Jones,
They may be simply measuring photons from the same phase shifted black
light plasma from which Mills derived his company name. I remain of the
opinion that Storms NAE is relativistic based on Casimir "suppression" -
instead of the normal "compression" we associate with deep gravity wells or
near C velocities. Jan Naudts published a paper endorsing the hydrino as being
relativistic similar to hydrogen being ejected at high velocity from the suns
corona but I submit such hydrogen or any particle approaching C would appear to
slow down and decay slower from our perspective on earth because the hydrogen
is traveling at the hypotenuse of it's 3d velocity relative to the time axis
[which we in a local frame can only perceive of as having a constant velocity]
- the relativistic hydrogen inside a metal powder would instead experience
"suppression" where velocity is unimportant and instead the time axis is
suppressed such that the "hydrino" rides a hypotenuse that diverges on the
temporal axis. My posit is that the photons from this plasma are being created
at an accelerated rate -even just spontaneous emissions would accumulate and
then downshift as the light is propagating out of the compressed space time
back to our normal unsuppressed reality. Perhaps we are trading energy for
aging the hydrogen and just collecting the emitted photons?
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 5:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:New paper by Storms and Scanlan
There are a couple of troubling things about this paper that stand out on a
first read. I hate to sound critical, since in the extreme case (to be
explained) this could be a very important paper.
Like Forsley before, Ed Storms finds radiation, but unlike Forsley there is
little acknowledgement of how extremely low the radiation rate is. Count rate
is in "arbitrary units" ?? How does this compare with background rates? What is
it in watts, when downshifted to thermal? My strong suspicion is that this rate
is extremely low and could be a relic of many other things.
GM meters are notoriously easy to fool with RF, and RF could come from mundane
sources such as a loose or chaffed feedthrough of an electrical connection.
If the rate turns out to be significant in the real world, and not due to
fooling the meters - then the next most troubling thing (or most exciting if
true) is this statement: "Radiation, which had the characteristics of photons,
was detected using large area Geiger-Muller detectors." Does this mean that the
radiation being detected is a new kind of radiation that has characteristics of
photons but can only be detected in the way it interacts with Mica in the
detector window? That kind of open-ended statement leads to all kinds of
confusion.
Apparently there are indications of secondary decay which match the rate of
40K, however, potassium is not even always guaranteed to be Mica - so did they
test this window for potassium content? Some Mica used in these windows has K
content and some does not, and the makes try to use Mica that has none for the
obvious reason ! ... and in any event, K is small percentage of Mica, the Mica
is thin, and this rationale seems bizarre - but OTOH the implication is that
this new kind of radiation stimulates a particular element's decay, and does so
to a greater extent than can be detected on its own.
A new kind of radiation would be a huge breakthrough! MONSTROUS But is that
really where this is going here ? If so - it is the wrong approach and the
paper is premature
Since - rather than come out and say it is a new kind of radiation, they seem
to be beating around the bush, so to speak. I would be extremely surprised if
this paper got past peer review in a journal for all of the reasons above, but
OTOH, it would be EXTREMELY important if there was real evidence of a "new kind
of radiation."
It's almost like they "want to say that" yet they realize - if they do say it -
the floodgates of skepticism will open forth, so they are trying to be
circumspect. You cannot have it both ways. My advice is to go back and try to
bolster the case for a new type of radiation.
I can think of several ways to do this - if there is really an interaction of a
new kind of radiation with potassium.
From: Jed Rothwell
Ed published this description of the paper at CMNS:
I'm making a prepublication copy of a new paper available for your
information and comment - sort of a universal peer
review.(http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf) It has been
submitted to JCMNS. Unfortunately it is too big for Google to accept.
Consequently, you have to go to LENR.org to download it. the paper is "Nature
of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2" by Storms and
Scanlan. Perhaps other people can be encouraged to use this approach when they
submit papers for publication.
This is an important paper because it uses radiation measurements to
identify when LENR occurs rather than energy production. Because such radiation
can only result from a nuclear reaction and its measurement can detect a
nuclear reaction at a much lower rate than is possible by measuring energy
production, radiation provides an excellent tool for studying the LENR process.
Of course, heat is being produced but a much larger sample would be required
for its detection.
The LENR process was initiated using a method based on the theory that I
published recently. This is the first example of using a theory to produce a
predicted result using a predicted method. We found that when several
materials are subjected to conditions expected and found to produce voids, and
then exposed to H2, a source of radiation results that is consistent with the
radiation reported by previous workers. In addition, this radiation has strange
effects on other materials, which is a new discovery.
We are making these results available at an early stage in our studies to
alert people to the possible benefit of observing radiation. I expect many
questions and objections will result. Nevertheless, people need to be
encouraged to duplicate the work to determine if it is correct or not.
I'm in the process of determining the exact treatment required to make
the effect occur every time. Although I produced 4 samples that work, many did
not. I now know the reason. This method is ok as a way to study the effect
but it is not useful to scale up to produce a commercial source of energy.
However, it gives support to my theory and provides a good method to
demonstrate LENR. The nature of the radiation also provides useful insight into
the mechanism.
Your comments would be welcome.
