RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Beene Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7 Hi Bob, The polycapillary lenses are not very efficient; I.E. they lose source energy in the process of focusing. If you are starting with a high intensity x-ray source, you can get a substantial amount focused into a 10-100

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

bove is nearly 20 years old!!! > > > > Bob Cook > > > > > -- > *From:* Bob Higgins > *Sent:* Saturday, October 26, 2019 4:51:29 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Jones Beene < > jone...@pacbell.net> > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ni

RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

: Bob Higgins Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2019 4:51:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Jones Beene Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7 @Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> The putative 3.5 keV is, of course, detectable in pancake GM detectors and most x-ray

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

@Jones Beene The putative 3.5 keV is, of course, detectable in pancake GM detectors and most x-ray sensors and spectrometers. No esoteric detectors required for this. On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 8:48 AM Jones Beene wrote: > Of interest in the identification of LENR "mystery radiation" (if it is >

RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

a temperature gradient in the magnetic material. Bob Cook From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2019 10:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for sy

RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

What is needed to resolve this validation problem suggested in this thread is a probe that can focus on 3.5 Kev photons coming from a nano-particle sized source. Such a device might make use of a strong magnetic field that oscillates around a controlled direction to slightly change the direc

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Of interest in the identification of LENR "mystery radiation" (if it is found in the range of 3.5 keV)  ... The key to modeling the annihilation of dense hydrogen without the expected large GeV energy dump is proposed to be "higher dimensional operators"...  To the extent that dense hydrogen is

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > The other is the 3.5keV peak from "maybe" dark matterThis can easily be > derived from 500eV together with the energy of the second proton magnetic > momentum collapse step that delivers 4034 eV This energy can only be > transported by a local electron at a -500eV

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

We will never get there. Antelope Freeway 1/4 mile. On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:37 AM Jones Beene wrote: > > Weirdly cool ... maybe George will call it "cool fusion"... > > > > Terry Blanton wrote: > > Antelope Freeway 1/2 mile. > >

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Something you see on an X-ray film must happen quite often. The real mystery radiation look like a neutral particle with much higher energy in the 32MeV range. The other is the 3.5keV peek from "may be" dark matter. This can easily be derived from 500eV together with the energy of the second p

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

 Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: + R.Mills 505/496eV (inside his business reports...)OK but are you suggesting this ~500 eV level is a good candidate for the characteristic mystery radiation? Unless RM has changed course - this level could be an ultimate theoretical stage of shrinkage but

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Weirdly cool ... maybe George will call it "cool fusion"... Terry Blanton wrote: Antelope Freeway 1/2 mile.

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Antelope Freeway 1/2 mile.

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

1] B.I. Ivlev Conversion of zero point energy into high-energy photons Instituto de F ́ısica, Universidad Auto ́noma de San Luis Potos ́ı, San Luis Potos ́ı, 78000 Mexico, Revista Mexicana de F ́ısica *62 *(2016) 83–88 [2] Lipinski WO2014189799 united gravity about LiP (H*) fusion. [5] T. Sch

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: In the early days of cold fusion (early 1990s) there were dozens of papers on a mysterious emission in the low keV range which happened merely from loading H2 or D2 in either nickel or palladium - often with no other input power. The testing was done using x-ray fil

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

2)What does "for D*-D* up two 2002keV" mean? Is it a typo? The calculation is explained in the Assisi summary. Basically 4 protons can do 4 connections but the reduction of the coulomb potential coupling happens only twice. 2002keV is also the first relaxation state of the proton magnetic mome

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

Antelope Freeway 1 mile.

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 24 Oct 2019 23:31:25 +0200: Hi Jürg, 1) Do you have nucleus-nucleus distance for H*-H*? 2) What does "for D*-D* up two 2002keV" mean? Is it a typo? [snip] >We know that the formation of H*-H* releases 496eV and for D*-D* up two >2002keV But there ar

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

In the early days of cold fusion (early 1990s) there were dozens of papers on a mysterious emission in the low keV range which happened merely from loading H2 or D2 in either nickel or palladium - often with no other input power. The testing was done using x-ray film, and the positive result is

RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

, 2019 3:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7 I’m hesitant to suggest a naser beam (neutrinos in a uniform directed beam of a given energy resulting from resonant nucleon transmutations of a group of

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

ws 10 > > > ---------------------- > *From:* H LV > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:14:23 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7 > > I think the list should include N-rays. > Harry > > On We

RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

, 2019 3:14:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7 I think the list should include N-rays. Harry On Wed., Oct. 23, 2019, 5:52 p.m. Jones Beene, mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: This is a light-weight piece for the namephreaks out t

RE: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

I’m hesitant to suggest a naser beam (neutrinos in a uniform directed beam of a given energy resulting from resonant nucleon transmutations of a group of coherent system nucleons or nuclei.) But, I vote for # 1 on Nick’s list. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednes

Re: [Vo]:Nick Danger's Top 10 answers for symptom 7

I think the list should include N-rays. Harry On Wed., Oct. 23, 2019, 5:52 p.m. Jones Beene, wrote: > This is a light-weight piece for the namephreaks out there (we miss you, > Herb). > > In a patho-sci mashup of LENR with Firesign Theatre ("beat the reaper") > it's about time to settle on a nam