Hi all EDITED TO CORRECT AN ARRITHMETIC ERROR!
~600 m not 6000m By the way the density of the incidents has to be distributed across a sphere that is approximately 1,440,000 π (pi) meters squared. Then you have to plug in the distribution curve to get cubed meters for area. The numbers are very big Hence why I think the density will be very small. It is also why I think putting dense shielding round such a source may increase the reaction density in a smaller sphere making the effect more measurable but why I think putting shielding round such a source may be more dangerous than letting the such a source propagate out to a safe dispersal range. If LENR works in the way suggested it may be that rules about no lead tungsten within x meters might apply. Unless we go for Axil's 10ft dense walls option. Have to so the math. Kind Regards walker On 14 November 2016 at 13:13, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > By the way the density of the incidents has to be distributed across a > sphere that is approximately 144,000,000 π (pi) meters squared. > > Then you have to plug in the distribution curve to get cubed meters for > area. > > The numbers are very big > > Hence why I think the density will be very small. > > It is also why I think putting dense shielding round such a source may > increase the reaction density in a smaller sphere making the effect more > measurable but why I think putting shielding round such a source may be > more dangerous than letting the such a source propagate out to a safe > dispersal range. If LENR works in the way suggested it may be that rules > about no lead tungsten within x meters might apply. Unless we go for Axil's > 10ft dense walls option. > > Have to so the math. > > Kind Regards walker > > On 14 November 2016 at 12:49, Ian Walker <walker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> With that size of sphere, 6000m radius, I am guessing, from experience >> the density of interactions will be only a little above natural background. >> You need to know the surface area of the sphere. Then the distribution >> curve for the straight line from the source; then calculate peak and the >> nominal width of the curve, probably a narrow bell curve. >> >> I did some work on ballistics, including terminal ballistics, looking at >> shrapnel density and effective radius of devices, chance of a hit at a >> certain range from the explosion. These reduce to a near statistically zero >> probability on a logarithmic curve as you progress further from the point >> source. You alter the force of the terminal explosive to produce shrapnel >> that is still travelling at killing speed at a density of one hit per >> person size. Having the shrapnel still moving at killing speed beyond this >> range, is a waste of explosive charge and increase the risk of collateral >> damage (killing those you had not intended) so you set the charge fit for >> purpose. >> >> The effect we are looking at is similar. >> >> But the key thing is that the sphere will describe a circle round the >> source, varying due to density of objects like walls in the path that is >> centred on the source. This would be the experiment to do. >> >> As I said spread across such a large sphere the density will be very low. >> >> Slowing down the particles with dense shielding materials would decrease >> the size of the sphere at that direction and increase the density of the >> radiation at the calculable distance from the source. This would give proof >> of the particle nature. >> >> Kind Regards walker >> >> On 14 November 2016 at 04:12, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> mischugnons... >>> >>> I might know what they are. They have made themselves visible in the >>> research of Keith Fredericks that can be found here: >>> >>> http://restframe.com/ >>> >>> I have described the mischugnons as metalized hydrogen crystals and >>> how they work, how they store GeV levels of power, how they manifest a >>> monopole field, and how they catalyze the LENR reaction. Their >>> description starts with Holmlid, shows how the metallic hydrogen's >>> structure produces spin waves through hole superconductivity and >>> whispering gallery wave, how they can store massive amounts of energy, >>> and how that energy can be projected as monopole flux lines to >>> catalyzed proton and neutron weak force decay to produce mesons as >>> seen by Holmlid. >>> >>> Keith Fredericks calls the tachyons but they are just a monopole like >>> quasiparticle that Holmlid and LENR reactors can created using a >>> catalyst. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their >>> > presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold >>> fusion >>> > as there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs >>> existence, >>> > we’ve been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the >>> > theatrical smoke is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the >>> > outlines of the choir, it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that >>> make >>> > the music of the choir so wonderful it is the combination of them all. >>> > Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony they are singing. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] >>> > Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM >>> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Ok. So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the >>> > charlatans, the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of >>> physics. In >>> > your own experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most >>> brightly >>> > even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the >>> benefit of >>> > longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate >>> into an >>> > understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’, >>> > there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his >>> contributions >>> > to what is becoming a choir. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion >>> that >>> > Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you >>> believe >>> > you've been seeing? You speak with enough confidence to lead me to >>> believe >>> > that you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to >>> > support your position with concrete details. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I >>> have >>> > neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so >>> much to >>> > do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long >>> ago, >>> > “The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too >>> fast.” >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these >>> questions. >>> > It's for your own credibility! You've taken on the position that >>> Holmlid is >>> > seeing muons or mischugenon. You should now give support for that >>> position. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Eric >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >
