I seem to remember a old LENR truism that has come down over the years which remarks about how a shock is required before the LENR reaction starts. When I first began my studies of the LENR reaction so very long ago, I may have read this in regards to the work from perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion researcher: Yoshiaki Arata <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshiaki_Arata>, from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide. But the LENR reaction did not begin unless the cell was shocked in any number of ways.
Also from Brian S. Ahern <https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%22Brian+S.+Ahern%22> patent (Amplification of energetic reactions US 20110233061 A1) quote: "Useful energy production can be obtained when deuterated/hydrated nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium are positioned interior to collapsing bubbles or dielectric discharges and their attendant shock waves. Highly self-focused shock waves have a sufficiently high energy density to induce a range of energetic reactions." This leads me to the conclusion that Ultra-dense hydrogen right out of the nanocavity is not LENR capable until it is initially charged with any variety of EMF energy. Once the SPP has been charged up and it has acquired enough magnetic power to initiate the positive feedback loop between the nucleons within it range of interaction does the LENR reaction begin. The Spp just needs a slight push to get the process going. Oftentimes a spark is enough to get the LENR reaction off the ground. But unless that energy spike is provided with enough power to get going, that UDH justs sits there and waits. And that energy need not be provided in a one time spike. In the famous F&P meltdown where their reactor was feed 1 watt of power over months. One day when enough charge was accumulated in those SPPs, the LENR reaction took off with a vengeance and burned through a lab bench and then through the reinforced concrete floor in their lab rebar and all. We may think of the case of a pole of logs just waiting there in the fireplace waiting for the match to get their fire going, so too LENR waits for the spark that gets that energy feedback loop roiling. On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Russ George <[email protected]> wrote: > Ultra dense hydrogen is a natural state of hydrogen when it is absorbed > into metal lattices. It is just that simple, Martin Fleischmann spoke > endlessly of this from the very beginning. Almost all who have been > successful have clearly followed similar paths to making ‘sweet spots’ in > their materials. The density of the hydrogen/deuterium varies greatly on a > lattice domain by domain basis but it is certainly not uncommonly reaching > stellar core densities. That’s just the basics of the lattice/atom-ecology. > The more hydrogen loving a metal is the more ultra dense domains come to > be. It seems that the electronic character of the metal is also a key > characteristic as the closer to having the electron shells filled the more > reactive the material becomes. This is at odds with hydrogen loading so it > is a dynamic problem the hydrogen faces. This is why Mills and a few of us > have seen silver to be such a fantastically reactive material to work with, > albeit very demanding. > > > > When the forces that provide for the diffusion of hydrogen into the metal > lattice are sufficient then the nuclear reactivity rises to a useful level. > Fleischmann’s mastery of the art of electrochemical loading of palladium > enabled him to achieve his terrific success, very few were or are his equal > in that ‘artistry.’ Those not so skilled in the art as Fleischmann could > and have resorted to nano-domain management to get their cold fusion art > ‘on canvas’. There are some tricks that are useful in getting more > hydrogen/deuterium past the surface that also are productive. There is > still no report/claim of anyone ever using pure protium in a successful > experiment hence I consider all results to be deuterium based as it is > ubiquitous and behaves in an apt manner to place itself in the right place > and form. > > The key to creating the right environment for ‘cold fusion’ is > micro-domains as there is never more than a micro-domain in a metal > lattice, indeed it is likely the key is nano-domains that are most useful. > Going nano is a very simple technology issue the more nano-domains one can > toss into the ‘test tube’ the more likely the reaction rate will be higher. > As for the utility of laser stimulation I happen to think it is merely a > matter of coherency begets coherency and the more coherent the ultra dense > hydrogen become the more entangled and reactive it is. Whether ‘surface > plasmon polaritons’ form is speculation that is beyond any data that I know > of, I am ok with it being a placeholder for a mysterious piece of the > puzzle. > > > > It may be that any coherency works to beget more coherency as in the > presence of emerging 4He. The evidence is clear to me that some infectious > coherency often leads to large numbers of adjacent cold fusions, certainly > rising to millions of effectively simultaneous neighbouring events. The > relative number of such cold fusion events governs the reactor by > delivering sufficient energy to modify or even obliterate the reactive > domain. This is one reason nano particles are useful as they are > sufficiently small to limit the adjacent reactions. Of course the other > utility of nano is that there can be so damn many of such sized domains and > one luck increases with larger numbers of cold fusion lottery tickets. > Vaporize a nano-scopic volume of metal and it condenses right back into a > new nanoparticle, that helps. > > > > The greatest technological challenge remains for those able to produce > large output is how to move the resulting nuclear heat away before it > concentrates and results in destruction of the reactive ecosystem. Heat > moves at the speed of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate. > Mills just might be onto something useful with his energy removal via > light. Holmlid’s experiment (being a near perfect clone of some successful > cold fusion experiments) and his mesons also offer an energy dilution > solution. > > > > > > > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:03 PM > *To:* vortex-l > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in > the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls > onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, > palladium, or platinum. What this metal is made of is important because > that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high > frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection > foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons, a > boson, that are the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface > of the ultra dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light. > These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra dense > hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from > temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This > enables the metastable existence(or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has > found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on > the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more > nuclear energy. > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the > D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so > that both me and your grandmother can understand it. > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons? > If the data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then > resonant stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different > results statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being > likely. > > > > Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their > kinetic energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild. > > > > Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether > the standard theory is at risk? I’ll take a look at this issue myself and > report back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events, > if I can figure it out. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Russ George <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM > *To: *[email protected] > *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of > detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which > we cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that > distribution. This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson > beasties which presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear > reaction rate, aka cold fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for > worse. For the capture of crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it > seems a combined intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to > scintillation detector, aka GMT, works just fine provided the reaction rate > is sufficient, aka > joules/sec … more is better remember we are out on a > limb here. Any ideas about what might ‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium > as it is the best neutron reflector. Such reflectors might improve the > containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties stay close enough for > detection. > > > > Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have > our di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a > transparent beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s > wrong with this computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. > > > > I believe there are circular arguments going on here. On the one hand you > are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from > the reactor. But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein > many are supposing MCF. He is also measuring charged particles in his > reactor. The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some > probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity. That's why it is > possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, > and more further away from the reactor. > > So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path > from the reactor. Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged > and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by > exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the > corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and > scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced. They > may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading > the paper to understand the case he is claiming. > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bob Higgins wrote: > > The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a > high muon flux that would escape the reactor. A high muon flux would be > very similar to a high beta flux. First of all, it would seem that a flux > of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. > > > Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has > been addressed. > > As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until the > meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes > the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand. > > At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see > the reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that > time, due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons. > > As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one > positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the > muon but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the > particles are tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. > Thus the reactor is transparent to the progenitor particle. > > This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then > calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of > muons which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a > large sphere. However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are > usable, since they start out as a neutral meson. > > > > > > > > >
