Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
2014-06-19 1:59 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? It seems not at all the rule. It is a recent pseudo-evidence of academic myth that theory is important for innovation. It helps, but afterward, to optimize the system. The normal path is : finding an anomaly denial by academic few crazy scientist stay stubborn but are locked by pet theories and lack of imagination crazy rule-breaker does something stupid according to all theories and it works engineers try to design something that work better based on observation and known practice academic start to admit facts they find a theory engineers based on the theory make the things work more reliably academic write history book where all started with a theory, and all before is forgotten a new anomaly is found
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
[snip] just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton equals 117 nucleons; and one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54 is the same. Kullander supposedly found that about 21% of Rossi’s starting nickel had been transmuted into 10% copper and 11% iron, and that the copper and nickel were in natural isotopic proportions. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible (if we believe his findings) and that nickel nucleons convert to copper and iron in roughly equal proportions in a novel reaction. This is bizarre, but no more so than anything else Rossi has claimed. Maybe this novel reaction is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… FWIW – the reason that the Higgs “particle” was mentioned as the catalyst for a nucleon exchange reaction is that 1) The “particle” is more of an energy-sink than a real particle, based on the way it was discovered and documented at LHC. The Higgs has the features of a quanta of energy which is absorbed in an adjoining dimension as a stabilizing mechanism or energy sink. 2) The putative mass energy of the Higgs is 125 GeV which is larger than 117 nucleons, but possibly within a working range of resonance. 3) The hypothesis is that the Higgs quanta is induced into 3-space by some mechanism related to the very high nuclear stability of nickel, and that it forms a kind of ghostly shadow on the reactants, resulting in nucleon exchange which Kullander discovered. 4) After all, we are still trying to find a justification for the $5 billion bucks or more which was spent on LHC in order to obtain this ghostly bit of information In conclusion, this adds a whole new meaning to “Zeitgeist” or should that be “Geisteskrank” attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Jones-- That’s better. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com [snip] just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton equals 117 nucleons; and one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54 is the same. Kullander supposedly found that about 21% of Rossi’s starting nickel had been transmuted into 10% copper and 11% iron, and that the copper and nickel were in natural isotopic proportions. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible (if we believe his findings) and that nickel nucleons convert to copper and iron in roughly equal proportions in a novel reaction. This is bizarre, but no more so than anything else Rossi has claimed. Maybe this novel reaction is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… FWIW – the reason that the Higgs “particle” was mentioned as the catalyst for a nucleon exchange reaction is that 1) The “particle” is more of an energy-sink than a real particle, based on the way it was discovered and documented at LHC. The Higgs has the features of a quanta of energy which is absorbed in an adjoining dimension as a stabilizing mechanism or energy sink. 2) The putative mass energy of the Higgs is 125 GeV which is larger than 117 nucleons, but possibly within a working range of resonance. 3) The hypothesis is that the Higgs quanta is induced into 3-space by some mechanism related to the very high nuclear stability of nickel, and that it forms a kind of ghostly shadow on the reactants, resulting in nucleon exchange which Kullander discovered. 4) After all, we are still trying to find a justification for the $5 billion bucks or more which was spent on LHC in order to obtain this ghostly bit of information In conclusion, this adds a whole new meaning to “Zeitgeist” or should that be “Geisteskrank”
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
11% Francium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium? Where was this reported again? On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: JONES-- Several questions about the Swede's comment-- What was the analysis of the powder before the testing? How did it get to 10% Cu and 11% Fr? Rossi claimed it was Ni with a little Hydrogen and a catalyst. Again if the Cu was there to begin with, a little change in its isotopic composition would be hard to detect. In any case a 21% change in mass seems unlikely unless contamination of the ash occurred during the test or its destructive examination . Keep in mind that Kullander was not one who indicated the test in 2011 produced excess power. Matt's reporting of Kullander is suspect. This will be clarified in the next report that should be able to report on changes in the reactor composition, since they had 3 reactors to use in the test and apparently only actually operated one. Hopefully the report will address this issue. Bob -- From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:11 -0700 *From:* Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. *Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?* *Kullander:* … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
The LHC has proved invaluable in sticking a fork in the done theories of supersymmetry and string theory. That alone justifies it! :) I've always suspected that LENR Is a complicated nuclear oscillation process about the highest possible binding energy for a nucleon. It must share with superconductivity that this oscillation, once stimulated, can continue undissipated indefinitely. -drl --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Jones-- That’s better. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com [snip] just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton equals 117 nucleons; and one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54 is the same. Kullander supposedly found that about 21% of Rossi’s starting nickel had been transmuted into 10% copper and 11% iron, and that the copper and nickel were in natural isotopic proportions. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible (if we believe his findings) and that nickel nucleons convert to copper and iron in roughly equal proportions in a novel reaction. This is bizarre, but no more so than anything else Rossi has claimed. Maybe this novel reaction is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… FWIW – the reason that the Higgs “particle” was mentioned as the catalyst for a nucleon exchange reaction is that 1) The “particle” is more of an energy-sink than a real particle, based on the way it was discovered and documented at LHC. The Higgs has the features of a quanta of energy which is absorbed in an adjoining dimension as a stabilizing mechanism or energy sink. 2) The putative mass energy of the Higgs is 125 GeV which is larger than 117 nucleons, but possibly within a working range of resonance. 3) The hypothesis is that the Higgs quanta is induced into 3-space by some mechanism related to the very high nuclear stability of nickel, and that it forms a kind of ghostly shadow on the reactants, resulting in nucleon exchange which Kullander discovered. 4) After all, we are still trying to find a justification for the $5 billion bucks or more which was spent on LHC in order to obtain this ghostly bit of information In conclusion, this adds a whole new meaning to “Zeitgeist” or should that be “Geisteskrank”
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
One more detail to add into the mix of the Kullander finding (which has always looked suspicious before now). The very first patent for Mu metal was GB279549. Smith, et al July 27, 1926. “A nickel-copper-iron alloy of high magnetic permeability” Mu metals today can still be found which are nickel-copper-iron. Additionally, there are similarities between superconductivity and Mu metal. Expelling a magnetic field is one similarity, accomplished in different ways. I wish we had some confidence in the Kullander report, and that indeed the results of a long run of the Rossi reactor is that nickel converts to Ni-Cu-Fe From: Danny Ross Lunsford I've always suspected that LENR Is a complicated nuclear oscillation process about the highest possible binding energy for a nucleon. It must share with superconductivity that this oscillation, once stimulated, can continue undissipated indefinitely. [snip] just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton equals 117 nucleons; and one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54 is the same. Kullander supposedly found that about 21% of Rossi’s starting nickel had been transmuted into 10% copper and 11% iron, and that the copper and nickel were in natural isotopic proportions. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible (if we believe his findings) and that nickel nucleons convert to copper and iron in roughly equal proportions in a novel reaction. This is bizarre, but no more so than anything else Rossi has claimed. Maybe this novel reaction is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… FWIW – the reason that the Higgs “particle” was mentioned as the catalyst for a nucleon exchange reaction is that 1) The “particle” is more of an energy-sink than a real particle, based on the way it was discovered and documented at LHC. The Higgs has the features of a quanta of energy which is absorbed in an adjoining dimension as a stabilizing mechanism or energy sink. 2) The putative mass energy of the Higgs is 125 GeV which is larger than 117 nucleons, but possibly within a working range of resonance. 3) The hypothesis is that the Higgs quanta is induced into 3-space by some mechanism related to the very high nuclear stability of nickel, and that it forms a kind of ghostly shadow on the reactants, resulting in nucleon exchange which Kullander discovered. 4) After all, we are still trying to find a justification for the $5 billion bucks or more which was spent on LHC in order to obtain this ghostly bit of information In conclusion, this adds a whole new meaning to “Zeitgeist” or should that be “Geisteskrank” attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
(sanity check) It goes without saying that the most likely implication of finding Ni-Cu-Fe is that it was intended to be there for reasons related to the properties of any mu metal, and that it was not formed from transmutation. However, mu metal as an intended reactant may relate to excess heat in a number of ways, and we know from Claytor’s presentation at MIT that he uses mu metal as his cathode. Either way, magnetism - once again - seems to be relevant to LENR in ways which are not fully appreciated. _ From: Jones Beene One more detail to add into the mix of the Kullander finding (which has always looked suspicious before now). The very first patent for Mu metal was GB279549. Smith, et al July 27, 1926. “A nickel-copper-iron alloy of high magnetic permeability” Mu metals today can still be found which are nickel-copper-iron. Additionally, there are similarities between superconductivity and Mu metal. Expelling a magnetic field is one similarity, accomplished in different ways. I wish we had some confidence in the Kullander report, and that indeed the results of a long run of the Rossi reactor is that nickel converts to Ni-Cu-Fe From: Danny Ross Lunsford I've always suspected that LENR Is a complicated nuclear oscillation process about the highest possible binding energy for a nucleon. It must share with superconductivity that this oscillation, once stimulated, can continue undissipated indefinitely. [snip] just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton equals 117 nucleons; and one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54 is the same. Kullander supposedly found that about 21% of Rossi’s starting nickel had been transmuted into 10% copper and 11% iron, and that the copper and nickel were in natural isotopic proportions. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible (if we believe his findings) and that nickel nucleons convert to copper and iron in roughly equal proportions in a novel reaction. This is bizarre, but no more so than anything else Rossi has claimed. Maybe this novel reaction is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… FWIW – the reason that the Higgs “particle” was mentioned as the catalyst for a nucleon exchange reaction is that 1) The “particle” is more of an energy-sink than a real particle, based on the way it was discovered and documented at LHC. The Higgs has the features of a quanta of energy which is absorbed in an adjoining dimension as a stabilizing mechanism or energy sink. 2) The putative mass energy of the Higgs is 125 GeV which is larger than 117 nucleons, but possibly within a working range of resonance. 3) The hypothesis is that the Higgs quanta is induced into 3-space by some mechanism related to the very high nuclear stability of nickel, and that it forms a kind of ghostly shadow on the reactants, resulting in nucleon exchange which Kullander discovered. 4) After all, we are still trying to find a justification for the $5 billion bucks or more which was spent on LHC in order to obtain this ghostly bit of information In conclusion, this adds a whole new meaning to “Zeitgeist” or should that be “Geisteskrank” attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
That should have been Fe, not Fr--Francium. A typo. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: James Bowery Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 11% Francium? Where was this reported again? On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: JONES-- Several questions about the Swede's comment-- What was the analysis of the powder before the testing? How did it get to 10% Cu and 11% Fr? Rossi claimed it was Ni with a little Hydrogen and a catalyst. Again if the Cu was there to begin with, a little change in its isotopic composition would be hard to detect. In any case a 21% change in mass seems unlikely unless contamination of the ash occurred during the test or its destructive examination . Keep in mind that Kullander was not one who indicated the test in 2011 produced excess power. Matt's reporting of Kullander is suspect. This will be clarified in the next report that should be able to report on changes in the reactor composition, since they had 3 reactors to use in the test and apparently only actually operated one. Hopefully the report will address this issue. Bob From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:11 -0700 From: Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Wow. Mark and Jones posts are both time stamped at 11:51 pm. Great minds . . . Here is the compilation of Hotson's three signature papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing And a fourth on harmonics: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBSmpTaUdZLXllT0U/edit?usp=sharing These are non-public documents shared with list members for their personal use only. Some are in the public domain, others might not be.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow. (I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right) On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
A rare video of Hotson from December 10, 2009 Friendly Favors/Ions presentation. Don explains what is a Bose/Einstein Condensate: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2899121
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Steve, You did a fine job of the one-sentence eulogy… For anyone interested, Hotson’s work has been an ongoing topic amongst Vorts for a decade or more… if you go to the vortex-l website and do a search for ‘Hotson’, you’ll get a reading list which will keep you busy for months! -Mark From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow. (I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right) On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
Guys, I will add my weird two cents, based upon my version of a Theory of Everything, which allows me to help predict the future: 1) Don Hotson worked on Guam for 10 years 2) Guam has approx. 20-30,000,000 watts of pulsed microwave military radars and 50-10 times incidence of ALS/motor neuron disease in locals, linked with blue-green algae, which I am finding around microwave radar towers (algae blooms) in Florida and other places: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19929726 3) Pulsed microwave radars are shown to increase the rates of Leukemia http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/Yakymenko_cancer_MW2011.pdf 4) Don died of Leukemia I think I figured out what all of this reflected pulsed microwave/RF radiation really is doing to the CaCO3 in reefs, starfish and sea urchins: They are pulsed electromagnetic water softeners, dissolving CaCO3. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/06/17/the-clue-is-in-the-goo/ In my model, the Doppler electromagnetic pulses are scattered and ducted back to Earth due to quantum vacuum in our atmosphere (we call its effects the weather), which should bend electromagnetic radiation, including light waves, microwaves and RF, due to domain walls, strings, etc. from our quantum vacuum decaying gravity field from the Sun. In other words, it is the failure of physics to accept the Dirac Sea/Quantum Vacuum and its properties that is gradually damaging/killing us all around these microwave radars. Stewart On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
It occurred to me that Hotson’s DH theory (in part stemming from the observation that pair production did not conserve energy, considering the energy associated with the angular momentum of electrons and positrons) may suggest another mechanism like pair production in which the angular momentum energy goes to make up additional mass of the new particles ( heavy electrons and positrons) which are able to catalyze a LENR in Ni and Pd etc. This picks up on Mark’s observation--“Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” More spin, Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: ChemE Stewart Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Guys, I will add my weird two cents, based upon my version of a Theory of Everything, which allows me to help predict the future: 1) Don Hotson worked on Guam for 10 years 2) Guam has approx. 20-30,000,000 watts of pulsed microwave military radars and 50-10 times incidence of ALS/motor neuron disease in locals, linked with blue-green algae, which I am finding around microwave radar towers (algae blooms) in Florida and other places: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19929726 3) Pulsed microwave radars are shown to increase the rates of Leukemia http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/Yakymenko_cancer_MW2011.pdf 4) Don died of Leukemia I think I figured out what all of this reflected pulsed microwave/RF radiation really is doing to the CaCO3 in reefs, starfish and sea urchins: They are pulsed electromagnetic water softeners, dissolving CaCO3. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/06/17/the-clue-is-in-the-goo/ In my model, the Doppler electromagnetic pulses are scattered and ducted back to Earth due to quantum vacuum in our atmosphere (we call its effects the weather), which should bend electromagnetic radiation, including light waves, microwaves and RF, due to domain walls, strings, etc. from our quantum vacuum decaying gravity field from the Sun. In other words, it is the failure of physics to accept the Dirac Sea/Quantum Vacuum and its properties that is gradually damaging/killing us all around these microwave radars. Stewart On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies symmetry-protected phases This example is just one of the 500. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Jones-- I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Steve-- I agree with Marks’s assessment of your one-sentence eulogy… Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Steve, You did a fine job of the one-sentence eulogy… For anyone interested, Hotson’s work has been an ongoing topic amongst Vorts for a decade or more… if you go to the vortex-l website and do a search for ‘Hotson’, you’ll get a reading list which will keep you busy for months! -Mark From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow. (I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right) On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
The transmutation of nickel is a minor reaction which is far surpassed by the transmutation of hydrogen into light elements such as lithium, boron, and beryllium. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones-- I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:44 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Hi Terry, Thanks for the two links to Hotson's papers, but I'm having trouble with the second link. I get two pages - the first of which is the tail end of an unrelated article and the second page is the beginning of Hotson's harmonic paper. Can you provide a link which covers the whole of the harmonic paper? Thanks, Andy. On 18/06/14 12:47, Terry Blanton wrote: Wow. Mark and Jones posts are both time stamped at 11:51 pm. Great minds . . . Here is the compilation of Hotson's three signature papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing And a fourth on harmonics: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBSmpTaUdZLXllT0U/edit?usp=sharing These are non-public documents shared with list members for their personal use only. Some are in the public domain, others might not be.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.net wrote: Hi Terry, Thanks for the two links to Hotson's papers, but I'm having trouble with the second link. I get two pages - the first of which is the tail end of an unrelated article and the second page is the beginning of Hotson's harmonic paper. Can you provide a link which covers the whole of the harmonic paper? If you look at the page numbers, 30, 31 and 32, you'll realize that you have the complete article. The first page is last. Kinda like filling out a government form: First name last, last name first and no middle.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies symmetry-protected phases This example is just one of the 500. This reminds me of the following classification of animals, attributed by Jorge Luis Borges to an ancient Chinese source: - Those that belong to the emperor - Embalmed ones - Those that are trained - Suckling pigs - Mermaids (or Sirens) - Fabulous ones - Stray dogs - Those that are included in this classification - Those that tremble as if they were mad - Innumerable ones - Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush - Et cetera - Those that have just broken the flower vase - Those that, at a distance, resemble flies Eric
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Hey, June 21st is my birfday, I will be 50, which kinda sucks because I still act 18. I will make the claim in advance that the Earth is not really round, it is a 6-D vacuum torus with a glob of baryonic decay around it that we play in. Stewart On Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Jones--- I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test. Is that info in their first report? If there was 10% Cu in the ash, I would not expect to see an unusual isotopic composition anyway. Rossi may not have understood the science but I thin Focardi did. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Bob Cook I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test. Is that info in their first report? Some of it turns up on Wiki starting at the 4th paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test. Is that info in their first report? Some of it turns up on Wiki starting at the 4th paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. I agree. One link in the Wikipedia article that talked about isotopes was to Ethan Seigel's sloppy piece attempting to discredit the E-Cat, and the other was to a broken link. I do not recall having seen a definitive analysis of the isotopes from the 2011 test yet. I have seen a number of Rossi's statements to the effect that there was significant transmutation to copper (Gary Wright collects a bunch of them). In addition, an assay that produced natural ratios would not mean much without further context to understand what happened prior to the assay. There's few solid details to work with, and any confidence in one's conclusions is misplaced. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Hey, June 21st is my birfday, I will be 50, Happy solstistic birthday. June 21, 1964 was probably a long day for your mom, too!
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion? Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre. Not in this Universe :-) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. === Do you have a reference? I never though that the Swedes were permitted to release the full ash assay results from the Rossi reactor On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion? Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre. Not in this Universe :-) OK. In all fairness, if an observer was such a devoted fan of Rossi that they felt compelled to make a case for the nucleons (balancing out) in some kind of weird and wonderful new reaction … and given that Kullander did not say that the iron was seen in a natural ratio… well… in that case, one could imagine that if a proton and two Ni-58 nuclei went into some kind of novel nucleon exchange reaction, then it could work out to give results which at least were not as laughable as the above. This would assume that almost all of the iron found was Fe-54. They are silent on that. If that were the case, the iron anomaly would itself be a nice little secret for Kullander to hold onto. We can be pretty sure this was not the case, but just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton is 117 nucleons; and so is one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54. That is a rough balance …but of course, it is the tip of a deep iceberg. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible. Maybe it is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
What would happen if the vacuum that a Rydberg crystal of hydrogen was occupying turned into a soup of magically catalyzed pions? This sort of thing happens in a quark plasma. This happened just after the big bang and the QGP condenced into elements that were what we see today in the universe. There would be a preponderance of double magic elements as described by Dr Hora amd Miley See https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg86917.html On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion? Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre. Not in this Universe :-) OK. In all fairness, if an observer was such a devoted fan of Rossi that they felt compelled to make a case for the nucleons (balancing out) in some kind of weird and wonderful new reaction … and given that Kullander did not say that the iron was seen in a natural ratio… well… in that case, one could imagine that if a proton and two Ni-58 nuclei went into some kind of novel nucleon exchange reaction, then it could work out to give results which at least were not as laughable as the above. This would assume that almost all of the iron found was Fe-54. They are silent on that. If that were the case, the iron anomaly would itself be a nice little secret for Kullander to hold onto. We can be pretty sure this was not the case, but just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton is 117 nucleons; and so is one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54. That is a rough balance …but of course, it is the tip of a deep iceberg. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible. Maybe it is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there…
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
JONES-- Several questions about the Swede's comment-- What was the analysis of the powder before the testing? How did it get to 10% Cu and 11% Fr? Rossi claimed it was Ni with a little Hydrogen and a catalyst. Again if the Cu was there to begin with, a little change in its isotopic composition would be hard to detect. In any case a 21% change in mass seems unlikely unless contamination of the ash occurred during the test or its destructive examination . Keep in mind that Kullander was not one who indicated the test in 2011 produced excess power. Matt's reporting of Kullander is suspect. This will be clarified in the next report that should be able to report on changes in the reactor composition, since they had 3 reactors to use in the test and apparently only actually operated one. Hopefully the report will address this issue. Bob From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:11 -0700 From: Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Our loss. Thanks, Jones. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is a great loss to learn of the passing of Don Hotson. He had been ill for some time. He died peacefully at a family home in Dayton, Washington on June 11 according to his son.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Ditto... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Our loss. Thanks, Jones. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It is a great loss to learn of the passing of Don Hotson. He had been ill for some time. He died peacefully at a family home in Dayton, Washington on June 11 according to his son.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Ditto... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com javascript:;] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:; Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Our loss. Thanks, Jones. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net javascript:; wrote: It is a great loss to learn of the passing of Don Hotson. He had been ill for some time. He died peacefully at a family home in Dayton, Washington on June 11 according to his son.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Not sure how one can be brief when discussing the foundations of physics, but give this a try… http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html -mark From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Ditto... -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com javascript:; ] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:; Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Our loss. Thanks, Jones. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net javascript:; wrote: It is a great loss to learn of the passing of Don Hotson. He had been ill for some time. He died peacefully at a family home in Dayton, Washington on June 11 according to his son.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
