Ni (there
might or might not be, although I think there probably is, at least as one
reaction among several), there does not appear to be a corresponding
deuteron capture reaction in PdD.  A d+Pd reaction appears to be
energetically unfavorable.  So for reasons that go back to the constituent
reactants, you might see a lot of activity in NiH with unenriched nickel,
and relatively little activity in a typical PdD experiment.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote:

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look  
deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so  
does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold  
systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi  
says that his early systems produced gammas.


The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always  
exclude the production of gammas.


First of all Axil, we apparently agree that one BASIC  mechanism is  
causing all behavior called LENR. We disagree about what this  
mechanism is. Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about the words  
used to describe this behavior because several kinds of nuclear  
reactions take place at the same time, each of which produce  
radiation. Fusion makes the main heat and radiation, transmutation  
makes a little heat and a little radiation, and fractofusion makes  
occasional energetic radiation. Only a little of the radiation is  
energetic, none of which is produced by cold fusion. That feature  
makes LENR unique.


Second, the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply  
WRONG. This is not correct, is not possible, and is not needed to  
explain the energy.  We should leave Rossi out of the discussion and  
focus on published information from many competent sources.


Third, the process can be explained using only a few plausible  
assumptions. Unfortunately, Vortex does not allow attachments, which  
prevents me from giving everyone the latest papers.  I will send them  
to your personal address.


Ed


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene   
wrote:

From: Eric Walker



Jed Rothwell wrote:



These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have  
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.




It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about  
the suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds  
pretty far-out.  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first  
place.




That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/ 
Forcardi originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas  
should have been witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original  
lead shielding (in the first demo) was indicative of his belief that  
there were gamma and he hired an expert for testing at that demo.




Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP)  
show that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to  
copper, and has doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni ->  
Cu cannot be the prime reaction for the reasons which have been  
hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of radioactive ash.




Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever  
in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.




Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton  
reaction) only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen  
as the “one and only” well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics  
which did not produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens  
on the sun; and QCD, which would describe the level of exotherm (it  
is a strong force reaction) is not my field of expertise. I have  
been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this theory, but  
of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do  
not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change  
very soon.




Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very  
low threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).   
He has his hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears  
otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation  
is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due  
to a side channel.




The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not  
exclude gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say -  
by the nature of the reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In  
all reactions in physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be  
witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating,  
and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. Actually even one  
part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb.




I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain  
Rossi’s results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order  
find a gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma  
study by Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not  
find any gammas over hours of study at high thermal release, with  
his probes place under the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE -  
essentially a background level. The importance of “none” instead of  
a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be  
gammaless.




It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and  
suppressed. “L

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

If you are interested in black hole research, I have just read how to do it
with polaritons. You can produce worm holes, white holes, and black holes,
even alternate universes,

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.3013v2.pdf

Black Holes and Wormholes in spinor polariton condensates

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> I almost took that as an honorable mention...
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more
>> so than ChemE.
>>
>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
>> demonstration of that knowledge?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>

 It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
 suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
 interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
 the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
 keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
 contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
 result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
 place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
 then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
 recent thread.

 Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
 NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
 say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
 due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
 mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
 that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
 to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
 might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
 discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
 that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
 different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
 things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.

 Eric

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

As you expected, I disagree strongly with this conclusion, Jones. All  
of the behavior flows from a single process. The fusion reaction of  
all isotopes of hydrogen provides the heat energy and fuels the  
transmutation reactions, of which there are two consequences depending  
on the isotope of hydrogen used. Do you really think that Nature has  
many ways of doing something so rare and novel that is seen only now  
as LENR? Unfortunately, it will take a long book to explain what is so  
simple once it is accepted and understood, rather like all new  
discoveries.


Ed Storms
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote:




From: Axil Axil

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look  
deep enough.


That is absurd.

There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In  
fact, the evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of  
hydrogen when loaded into condensed matter.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Jones Beene  wrote:

> The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
> enough.
>
>
>
> That is absurd.
>
>
>
> There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the
> evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when
> loaded into condensed matter.
>

There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely based on what
McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. That is to say, it is not
likely that there are many different, totally unrelated, heretofore
undiscovered ways to generate nuclear reactions in a metal lattice. It seem
intuitively likely that all of these methods are somehow related at some
level. That is not to say they all work the exact same way for all metals
and for both hydrogen and deuterium.

You can compare this to combustion, which works differently with different
materials. Sometimes it produces smoke; sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it
is rapid in an explosion, sometimes slow. As Chris Tinsley often pointed
out, taking a broader view, you can even say that metabolism is a form of
combustion. Both processes start with the same chemicals and produce the
same products, which means they produce the same amount of energy per gram
of reactant. They are different in many ways but fundamentally the same. As
is rusting or any other oxidation, I suppose.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

 

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
enough. 

 

That is absurd. 

 

There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the
evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when
loaded into condensed matter.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does
Piantelliin a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that
his early systems produced gammas.

The bottom line, the basic cold fusion process does not always exclude the
production of gammas.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>
>
> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>
>
>
> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.
>
>
>
> That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi
> originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been
> witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the
> first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired
> an expert for testing at that demo.
>
>
>
> Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi's own comments (to JoNP) show
> that he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has
> doubts about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime
> reaction for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly,
> the lack of radioactive ash.
>
>
>
> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.
>
>
>
> Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton
> reaction) only came into play as a last resort - and it was chosen as the
> "one and only" well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not
> produce gammas. Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD,
> which would describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction)
> is not my field of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an
> expert in QCD on this theory, but of course, most of them are negative on
> LENR to begin with and do not want to have their name associated with
> Rossi. That will change very soon.
>
>
>
> Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low
> threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his
> hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both
> counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is
> perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.
>
>
>
> The problem with any suggestion including Ed's, which does not exclude
> gamma radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature
> of the reaction itself - can be called "leakage." In all reactions in
> physics where gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no
> exceptions. Gammas are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out
> like a sore thumb. Actually even one part per billion would stand out like
> a sore thumb.
>
>
>
> I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain
> Rossi's results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a
> gammaless starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by
> Bianchini who, with top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas
> over hours of study at high thermal release, with his probes place under
> the original lead shielding. HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background
> level. The importance of "none" instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized.
> The underlying reaction must be gammaless.
>
>
>
> It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed.
> "Leakage" prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi
> reactor during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily
> explained as external.
>
>
>
> Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we
> are only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Ed,

Point me to something that illustrates your viewpoint.


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Axil, you completely ignore what is observed and how the behavior is
> produced. Rather than suggest complex, obscure, and novel ideas, why not
> learn what is actually seen?
>
> Ed Stporms
>
> On Feb 2, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
>>> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>>>
>>
>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
>> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
>> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
>> recent thread.
>>
>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
>> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
>> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
>> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
>> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

From: Eric Walker 

 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been around 
since the beginning of cold fusion.

 

It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the 
suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.  
Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  

 

That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi 
originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been 
witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the 
first demo) was indicative of his belief that there were gamma and he hired an 
expert for testing at that demo. 

 

Things changed. Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he 
is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts 
about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni -> Cu cannot be the prime reaction 
for the reasons which have been hashed and rehashed- particularly, the lack of 
radioactive ash.

 

Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in NiH.  
He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  

 

Well, yes - the RPF reversible proton fusion suggestion (diproton reaction) 
only came into play as a last resort – and it was chosen as the “one and only” 
well-known nuclear reaction in all of physics which did not produce gammas. 
Problem is, of course, it only happens on the sun; and QCD, which would 
describe the level of exotherm (it is a strong force reaction) is not my field 
of expertise. I have been attempting to partner with an expert in QCD on this 
theory, but of course, most of them are negative on LENR to begin with and do 
not want to have their name associated with Rossi. That will change very soon.

 

Ed wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low 
threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his 
hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both 
counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps 
inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  

 

The problem with any suggestion including Ed’s, which does not exclude gamma 
radiation from the start (ab initio) which is to say - by the nature of the 
reaction itself – can be called “leakage.” In all reactions in physics where 
gammas can witnessed, they will be witnessed. There are no exceptions. Gammas 
are highly penetrating, and even1% leakage stands out like a sore thumb. 
Actually even one part per billion would stand out like a sore thumb.

 

I do not mind belaboring the main point - that to adequately explain Rossi’s 
results, if Rossi is for real - we must backtrack in order find a gammaless 
starting point. This is due to the excellent gamma study by Bianchini who, with 
top notch instrumentation, could not find any gammas over hours of study at 
high thermal release, with his probes place under the original lead shielding. 
HE FOUND NONE - essentially a background level. The importance of “none” 
instead of a few, cannot be overemphasized. The underlying reaction must be 
gammaless.

 

It is not sufficient to suggest that gammas are formed and suppressed. 
“Leakage” prevents that suggestion. There are no gammas in the Rossi reactor 
during operation and the ones seen at startup can be easily explained as 
external. 

 

Things could be different for other reactions like Pd-D, but for now, we are 
only concerned with an analysis of the Rossi reaction, in this thread.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Axil, you completely ignore what is observed and how the behavior is  
produced. Rather than suggest complex, obscure, and novel ideas, why  
not learn what is actually seen?


Ed Stporms
On Feb 2, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is  
suppressed (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because  
these photons do not excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry  
no angular momentum or kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.



On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker   
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell   
wrote:


These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have  
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.


It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about  
the suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds  
pretty far-out.  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first  
place.  What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether  
p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has  
absorbed a lot of our attention.  If low-level penetrating radiation  
is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might  
be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because  
everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short- 
lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place,  
for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,  
then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much  
of the recent thread.


Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever  
in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed  
wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low  
threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He  
has his hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears  
otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation  
is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due  
to a side channel.  Although this discussion might look like the  
usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion  
about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that  
cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is  
different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology  
confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his  
system as gammas.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev



On Feb 2, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell   
wrote:


These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have  
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.


It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about  
the suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds  
pretty far-out.  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first  
place.  What is more interesting in the recent discussion is whether  
p+Ni fusion is ruled out by the evidence, and that has been what has  
absorbed a lot of our attention.  If low-level penetrating radiation  
is not allowed (e.g., photons in the keV range, some of which might  
be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is contraindicated, because  
everything we know about p+Ni says that it will result in short- 
lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes place,  
for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,  
then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much  
of the recent thread.


Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever  
in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed  
wants to say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low  
threshold is due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He  
has his hydroton in mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears  
otherwise on both counts, and that low-level penetrating radiation  
is both seen and is perhaps inherent to NiH cold fusion and not due  
to a side channel.  Although this discussion might look like the  
usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a discussion  
about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is that  
cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is  
different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology  
confuses things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his  
system as gammas.


Eric, I do not think all the radiation is from side channels. Most is  
from the reaction producing energy. A little is from transmutation,  
but not the Rossi kind because it does not occur, and a very little is  
from hot fusion produced by fractofusion.


Ed Storms


Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-03 Thread ChemE Stewart

I almost took that as an honorable mention...


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more
> so than ChemE.
>
> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
> demonstration of that knowledge?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
 around since the beginning of cold fusion.

>>>
>>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
>>> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>>>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>>>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
>>> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
>>> recent thread.
>>>
>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
>>> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
>>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
>>> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
>>> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
>>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
>>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
>>> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

The data come from many places. First, the library LENR experimental data
accumulated over the last 25 years in Jed's collection, Next, other data
that should be added to Jed's collection, then there is the experimentation
done that is directly applicable to LENR which is most recently done but
not limited to these selected fields: nano technology, nanoplasmonics,
quantum optics, nano optics, quantum mechanics, condensed matter physics,
chemistry, solid state physics, the standard modal, Rossi's revelations,
DGT published data, and the other developers of LENR+ systems.

For example, To understand what is going on inside a NAE is interesting. To
that goal, I am interested in how polaritons can produce a large anaopole
magnetic field from a hot spot all the while frequency mixing of incoming
EMF  frequencies are going on.

Let us discuss this reference:

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

Read it and give me your opinion as to its applicability to LENR+


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and
> experimental testing.
>
> One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows
> you to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by
> economic those experiments may be quite practical.
>
> What is your experimental test?
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff
>> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy.
>>
>> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by
>> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil.
>>
>>  In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the
>> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the
>> references I list.
>>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf
>>
>> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can
>> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called
>> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple
>> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more
>>> so than ChemE.
>>>
>>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
>>> demonstration of that knowledge?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
 (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
 excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
 kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.


 On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have
>> been around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>>
>
> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty 
> far-out.
>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out 
> by
> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it 
> takes
> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
> recent thread.
>
> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever
> in NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants 
> to
> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this 
> discussion
> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been 
> a
> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
> different than the usual "gamma" discu

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-02 Thread James Bowery

Theory is not made of repetition and citation but of reflection and
experimental testing.

One of the nice things about coming up with a novel theory is it allows you
to come up with novel experiments and if appropriately tempered by economic
those experiments may be quite practical.

What is your experimental test?

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff
> fifty times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy.
>
> Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by
> repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil.
>
>  In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the
> opinions I provide are based on established science as defined by the
> references I list.
>
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf
>
> As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can
> be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called
> Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple
> as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one!
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more
>> so than ChemE.
>>
>> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
>> demonstration of that knowledge?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
>>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
>>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
>>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>

 It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
 suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
 interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
 the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
 keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
 contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
 result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
 place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
 then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
 recent thread.

 Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
 NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
 say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
 due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
 mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
 that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
 to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
 might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
 discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
 that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
 different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
 things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.

 Eric

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

*White light is a  combination of all colors. In like manner, EUV is a
combination of gamma rays and infrared rays all mixed together. It can't be
simpler.*


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
>> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>>
>
> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
> recent thread.
>
> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

I speak with the authority of repetition. I have gone over this stuff fifty
times and no one has countered me except Ed Storms to my great joy.

Theory is not made of sunshine and roses. Like steel, it is tempered by
repeated blows and forged in fire, between the hammer and the anvil.

 In each post I provide one or more supporting references. All the opinions
I provide are based on established science as defined by the references I
list.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf

As above In this thread, I provide a reference on how EMF frequencies can
be both down shifted and up shifted in an optical cavity. This is called
Fano resonance. I have described Fano resonance hundreds of times as simple
as I can. Who else has provided a reference in this thread? No one!


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more
> so than ChemE.
>
> Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
> demonstration of that knowledge?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
>> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
>> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
>> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
 around since the beginning of cold fusion.

>>>
>>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
>>> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>>>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
>>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
>>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>>>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
>>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
>>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
>>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
>>> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
>>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
>>> recent thread.
>>>
>>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
>>> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
>>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
>>> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
>>> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
>>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
>>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
>>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
>>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
>>> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
>>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
>>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-02 Thread James Bowery

Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more so
than ChemE.

Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical demonstration
of that knowledge?


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
> (coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
> excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
> kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
>>> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>>>
>>
>> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
>> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
>> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
>> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
>> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
>> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
>> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
>> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
>> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
>> recent thread.
>>
>> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
>> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
>> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
>> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
>> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
>> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
>> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
>> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
>> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
>> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
>> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
>> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR  when the nucleus is suppressed
(coulomb barrio screened) by magnetic fields, because these photons do not
excite the nuclus like neutrons do. They carry no angular momentum or
kinetic energy to excite the nucleus.


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
>> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>>
>
> It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
> suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
>  Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
> interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
> the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
>  If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
> keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
> contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
> result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
> place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
> then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
> recent thread.
>
> Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
> NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
> say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
> due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
> mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
> that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
> to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
> might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
> discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
> that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
> different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
> things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
> around since the beginning of cold fusion.
>

It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
suppression of MeV-range gammas.  Like you say, this sounds pretty far-out.
 Better not to have powerful gammas in the first place.  What is more
interesting in the recent discussion is whether p+Ni fusion is ruled out by
the evidence, and that has been what has absorbed a lot of our attention.
 If low-level penetrating radiation is not allowed (e.g., photons in the
keV range, some of which might be considered "gammas"), then p+Ni is
contraindicated, because everything we know about p+Ni says that it will
result in short-lived radioisotopes and associated emissions after it takes
place, for a period of hours or days.  If low-level radiation is allowed,
then p+Ni is not necessarily ruled out.  That is the heart of much of the
recent thread.

Jones wants to say that there is no penetrating radiation whatsoever in
NiH.  He no doubt has his reversible proton fusion in mind.  Ed wants to
say that what low-level radiation there is above a very low threshold is
due to side channels (if I have understood him).  He has his hydroton in
mind.  I've argued that the evidence bears otherwise on both counts, and
that low-level penetrating radiation is both seen and is perhaps inherent
to NiH cold fusion and not due to a side channel.  Although this discussion
might look like the usual discussion about MeV gammas, really it has been a
discussion about short-lived radioisotopes that follow upon whatever it is
that cold fusion consists of.  So we've been having a discussion that is
different than the usual "gamma" discussion.  Rossi's terminology confuses
things, because he appears to refer to all photons in his system as gammas.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-02 Thread Jed Rothwell

These discussions about "suppressing" gamma rays and neutrons have been
around since the beginning of cold fusion. Listening to theorists I imagine
God struggling to find a way to stop those neutrons, piling on mechanism
after mechanism, but still a few neutrons leak out of the lattice. I don't
think so. Whatever causes cold fusion, it never, ever triggers gamma rays
or neutrons. Not one, not ever. Yes, they have been observed from time to
time, but I expect they are caused by some secondary reaction that was
triggered by cold fusion, or by something unrelated such as fractofusion.

This debate is not really about physics, or theory. It is a coincidence of
history. It happens that plasma fusion was discovered before cold fusion
was. Imagine how things would have turned out if someone had noticed cold
fusion in nickel with light water in 1890, or if they had discovered heavy
water in 1910 and cold fusion in palladium soon after that. In this
scenario, a comprehensive theory explaining cold fusion would have been
developed. Imagine that sometime later, people discover plasma fusion. The
mainstream physicists say: "That can't be fusion. It produces neutrons and
gamma rays. Our experiments and our textbooks prove that fusion only occurs
in metal lattices, and it never produces these things. That is either
experimental error or some other nuclear reaction." People like Krivit go
around uncovering scandals proving that so called "plasma fusion" cannot be
fusion and everyone knows that, but some scallywags persist in claiming it
is fusion.

Whatever people happen to discover first is considered a standard which
nature is obligated to conform to. There are countless examples. Whatever
has not yet been discovered is assumed to be impossible. I remember not
long ago people claimed that cloning mammals and growing replacment human
organs in vitro is impossible and we know that for a fact, a priori, from
our knowledge of biology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Regarding:

*then the 5 MeV quanta would require 2500 photons to be released
simultaneously. Think about the absurdity of that.*

These photons are stored from some many picoseconds while the optical
cavity remains in service.

During this time, it is mixed with the IR photons and EUV photons are
produced.

When the optical cavity is destroyed, all the EUV radiation spills out and
undergoes additional themalization back to IR in the hydrogen envelope.

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> To be a little more focused on the experimental evidence, if the HotCat
>> releases undetectable energy when in operation, with thermal release in the
>> range of 10 kW, and the limit of detection at the low end is about 2 keV,
>> and NO radiation is seen above ambient, which is the case ...
>
>
> Hopefully my recent post will clarify that there does seem to be
> significant radiation above ambient.
>
> then the 5 MeV quanta would require 2500 photons to be released
>> simultaneously. Think about the absurdity of that.
>
>
> On the basis of the statements made by Rossi and the paper by Focardi and
> others, it seems safe to me to revise downward the number of photons needed
> for this calculation.  How far down we can go is not yet clear.  But I bet
> we that could allow some photons with 20-700 keV and still be within the
> parameters of the observations.  (Note that if there is beta-plus decay of
> unstable Cu, you'll get 511 keV annihilation photons.)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

To be a little more focused on the experimental evidence, if the HotCat
> releases undetectable energy when in operation, with thermal release in the
> range of 10 kW, and the limit of detection at the low end is about 2 keV,
> and NO radiation is seen above ambient, which is the case ...

Hopefully my recent post will clarify that there does seem to be
significant radiation above ambient.

then the 5 MeV quanta would require 2500 photons to be released
> simultaneously. Think about the absurdity of that.

On the basis of the statements made by Rossi and the paper by Focardi and
others, it seems safe to me to revise downward the number of photons needed
for this calculation.  How far down we can go is not yet clear.  But I bet
we that could allow some photons with 20-700 keV and still be within the
parameters of the observations.  (Note that if there is beta-plus decay of
unstable Cu, you'll get 511 keV annihilation photons.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/
>
> 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations
>

Thank you, Axil, for keeping the discussion grounded in what has actually
been said, by Rossi and by Focardi and others. After reading through
Rossi's statements and skimming the paper by Focardi, the following points
come out:

- In NiH, there is often low-level radiation seen exiting the system.
- In the Focardi experiment, they saw the radiation highest near the
start of the trial runs and then tail off over a period of days.
- Rossi does not claim no radiation; he claims low levels of radiation
(less than 0.2 mSeivert/h) and radiation this is sufficiently contained by
the reactor vessel.
- When Rossi refers to "gammas," he is likely to be using the term
broadly to refer to any radiation coming from the reaction in his
apparatus, rather than either of the definitions of gammas that one
sometimes sees, namely, photons of an energy above a certain level or
photons whose source is the nucleus, specifically.

Eric

p.s. I excerpt some of the statements made by Rossi collected in the page
above. They are obviously provided out of context -- feel free to refer
back to what Rossi said if you think I've misquoted something.

- I confirm, as always said, that the photons produced inside the E-Cat
are thermalized inside. We make continuously measurements of radiations
outside the reactor, and never found values above 0.2 microSievert/h.
- the heating is due to the gamma radiation, which is contained from the
lead shielding. The gamma produced in the reactor have mainly low energy.
- When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the
14th of June in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr
Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations
outside the reactor: the Geiger I always work with had an increase of
emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits.
- 2- Gamma have been regularly measured by us / 3- Analysis of powders
are the evidence of the transmutation
- Besides, when it is in operation gamma rays are turned into heat and
the gamma radiation measured ouside the reactor respects the limits imposed
by the law (0.2 microSievert/h).
- Outside the E-Cat we have no variations in the external conditions,
max 0.2 microSv x h^-1.
- As a matter of fact, after a couple of hours we do not find
radioactivity inside the powders; of course, for safety reasons, in the
manuals we demand that the powders are discharged the day after, but during
our experiments that’s what we found. Nevertheless, Ni + p is not the sole
source of energy, in this you are perfectly right.
- Kowalski: "You reported that the fuel was not at all radioactive. ...
That puzzles me. This experimental fact is not consistent with what I would
expect from the p+Ni fusion." Rossi: "The radiations are not detected
OUTSIDE the apparatus. Inside the apparatus we have the radiations which
are thermalized."
- As a matter of fact we never found radioactive waste left after the
operation, when we take out the used powders. This is due to the fact that
the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni. In
thousands of tests we never found radioactive residuals. We take off the
powders the day after the turn off.
- Thank you for the information. Our process is totally different, and I
think I have understood why we produce mainly low energy gamma rays.
- The amount of copper we find after 6 months of operation is of orders
of magnitude more that the impurities in the 99. Ni we use.
- I reply to your email of November 8th: actually, I didn’t write that
in our process there are no radiations, since radiations are the source of
the energy we produce, I said we do not have residual radiations outside
the reactor, in the surrounding environment.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

Sometimes, gamma rays are produced by a LENR system. This is why gamma
thermalization does not happen.


Let us make things really simple. So let us make and analogy between
radiation frequency mixing in an optical cavity and water mixing of hot and
cold water in a mixing bowl.

If you pour hot and cold water in a mixing bowl, the water will become
warm, being neither hot or cold. The hot water is thermalized

If you have no cold water to mix and you pour only hot water into the
mixing bowl, the water will stay hot and when the bowl eventually breaks
only hot water will spill out.

This lack of thermalization is what happens when the reactor is cold and
there is no infrared light to mix with the gamma light. The gamma will not
be thermalized by the infrared photons.

This is why there happens to be gamma coming from a cold reactor; there is
no infrared radiation to mix with the gamma radiation to cool it down.

A cool LENR system will produce gamma rays.


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

>
> On Feb 2, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a violation
> of CoE?
>
> You have heard the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied"?
>
> OK how about this: Energy release delayed is energy balance denied.
>
>
> Eric,
>
> Perhaps that is a bit too glib. To be a little more focused on the
> experimental evidence, if the HotCat releases undetectable energy when in
> operation, with thermal release in the range of 10 kW, and the limit of
> detection at the low end is about 2 keV, and NO radiation is seen above
> ambient, which is the case - then the 5 MeV quanta would require 2500
> photons to be released simultaneously. Think about the absurdity of that.
>
>
> Of course that is absurd because you make assumptions that are not in
> evidence and not required to explain the process. First, Rossi has seen
> radiation and taken measures to reduce it. Dozens of people have detected
> radiation when D and H are used in several different devices. Radiation is
> NOT undetected.
>
> All photon radiation will suffer reduction in intensity, but not reduction
> in energy, when it passes through matter. Therefor, the detected radiation
> has greater intensity inside than outside the apparatus.  We ONLY have to
> assume that most photons are made with too energy to get out. This is a
> reasonable and easily tested assumption requiring no new mechanisms.
>
>
> To Ed, Uranium decay is not an appropriate model for this in any way,
> shape or form. In a U decay chain, the quanta are very large and easily
> detectable and the rate is drawn-out over years. There is no model in
> nature for undetectable decay.
>
>
> Of course an undetectable decay is not decay. However, K40 was an
> undetected decay for may years until the effort was made to detect the
> decay. Many elements are now known to have long lived radioactive isotopes
> that were previously undetected and undetectable until the proper detectors
> were used.
>
>
> To avoid conservation of momentum - the release would have to be
> absolutely uniform around the new atom, for one thing.
>
>
> I have described a process that addresses this issue. Why not discuss this
> process rather than introduce novel ideas before the proposed ideas are
> fully understood and examined.
>
> That prevents the release from being in the form of phonons. And in any
> event, the release must be precisely instantaneous without ever going to
> higher quanta. Think about the lack of any model in physics for such a
> photon or phonon release.
>
>
> Yes, that is why LENR is so unusual and why it is actively rejected.
>
>
> The problems with this explanation are mind boggling. The only reason it
> has any traction is the prodigious reputation of the main proponents, and
> the (former) lack of an acceptable alternative explanation. And Hagelstein
> acknowledges the problems!
>
>
> Hagelstein as well as every one who has ever studied LENR acknowledges the
> problem. The challenge is to find a solution to the problem. I proposed a
> very logical and easily described solution that is ignored in favor of
> incomplete and untestable ideas. Why?
>
>
> BTW - to Terry, yes in the very first demo of Rossi, according to Celani,
> a burst of radiation was noticed at startup - but that was before anyone
> was allowed into the room. Since that effect was never seen again, it was
> probably due to the E-Cat being jump started by an external radioactive
> isotope like radium. Who knows since it was a one-time anecdote.
>
>
> So, you explain this by making a very unlikely assumption, while ignoring
> ALL other reports of radiation being produced. I suppose Rossi had a very
> intense radium source that he took out of its shielding, thereby exposing
> himself to the radiation, to start the e-Cat. Whereupon, he returned the Ra
> to the shielded container. Do you realize how silly this sounds?
>
>
> LENR will surely have

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-02 Thread Edmund Storms



On Feb 2, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


From: Eric Walker

How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a  
violation of CoE?


You have heard the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied”?

OK how about this: Energy release delayed is energy balance denied.


Eric,

Perhaps that is a bit too glib. To be a little more focused on the  
experimental evidence, if the HotCat releases undetectable energy  
when in operation, with thermal release in the range of 10 kW, and  
the limit of detection at the low end is about 2 keV, and NO  
radiation is seen above ambient, which is the case - then the 5 MeV  
quanta would require 2500 photons to be released simultaneously.  
Think about the absurdity of that.


Of course that is absurd because you make assumptions that are not in  
evidence and not required to explain the process. First, Rossi has  
seen radiation and taken measures to reduce it. Dozens of people have  
detected radiation when D and H are used in several different devices.  
Radiation is NOT undetected.


All photon radiation will suffer reduction in intensity, but not  
reduction in energy, when it passes through matter. Therefor, the  
detected radiation has greater intensity inside than outside the  
apparatus.  We ONLY have to assume that most photons are made with too  
energy to get out. This is a reasonable and easily tested assumption  
requiring no new mechanisms.


To Ed, Uranium decay is not an appropriate model for this in any  
way, shape or form. In a U decay chain, the quanta are very large  
and easily detectable and the rate is drawn-out over years. There is  
no model in nature for undetectable decay.


Of course an undetectable decay is not decay. However, K40 was an  
undetected decay for may years until the effort was made to detect the  
decay. Many elements are now known to have long lived radioactive  
isotopes that were previously undetected and undetectable until the  
proper detectors were used.


To avoid conservation of momentum - the release would have to be  
absolutely uniform around the new atom, for one thing.


I have described a process that addresses this issue. Why not discuss  
this process rather than introduce novel ideas before the proposed  
ideas are fully understood and examined.


That prevents the release from being in the form of phonons. And in  
any event, the release must be precisely instantaneous without ever  
going to higher quanta. Think about the lack of any model in physics  
for such a photon or phonon release.


Yes, that is why LENR is so unusual and why it is actively rejected.


The problems with this explanation are mind boggling. The only  
reason it has any traction is the prodigious reputation of the main  
proponents, and the (former) lack of an acceptable alternative  
explanation. And Hagelstein acknowledges the problems!


Hagelstein as well as every one who has ever studied LENR acknowledges  
the problem. The challenge is to find a solution to the problem. I  
proposed a very logical and easily described solution that is ignored  
in favor of incomplete and untestable ideas. Why?


BTW – to Terry, yes in the very first demo of Rossi, according to  
Celani, a burst of radiation was noticed at startup - but that was  
before anyone was allowed into the room. Since that effect was never  
seen again, it was probably due to the E-Cat being jump started by  
an external radioactive isotope like radium. Who knows since it was  
a one-time anecdote.


So, you explain this by making a very unlikely assumption, while  
ignoring ALL other reports of radiation being produced. I suppose  
Rossi had a very intense radium source that he took out of its  
shielding, thereby exposing himself to the radiation, to start the e- 
Cat. Whereupon, he returned the Ra to the shielded container. Do you  
realize how silly this sounds?


LENR will surely have some low level radioactivity, but the  
proportionality compared to thermal release in the range of 10^-6 or  
more so it is essentially irrelevant.


LENR has three sources of radiation. The radiation resulting from  
hydrogen fusion, radiation resulting from transmutation, and radiation  
from hot fusion reactions. This is well documented in the literature.  
The only question is HOW the radiation was produced.


Ed Storms

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

*Fleischmann Memorial Project, **QuantumHeat.org* 

   -

   *MFMP Report Detection of Unusual Gamma
Rays*-
There is a new blog post on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project's
   quantumheat.org site titled "Gamma" reporting on an interesting
   development in their experimental work. In the course of one experiment,
   Mathieu found something interesting as he refilled a leaking cell: Adjacent
   to the cells he had placed an unshielded... (*E-CatWorld*; November 7,
   2013)
   -

   *MFMP Tease about
Gamma*- The
Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project's
   quantumheat.org website has been a bit quiet recently and I've been
   wondering what those guys have been up to (*E-CatWorld*; November 6,
   2013)



On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> correction 10mm should read 10 nanometers.
>
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/X-ray_applications.svg/800px-X-ray_applications.svg.png
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> When cold fusion is thermalize radiation, EUV does not exceed 10mm is
>> wave length.
>>
>> When cold fusion is not thermalizing radiation gamma rays about 100 KeV
>> are experimentally seen.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>>>
>>> *Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>

 http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/

 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations


 On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Jones, I expect ypu are familiar with the process that occurs in a
> decay chain. For example, uranium loses energy in small steps, each of
> which takes time. In this case, the energy is released in a series of
> radioactive elements on the way to the final stable condition when lead is
> produced.  This process is very slow in the case of uranium. The energy
> loss from d+d to He is much faster, but not as fast as when hot fusion
> occurs. Nature knows how to release energy slowly.
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Feb 2, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a
> violation of CoE?
>
> You have heard the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied"?
>
> OK how about this: Energy release delayed is energy balance denied.
>
>
>
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

I wrote:

>
>- p+(N)Ni → (N+1)Ni + Q
>
> It's been a while since I've looked at the actual reactions, but on its
face this particular reaction is technically infeasible, since we're saying
that we're starting with nickel and adding a proton and then getting nickel
again.  The actual reactions would be to Cu, and then possibly to Ni, Cu or
Zn via beta-plus or minus decay, with a half-life on the order of seconds
to hours, depending upon the specific isotope.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

correction 10mm should read 10 nanometers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/X-ray_applications.svg/800px-X-ray_applications.svg.png


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> When cold fusion is thermalize radiation, EUV does not exceed 10mm is wave
> length.
>
> When cold fusion is not thermalizing radiation gamma rays about 100 KeV
> are experimentally seen.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>>
>> *Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems*
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/
>>>
>>> 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>>>
 Jones, I expect ypu are familiar with the process that occurs in a
 decay chain. For example, uranium loses energy in small steps, each of
 which takes time. In this case, the energy is released in a series of
 radioactive elements on the way to the final stable condition when lead is
 produced.  This process is very slow in the case of uranium. The energy
 loss from d+d to He is much faster, but not as fast as when hot fusion
 occurs. Nature knows how to release energy slowly.

 Ed Storms

 On Feb 2, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote:



 *From:* Eric Walker

 How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a
 violation of CoE?

 You have heard the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied"?

 OK how about this: Energy release delayed is energy balance denied.





>>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-02 Thread Jones Beene

 

 

Correction

 

… if the HotCat releases undetectable energy when in operation, with thermal 
release in the range of 10 kW, and the limit of detection at the low end is 
about 2 keV…

 

That should be “undetectable radiation” of course.

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev

2014-02-02 Thread ChemE Stewart

Ed, I agree with your photon emissions, you will also see that "cosmic"
strings of vacuum are supposed to emit photons.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1998

Which is why I believe your hydrogen is forming strings of decaying "vacuum
energy" within the cracks.

This video is too funny, these guys are trying to figure out the sky before
Hurricane Sandy approached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJVtzKJYtmU

Our Weather = Low Pressure = Decaying Vacuum (Not just hot and and cold).
 Space is "puckered up" and decaying between us and the Sun, gradually
taking us with it.



On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Edmund Storms  wrote:

> Use of the term X-ray and gamma ray is confusing. X-rays come from changes
> in electron energy states, hence have relatively low energy. Gamma rays
> come from changes in nuclear energy levels, hence have relatively high
> energy. They are both photons with overlapping energy. LENR produces
> photons. Only the energy and amount are in question. It is a mistake to use
> these terms because this focusses attention to a source, which is not known
>
> Ed Storms
>
> On Feb 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>
> http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/
>
> 110+ Quotes by Rossi about Gamma Rays and Transmutations
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Jones, I expect ypu are familiar with the process that occurs in a decay
>> chain. For example, uranium loses energy in small steps, each of which
>> takes time. In this case, the energy is released in a series of radioactive
>> elements on the way to the final stable condition when lead is produced.
>>  This process is very slow in the case of uranium. The energy loss from d+d
>> to He is much faster, but not as fast as when hot fusion occurs. Nature
>> knows how to release energy slowly.
>>
>> Ed Storms
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>> How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a violation
>> of CoE?
>>
>> You have heard the phrase "justice delayed is justice denied"?
>>
>> OK how about this: Energy release delayed is energy balance denied.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev