I agree with Axil’s comments about micro and nano domains. However I would add that the domains are what I call coherent QM systems that can initiate the change of nuclear potential energy/angular momentum to phonic lattice vibrations (thermal energy) of the coherent QM system with minor modifications to the system, such that it remains a single coherent system subject to other similar reactions.
The key to getting the reaction to occur in any given coherent system is matching resonant conditions that allow coupling between the potential energy of the nuclear species sub-system and the chemical electronic bonds of the lattice making up the coherent system. Any ambient conditions (electric field, magnetic field, temperature, lattice dimensions, ferro-magnetic and ati-magnetic tramp atoms, etc) that changes the energy states of the system and the corresponding resonances can effect a change of the potential energy to kinetic thermal energy of the system. Controlling the various ambient conditions is how the release of nuclear potential energy is controlled. The physical size of the coherent system is another. Thus, the importance of micro vs nano domains. Magnetic fields focus the dimensional parameters such that the coherent system’s effective resonant conditions encompass a larger range of reactive resonances, making an actual reaction more likely. The system becomes a two-dimensional system at large B fields. SPP’s as Axil suggests would help to create such a 2-D system. In addition various magnetic tramp elements may also be important in the establishment of local energy states and resonant conditions. The hysteresis of the magnetic tramps may be important in achieving good control of the resonant conditions. A coherent system as is suggested does not include any particles with significant linear momentum and corresponding kinetic energy. Thus, there is no likely option available for creating a particles with linear momentum. A “soft” transition which conserves angular momentum is the easy way out for the coherent system to react. If a reaction were possible in the coherent system that were to produce back--to—back energetic daughter particles, each with significant linear momentum adding up to zero, the elimination of the bad actors in the composition of the fuel would effectively control the potential of nasty energetic daughter particles. Many of the design ideas for a coherent system in a LENR reactor have similarities to the concepts used in the physics design of fission reactors. The main difference if the concept of macroscopic coherent systems. In the fission reactor physics two or three body reactions are dominate. Resonance associated with neutron reactions with the various materials is all important in control, and temperature significantly affects the resonances, much like it seems to affect LENR control. The “soft” nature of LENR without those nasty high energy neutrons and other fission debris associated with fission reactors is serendipitous but not miraculous. Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:18 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. 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, 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 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 <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 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:janap...@gmail.com] 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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> 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 for Windows 10 From: Russ George Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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 <jone...@pacbell.net> 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.
