Re: [Vo]:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Actually they are not completely false- are Pareto Truths see my FQXI essay. The same is so true for CMNS Peter On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Food for thought. See: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124 -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Superconducting secrets solved after 30 years
any link with Discrete Breather ? (naive idea) Storms and the recent DB paper propose that hugely non linear soliton like DB allow concentration and breathing... Maybe the twist mode of the pocket can be that solitons (since I don't understand all, I let expert explain me wrong) following Storms idea we are looking for something that can concentrate hundred of keV (less if as said in the DB paper there is screening, but I did not understand what they mean), and then that can absorb MeV and distribute in dozens of distinct keV quanta... how? should call a quantum latice zoologist 2014-06-18 7:39 GMT+02:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-superconducting-secrets-years.html twisted 'pockets' of electrons cause superconductivity in high-Tc copper oxides. I contend that twisted 'pockets' of electrons also produce LENR reactions.
Re: [Vo]:Superconducting secrets solved after 30 years
High voltage is not required. High amperage will compensate for low voltage. If a few hundred thousand amps of current are rotating is a ring or vortex, that will produce a huge amount of power. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: any link with Discrete Breather ? (naive idea) Storms and the recent DB paper propose that hugely non linear soliton like DB allow concentration and breathing... Maybe the twist mode of the pocket can be that solitons (since I don't understand all, I let expert explain me wrong) following Storms idea we are looking for something that can concentrate hundred of keV (less if as said in the DB paper there is screening, but I did not understand what they mean), and then that can absorb MeV and distribute in dozens of distinct keV quanta... how? should call a quantum latice zoologist 2014-06-18 7:39 GMT+02:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-superconducting-secrets-years.html twisted 'pockets' of electrons cause superconductivity in high-Tc copper oxides. I contend that twisted 'pockets' of electrons also produce LENR reactions.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Wow. Mark and Jones posts are both time stamped at 11:51 pm. Great minds . . . Here is the compilation of Hotson's three signature papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing And a fourth on harmonics: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBSmpTaUdZLXllT0U/edit?usp=sharing These are non-public documents shared with list members for their personal use only. Some are in the public domain, others might not be.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow. (I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right) On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
A rare video of Hotson from December 10, 2009 Friendly Favors/Ions presentation. Don explains what is a Bose/Einstein Condensate: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2899121
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Steve, You did a fine job of the one-sentence eulogy… For anyone interested, Hotson’s work has been an ongoing topic amongst Vorts for a decade or more… if you go to the vortex-l website and do a search for ‘Hotson’, you’ll get a reading list which will keep you busy for months! -Mark From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow. (I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right) On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Hi all In reply to Jones Beene I cannot find via google search, the quoted text “A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”, other than in the paper I linked, that you attribute to being something Ahern wrote. While I do not dispute that you have seen this text, or perhaps more likely something like it, I think it would help the community if you would quote your source, so that full context can be given. I do not dispute that Ahern may follow the same view as the author of the paper, but we must deal in evidence that we can see and judge ourselves. As you point out, a person may claim... something about themselves or others, and the claims may not hold up to inspection. On another matter Rossi seems to think the “discrete breathers” (DBs) are worth understanding and that particular paper should be read. Andrea Rossi June 17th, 2014 at 6:50 AM Andreas Moraitis: The physics of the so called discrete breathers are very interesting. Good paper, thank you for citing it to our Readers. Warm Regards, A.R. I too think the paper is worth reading. Kind Regards walker On 17 June 2014 19:31, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Ian Walker Ahern is also not mentioned in the paper. Would you care to mention where you think the paper supports Ahern's view? OK. Dubinko starts out - the first sentence of his paper with this quote: “A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”. This is the exact wording from Ahern, who does credit Fermi-Pasta-Ulam and goes into great detail in his prior publications on large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations. Dubinko is either not well-read on the relevant literature of LENR, or else he is trying to take credit for the work of others. So he is not supporting the Hydrino theory that Mills and blacklight power espouses. Dubinko may claim not to support it, but he bases the energy of his hypothetical DB (page 3) on “electrolytic reaction 2D++ 2e = D2+ 31.7 eV which can proceed during the course of absorption/desorption at the cathode surface” …and we must surmise that he knows this large amount of energy is not possible without ground state redundancy, i.e. to derive 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV from standard chemistry is impossible, and since it is exactly as Mills suggests – he is supporting hydrino theory whether he acknowledges it or not. IOW- Dubinko seems to be deliberately creating a smoke screen, since he cannot have it both ways… and that may be why he seems to be using “31.7 eV” instead of breaking it down as 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV, which instantly invokes Mills’ Rydberg levels. The paper does reference Swartz Yes, but only minimally. If I am not mistaken, Mitchell should be credited with much more than this, but I do not have the inclination to make a point by point argument. Walker, I suggest writing to Mitchell Swartz directly for his comment … if you really insist on defending Dubinko. Where is the novelty? Jones
Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Ahern has a patent on the subject : Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys US 5770036 A http://www.google.com/patents/US5770036 For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species such as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter host lattice, the invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital degeneracy of the host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the dissolved guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a correspondingly small distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei. The tuned electron molecular orbital topology of the host lattice creates an energy state giving rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding between sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species dissolved in a condensed matter host lattice is provided. Host lattice surfaces are treated to provide surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the features have a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon dissolution of the guest species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5, the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations.
RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
… check Ahern’s old patent from the nineties - US 5411654 “Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys” From: Ian Walker I cannot find via google search, the quoted text “A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”
RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :) -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher Ahern has a patent on the subject : Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys US 5770036 A http://www.google.com/patents/US5770036 For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species such as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter host lattice, the invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital degeneracy of the host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the dissolved guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a correspondingly small distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei. The tuned electron molecular orbital topology of the host lattice creates an energy state giving rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding between sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species dissolved in a condensed matter host lattice is provided. Host lattice surfaces are treated to provide surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the features have a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon dissolution of the guest species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5, the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations.
RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
Yep, in the Dot-com universe it's called Google Search. ;-) -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :) -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher Ahern has a patent on the subject : Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys US 5770036 A http://www.google.com/patents/US5770036 For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species such as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter host lattice, the invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital degeneracy of the host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the dissolved guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a correspondingly small distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei. The tuned electron molecular orbital topology of the host lattice creates an energy state giving rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding between sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species dissolved in a condensed matter host lattice is provided. Host lattice surfaces are treated to provide surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the features have a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon dissolution of the guest species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5, the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations.
RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
At 07:36 AM 6/18/2014, you wrote: Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :) In 2011 Ahern Credited Keith Johnson with the idea. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/SwartzColloqPart2.pdf I found two Johnson papers online : http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/mchenry/mchenry2/Publications/Mod._Phys._Let._3_1367-1.pdf (1989) http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/mchenry/mchenry2/Publications/Dynamic%20Jahn-Teller-1.pdf (1991, Invited paper) These both reference Johnson's 1983 and 1984 papers. Ahern definitely seems to have priority in the LENR area.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
-Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Yep, in the Dot-com universe it's called Google Search. ;-) Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :) Actually, there is an old paper from the nineties, which did not turn up on Google search, and which covers the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam anhamonic material in much greater detail. The discrete breathers thing is LOL anyway, not so much in deriving from older ideas http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~flach/publications.DIR/2012/NOLTA_2012.pdf ...but for some strange reason. possibly related to a misspent youth in the sixties, I keep flashing on Jethro Tull.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
Guys, I will add my weird two cents, based upon my version of a Theory of Everything, which allows me to help predict the future: 1) Don Hotson worked on Guam for 10 years 2) Guam has approx. 20-30,000,000 watts of pulsed microwave military radars and 50-10 times incidence of ALS/motor neuron disease in locals, linked with blue-green algae, which I am finding around microwave radar towers (algae blooms) in Florida and other places: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19929726 3) Pulsed microwave radars are shown to increase the rates of Leukemia http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/Yakymenko_cancer_MW2011.pdf 4) Don died of Leukemia I think I figured out what all of this reflected pulsed microwave/RF radiation really is doing to the CaCO3 in reefs, starfish and sea urchins: They are pulsed electromagnetic water softeners, dissolving CaCO3. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/06/17/the-clue-is-in-the-goo/ In my model, the Doppler electromagnetic pulses are scattered and ducted back to Earth due to quantum vacuum in our atmosphere (we call its effects the weather), which should bend electromagnetic radiation, including light waves, microwaves and RF, due to domain walls, strings, etc. from our quantum vacuum decaying gravity field from the Sun. In other words, it is the failure of physics to accept the Dirac Sea/Quantum Vacuum and its properties that is gradually damaging/killing us all around these microwave radars. Stewart On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
RE: your misspent youth and Jethro Tull... The Pied-piper of Rock -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Yep, in the Dot-com universe it's called Google Search. ;-) Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :) Actually, there is an old paper from the nineties, which did not turn up on Google search, and which covers the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam anhamonic material in much greater detail. The discrete breathers thing is LOL anyway, not so much in deriving from older ideas http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~flach/publications.DIR/2012/NOLTA_2012.pdf ...but for some strange reason. possibly related to a misspent youth in the sixties, I keep flashing on Jethro Tull.
Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
An interesting new theory paper has been submitted to Cornell's Arxiv http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.3941.pdf Despite its not being entirely new (see Ahern, Johnson ...) it's well worth reading. In particular, it explains how discrete breathers can be created either above a specific temperature, or by an external stimulus. Also that they result in a quasi-particle with a high-temperature hot spot which propagates at half the speed of sound. It seems in other studies that these can collide with lattice discontinuities, so the actual NAE may be there. It doesn't explain how resultant gammas can be made to disappear, but Hagelstein/McKubre's work on photon/phonon coupling may provide the answer to that.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
It occurred to me that Hotson’s DH theory (in part stemming from the observation that pair production did not conserve energy, considering the energy associated with the angular momentum of electrons and positrons) may suggest another mechanism like pair production in which the angular momentum energy goes to make up additional mass of the new particles ( heavy electrons and positrons) which are able to catalyze a LENR in Ni and Pd etc. This picks up on Mark’s observation--“Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” More spin, Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: ChemE Stewart Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Guys, I will add my weird two cents, based upon my version of a Theory of Everything, which allows me to help predict the future: 1) Don Hotson worked on Guam for 10 years 2) Guam has approx. 20-30,000,000 watts of pulsed microwave military radars and 50-10 times incidence of ALS/motor neuron disease in locals, linked with blue-green algae, which I am finding around microwave radar towers (algae blooms) in Florida and other places: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19929726 3) Pulsed microwave radars are shown to increase the rates of Leukemia http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/Yakymenko_cancer_MW2011.pdf 4) Don died of Leukemia I think I figured out what all of this reflected pulsed microwave/RF radiation really is doing to the CaCO3 in reefs, starfish and sea urchins: They are pulsed electromagnetic water softeners, dissolving CaCO3. http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/06/17/the-clue-is-in-the-goo/ In my model, the Doppler electromagnetic pulses are scattered and ducted back to Earth due to quantum vacuum in our atmosphere (we call its effects the weather), which should bend electromagnetic radiation, including light waves, microwaves and RF, due to domain walls, strings, etc. from our quantum vacuum decaying gravity field from the Sun. In other words, it is the failure of physics to accept the Dirac Sea/Quantum Vacuum and its properties that is gradually damaging/killing us all around these microwave radars. Stewart On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear,
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies symmetry-protected phases This example is just one of the 500. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article: “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields, fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.” “Physicists predict new state of matter” http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html And I’m going to add my spin to the topic… ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed discovery of what is really going on. Attosecond physics and other experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what subatomic particles really are. -mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Jones-- I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:44 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Steve-- I agree with Marks’s assessment of your one-sentence eulogy… Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:39 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Steve, You did a fine job of the one-sentence eulogy… For anyone interested, Hotson’s work has been an ongoing topic amongst Vorts for a decade or more… if you go to the vortex-l website and do a search for ‘Hotson’, you’ll get a reading list which will keep you busy for months! -Mark From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow. (I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right) On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Steve High How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's contributions. Thanks This is a pretty good summary of his work. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html
[Vo]:Gamma downshifting
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html New quantum mechanism to trigger the emission of tunable light at terahertz frequencies There are those that believe that LENR is invalid because Gamma radiation is expected from a nuclear reaction, but in LENR, no such radiation is seen. This leads them to conclude that LENR is not possible. But this reference from Nano-optics shows that high frequency light can be down shifted to a lower frequency by a properly shaped Nano-cavity filled with the proper type of photon based subatomic quasiparticle. In LENR, Gamma radiation is down shifted into the extreme ultra violet by densely packed electron based coherent and entangled quasiparticles called surface Plasmon Polaritons (SDD).
Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting
More... take note: Electrons are trapped in the structure and this confinement can be exploited to enhance their capacity to interact with light at given frequencies much lower than the laser frequency at which they are excited: the system emits light by interacting with vacuum fluctuations that permeate space, according to quantum theory. Fano resonance takes to frequencies and mixes them together to forn a third intermediate frequency, just like mixing cold water and hot water will produce warm water. This resonance behavior is a property of whispering gallery waves, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html New quantum mechanism to trigger the emission of tunable light at terahertz frequencies There are those that believe that LENR is invalid because Gamma radiation is expected from a nuclear reaction, but in LENR, no such radiation is seen. This leads them to conclude that LENR is not possible. But this reference from Nano-optics shows that high frequency light can be down shifted to a lower frequency by a properly shaped Nano-cavity filled with the proper type of photon based subatomic quasiparticle. In LENR, Gamma radiation is down shifted into the extreme ultra violet by densely packed electron based coherent and entangled quasiparticles called surface Plasmon Polaritons (SDD).
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
The transmutation of nickel is a minor reaction which is far surpassed by the transmutation of hydrogen into light elements such as lithium, boron, and beryllium. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jones-- I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob Sent from Windows Mail *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *Sent:* Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:44 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Steve High Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come from? [snip] A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known nuclear source - is this paragraph. “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production” when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring conservation.” OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for conservation of spin which is generally ignored. However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source” since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR. One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac sea – which Brian showed. Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report. That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Hi Terry, Thanks for the two links to Hotson's papers, but I'm having trouble with the second link. I get two pages - the first of which is the tail end of an unrelated article and the second page is the beginning of Hotson's harmonic paper. Can you provide a link which covers the whole of the harmonic paper? Thanks, Andy. On 18/06/14 12:47, Terry Blanton wrote: Wow. Mark and Jones posts are both time stamped at 11:51 pm. Great minds . . . Here is the compilation of Hotson's three signature papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing And a fourth on harmonics: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBSmpTaUdZLXllT0U/edit?usp=sharing These are non-public documents shared with list members for their personal use only. Some are in the public domain, others might not be.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.net wrote: Hi Terry, Thanks for the two links to Hotson's papers, but I'm having trouble with the second link. I get two pages - the first of which is the tail end of an unrelated article and the second page is the beginning of Hotson's harmonic paper. Can you provide a link which covers the whole of the harmonic paper? If you look at the page numbers, 30, 31 and 32, you'll realize that you have the complete article. The first page is last. Kinda like filling out a government form: First name last, last name first and no middle.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies symmetry-protected phases This example is just one of the 500. This reminds me of the following classification of animals, attributed by Jorge Luis Borges to an ancient Chinese source: - Those that belong to the emperor - Embalmed ones - Those that are trained - Suckling pigs - Mermaids (or Sirens) - Fabulous ones - Stray dogs - Those that are included in this classification - Those that tremble as if they were mad - Innumerable ones - Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush - Et cetera - Those that have just broken the flower vase - Those that, at a distance, resemble flies Eric
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Hey, June 21st is my birfday, I will be 50, which kinda sucks because I still act 18. I will make the claim in advance that the Earth is not really round, it is a 6-D vacuum torus with a glob of baryonic decay around it that we play in. Stewart On Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Jones--- I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test. Is that info in their first report? If there was 10% Cu in the ash, I would not expect to see an unusual isotopic composition anyway. Rossi may not have understood the science but I thin Focardi did. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Bob Cook I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test. Is that info in their first report? Some of it turns up on Wiki starting at the 4th paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Jones Beene Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: Bob Cook I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test. Is that info in their first report? Some of it turns up on Wiki starting at the 4th paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. I agree. One link in the Wikipedia article that talked about isotopes was to Ethan Seigel's sloppy piece attempting to discredit the E-Cat, and the other was to a broken link. I do not recall having seen a definitive analysis of the isotopes from the 2011 test yet. I have seen a number of Rossi's statements to the effect that there was significant transmutation to copper (Gary Wright collects a bunch of them). In addition, an assay that produced natural ratios would not mean much without further context to understand what happened prior to the assay. There's few solid details to work with, and any confidence in one's conclusions is misplaced. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
In the article at ECat World... Blaze is the crow. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/ LENR Simplified: Pencils, Windmills and Super Mario Posted on June 18, 2014 by admin http://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/ • 15 Comments http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/#comments http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/22d03ee81bb4934d6905ce5eb5bcfc7c/ *The following post was submitted by ECW reader Lilylover* Often technical posts like the one about ‘Discrete Breathers’ may not generate a lot of interest. Sometimes they are important, sometimes they are trifling. So, today, I thought maybe I’ll interest some of the E-Catters into desiring to read a technical/dry post by providing a simplified version. This might also help you decide chaff from wheat; and make you more hopeful about LENR scenario. Bear with the randomness and length; I think in the end you’ll be glad you did. ••• 1 Imagine a box as large as a refrigerator with hundreds of small holes barely large enough to let a pencil through. You have inserted thousands of pencils to fill up the box. Now, imagine that you toppled the box. Do you expect all the pencils to fall out of box? None? Some? If you shuffle it a bit more, what then? Imagine if these holes were on all six sides of the box – even in this scenario, only after a lot of vigorous shaking, some pencils will fall out. But if the holes were only on one surface, fewer pencils will fall out after similar random shaking. Now, for the same amount of shaking if you wanted to get the maximum number of pencils out from that one particular surface you’ll modify your shaking techniques so as to try to align the pencils perpendicular to the surface. This strategy will yield more pencils as opposed to vigorous random shaking. 2 Once upon a time there was a windmill atop a hill in a fairly windy area. An albatross and a hummingbird decided to fly through the rotors. There were spectators betting on who would come out on the other side alive. How would you bet? Why? They both flew through it and made it through alive. Then, they said, let’s do this until only one of us is alive. Who do you think would stay alive? The albatross said, “Wait a minute. Surely my luck will run out faster. I see what you are doing. Let’s be fair.” Then the albatross asked for a 5-minutes-time-out to come up with a fair plan. Meanwhile, a poor crow watching this from afar saw an opportunity. He told the betters that he wanted to participate. They okayed. The desparate crow hoped that if went normally, surely the albatross will be dead and he could split the prize with the hummingbird. Not knowing about the crow, the albatross came up with a plan – a smaller windmill for hummingbird in the same proportion as to the big windmill was to the albatross. The hummingbird said that was fair since it would be equally dangerous game for both of us. The crow said, “I’m in. Me too!” The crow wanted to use the albatross’ windmill. The hummingbird and the albatross told him that’s not fair – we are taking more risk, you’d be taking less. How about using hummingbird’s windmill? The crow complained – “you’d be taking less risk, I’d be taking more. That’s not fair.” Then, they said, “Well, then, let’s have another windmill that’s right for your size.” “That seems fair,” said the crow. But now with equal risk for the same reward, the crow cowered. He said, “I’m out.” … and away he flew. They flew through their windmills. Both made it through alive. But the hummingbird realized that if they continued like this, he’d be tired sooner. So, he said, “how about we create a series of seven windmills 10 feet apart and then fly through those?” Albatross: I’m big, I cannot maneuver within 10 feet to be ready for the next windmill. I’ll surely lose. Let’s keep them 200 meters apart. Humming bird: I’m small, I’ll get tired by the time I reach third windmill. Surely, I’ll lose. Let’s keep them at 5 body-lengths apart. Albatross: I do good in the straight line, surely, 5 body-lengths is not good for me. Hummingbird: BTW, for the same wind speed, my windmill rotates faster. So we have to wait for the wind that causes the same rpm. Albatross: That’s beyond my control. How about, you get a little bit bigger windmill to compensate for the higher rpm by the same wind speed? Hummingbird: How about you get a smaller windmill, instead? It’ll be equally risky. Albatross: True, but more risky, nonetheless. Are trying to kill me sooner? Instead of getting us both killed, let’s both use oversized mills and keep playing the game longer and safer. ••• All but Rossi: Let’s make them smaller, faster and riskier. Rossi: Let’s make them bigger and safer. That’s rational. more at the site... http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze,
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
From: Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Hey, June 21st is my birfday, I will be 50, Happy solstistic birthday. June 21, 1964 was probably a long day for your mom, too!
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion? Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre. Not in this Universe :-) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. === Do you have a reference? I never though that the Swedes were permitted to release the full ash assay results from the Rossi reactor On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Bob Cook I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct. Bob, Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed? There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios. The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no light elements. Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles required. Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be. But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion? Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre. Not in this Universe :-) OK. In all fairness, if an observer was such a devoted fan of Rossi that they felt compelled to make a case for the nucleons (balancing out) in some kind of weird and wonderful new reaction … and given that Kullander did not say that the iron was seen in a natural ratio… well… in that case, one could imagine that if a proton and two Ni-58 nuclei went into some kind of novel nucleon exchange reaction, then it could work out to give results which at least were not as laughable as the above. This would assume that almost all of the iron found was Fe-54. They are silent on that. If that were the case, the iron anomaly would itself be a nice little secret for Kullander to hold onto. We can be pretty sure this was not the case, but just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton is 117 nucleons; and so is one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54. That is a rough balance …but of course, it is the tip of a deep iceberg. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible. Maybe it is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there… attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:07:49 -0400: Hi, http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html In the paper, which is published in Physical Review B, the researchers predict that by shining light on a 2D asymmetric nanostructure with a laser that is tuned at resonance with the electronic transitions that can occur in the nanostructure Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html#jCp; ...however there are no electronic transitions that match gamma energies of several MeV. Though Uranium will absorb x-rays of 115 keV. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
What would happen if the vacuum that a Rydberg crystal of hydrogen was occupying turned into a soup of magically catalyzed pions? This sort of thing happens in a quark plasma. This happened just after the big bang and the QGP condenced into elements that were what we see today in the universe. There would be a preponderance of double magic elements as described by Dr Hora amd Miley See https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg86917.html On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper. Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion? Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre. Not in this Universe :-) OK. In all fairness, if an observer was such a devoted fan of Rossi that they felt compelled to make a case for the nucleons (balancing out) in some kind of weird and wonderful new reaction … and given that Kullander did not say that the iron was seen in a natural ratio… well… in that case, one could imagine that if a proton and two Ni-58 nuclei went into some kind of novel nucleon exchange reaction, then it could work out to give results which at least were not as laughable as the above. This would assume that almost all of the iron found was Fe-54. They are silent on that. If that were the case, the iron anomaly would itself be a nice little secret for Kullander to hold onto. We can be pretty sure this was not the case, but just for laughs… consider… Two Ni-58 plus a proton is 117 nucleons; and so is one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54. That is a rough balance …but of course, it is the tip of a deep iceberg. The implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is possible. Maybe it is Higgs-mediated :-) What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of, and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out there…
Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:07:49 -0400: Hi, http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html In the paper, which is published in Physical Review B, the researchers predict that by shining light on a 2D asymmetric nanostructure ***Sounds a lot like my 1D V1DLLBEC theory. 1D is often interchanged with 2D in the literature. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91401.html with a laser that is tuned at resonance with the electronic transitions that can occur in the nanostructure ***Yup. It was KP Sinha who turned me straight in terms of focusing lasers on specific frequencies so that the energy of the system would be REDUCED. Ed Storms didn't seem to be aware of that; he thought it was in order to heat up the system. But it was Dr. Henry Chu, Obama's Science Advisor who won the Nobel Prize in 1998 for laser cooling to form the first Bose Einstein Condensates -- he was the one who broke this ground. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html#jCp ...however there are no electronic transitions that match gamma energies of several MeV. Though Uranium will absorb x-rays of 115 keV. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting
You can create an atom like behavior out of an ensemble of electrons. Consider how a quantum dot works. The larger this ensemble of electrons grows, the shorter the frequency of the radiation that the ensemble can work with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot The difference between a quantum dot and a nuclear active environment populated with surface plasmon polaritons is that the charge of the electrons has been displaced by tunneling through tight confinement. A large ensemble of entangled SPPs can absorb any frequency of EMF. As happens in the Sun, this EMF is in the form of magnetic field lines which is tightly coupled between the nuclear reactants and the SPPs in the NAE. On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:12 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:07:49 -0400: Hi, http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html In the paper, which is published in Physical Review B, the researchers predict that by shining light on a 2D asymmetric nanostructure with a laser that is tuned at resonance with the electronic transitions that can occur in the nanostructure Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html#jCp ...however there are no electronic transitions that match gamma energies of several MeV. Though Uranium will absorb x-rays of 115 keV. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Size matters, especially with vacuum fluctuations
FYI to Fran and other Fluctuating Vacuum Vorts: Fran, I believe this paper is at least in the ball park of one of your pet hypotheses. and having to do with Casimir effect and the exclusion of longer wavelength vacuum fluctuations from small confines. I'm working 70+ hours a week so do not have time to read and comment on it. Controlling the emission of light? Size matters http://phys.org/news/2014-02-emission-size.html The scientists have obtained a new understanding on how so-called **vacuum fluctuations are inhibited in the photonic crystals**. This study paves ways for applications such as efficient LEDs, lasers, and photovoltaics, and even quantum computers where it is desirable to suppress the fluctuations of the qubits. Their theoretical results are being published in the leading journal Physical Review B that is published by the American Physical Society (APS). -mark iverson
RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away
JONES-- Several questions about the Swede's comment-- What was the analysis of the powder before the testing? How did it get to 10% Cu and 11% Fr? Rossi claimed it was Ni with a little Hydrogen and a catalyst. Again if the Cu was there to begin with, a little change in its isotopic composition would be hard to detect. In any case a 21% change in mass seems unlikely unless contamination of the ash occurred during the test or its destructive examination . Keep in mind that Kullander was not one who indicated the test in 2011 produced excess power. Matt's reporting of Kullander is suspect. This will be clarified in the next report that should be able to report on changes in the reactor composition, since they had 3 reactors to use in the test and apparently only actually operated one. Hopefully the report will address this issue. Bob From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 19:29:11 -0700 From: Bob Cook That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me. I sounds like hearsay. The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked. They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge. My impression all along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor. Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from the Swedes. Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses? Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.