date:20151016

Hi Bob,

You seem to be describing a kind of nuclear "band," where there are so many
nuclear levels from participating nuclei that they merge into a band
analogous to a band in a semiconductor, and the energy levels lose their
distinctness and become continuous.

How do the nuclei communicate with one another at a sufficiently fast rate
to make such bands possible?  The nuclear volume is very small, nuclei are
spaced very far apart, and nuclear interactions occur in an extremely short
amount of time, such that a virtual photon will not get very far before a
strong interaction takes place (e.g., fragmenting of a compound nucleus).
Consider that even in a closely packed lattice the nuclei are separated by
enormous distances.

Eric

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

In this regard when spin states are considered by the coherent
> system—including the various states of electrons in a coherent system—the
> degrees of freedom are enormous compared to a two particle system of a
> neutron and a nucleus with its finite number of different states and
> coupling mechanisms offered by the electric and magnetic fields.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
> the insurmountable problems.

I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this field
-- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the dawn of
the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude, and
people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).

The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
opinion.

We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

It seems to me that the reading and analysis of the Lugano report that was
done by Lunden and Lidgren was at best superficial. The information about
the fuel and ash is very deep and needs to be mulled over for a
considerable amount of time. The smallest experimental detail can make or
break a theory.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
>> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
>> the insurmountable problems.
>
>
> I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this
> field -- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the
> dawn of the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude,
> and people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
> stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
> understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
> they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
> certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).
>
> The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
> conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
> opinion.
>
> We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
> as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Jones Beene

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such 
as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to fragments 
of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

 

Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a 
publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad. 

 

Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by promoting a 
spoof? Can you rule this out?

 

The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is awesome. The 
only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In the Lugano test, each nickel atom comprising the 100 micro nickel
particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from multiple lithium 7 atoms
to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all
billion atoms of the that particle in one operation. This is what this
latest neutron theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.

All these neutron theories such as this one and L are unitary theories
where neutrons are moved one neutron at a time. This one neutron transfer
method cannot leave a pure isotope in large amounts(a billion atoms).

Furthermore, consider how neutrons would move from lithium 7 coverng the
surface of the nickel particle, to the atoms deep inside the 100 micron
nickel particle. Being ultra low energy, each low energy neutron is highly
reactive and will combine with the first nickel atom that it encounters.
This implies that the nickel atoms on the surface of the particle would
have more neutrons added to the nickel nucleus. We would expect to see at
least Ni64 or even zinc near the surface of the particle. This atoms near
the surface would all be heavier than the atoms at the center of the
particle. But the nickel is pure with Ni62 at the surface and at the center.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by
> this paper and the paper itself is poor.
>
> I agree. It is so poor that it reflects badly on the LENR community that
> it is being praised.
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to
> Be-8 by giving up an electron
>
> Bob - The cross-section for this reaction is extremely small (few
> millibarn) – so tiny in fact that Li-7 is proposed to use in the coolant
> for the proposed liquid metal reactor.
>
> In contrast, Lithium 6 has a cross section which is 20,000 time higher,
> but decays to tritium which is easily detected – if present. It isn’t.
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) – neutrons are out … as a valid
> explanation for LENR and again, with apologies to those who think it is
> rude to be so blunt – this theory is an embarrassment to the two guys who
> proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable problems. I
> cannot understand why so many (including Rossi) were exuberant about it
> without asking the simplest of questions.
>
> Does this episode indicate that Rossi has almost no clue as to a workable
> theory? … we can only hope that his lack of adequate theory will not cast
> further doubt on his claimed results.
>
> You do not have to have a valid theory to get good results… but it does
> help.
>
>

[Vo]:toward the true LENR theory

2015-10-16 Thread Peter Gluck

however what happens is located in the active sites, I think!.

Discover a formidable LENR theory here
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/oct-16-2015-discover-high-level-lenr.html

Yours,
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jones,
No I did not say it was blunt. BTW I changed my signature:)
No, I said it was a little contradictory to the general complaints, here in
Vortex, saying that there is no room for accepting explanations that does
not jive with the book.
I think the same goes for religious people who throws the bible at you in
every juncture. It is not that the bible does not have merit or that
established academia is clueless.
Your critic I have no problem with. That you base it on what EVERYBODY
knows - was my problem. Really more that I think it is inconsistent than a
problem.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In the Lugano test, each nickel atom comprising the 100 micro nickel
> particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from multiple lithium 7 atoms
> to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all
> billion atoms of the that particle in one operation. This is what this
> latest neutron theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.
>
> All these neutron theories such as this one and L are unitary theories
> where neutrons are moved one neutron at a time. This one neutron transfer
> method cannot leave a pure isotope in large amounts(a billion atoms).
>
>
> Furthermore, consider how neutrons would move from lithium 7 coverng the
> surface of the nickel particle, to the atoms deep inside the 100 micron
> nickel particle. Being ultra low energy, each low energy neutron is highly
> reactive and will combine with the first nickel atom that it encounters.
> This implies that the nickel atoms on the surface of the particle would
> have more neutrons added to the nickel nucleus. We would expect to see at
> least Ni64 or even zinc near the surface of the particle. This atoms near
> the surface would all be heavier than the atoms at the center of the
> particle. But the nickel is pure with Ni62 at the surface and at the center.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>> Ø   There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by
>> this paper and the paper itself is poor.
>>
>> I agree. It is so poor that it reflects badly on the LENR community that
>> it is being praised.
>>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø   The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to
>> Be-8 by giving up an electron
>>
>> Bob - The cross-section for this reaction is extremely small (few
>> millibarn) – so tiny in fact that Li-7 is proposed to use in the coolant
>> for the proposed liquid metal reactor.
>>
>> In contrast, Lithium 6 has a cross section which is 20,000 time higher,
>> but decays to tritium which is easily detected – if present. It isn’t.
>>
>> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) – neutrons are out … as a
>> valid explanation for LENR and again, with apologies to those who think it
>> is rude to be so blunt – this theory is an embarrassment to the two guys
>> who proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable problems. I
>> cannot understand why so many (including Rossi) were exuberant about it
>> without asking the simplest of questions.
>>
>> Does this episode indicate that Rossi has almost no clue as to a workable
>> theory? … we can only hope that his lack of adequate theory will not cast
>> further doubt on his claimed results.
>>
>> You do not have to have a valid theory to get good results… but it does
>> help.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jones
Do you have ghosts at home?
How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off it.
Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an April 1
joke.
Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 'the
book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.
Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
*6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, absolutely
remarkable:*
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing
*
makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts
> such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
>
>
> Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a
> publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad.
>
>
>
> Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?
>
>
>
> The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is awesome.
> The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread AlanG

Regarding Geneste's paper, the 'strange radiation' tracks described were
replicated by Keith Fredericks and reported at ICCF18:

http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
His analysis suggested they might be superluminal tachyons.

On 10/16/2015 12:38 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

Jones
Do you have ghosts at home?
How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off
it. Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an
April 1 joke.

Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because
'the book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.

Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
*6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse,
absolutely remarkable:*

*https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing*
makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene > wrote:

*From:*Eric Walker

ØWe should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to
attempts such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren. In addition, we
should be open to fragments of insight that might be hidden in
such attempts.

Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at
a publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is
that bad.

Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field
by promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?

The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is
awesome. The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

These tracks are produced by analog black holes call "dark mode surface
plasmon polaritons" (dark mode SPP). it is well know that these polariton
solitons produce monopole magnetic fields. Being a black hole, the inside
of the soliton contains negative energy due to the fact that loads of power
are being projected as anapole magnetism. This power projection segregates
the vacuum into positive and negative energy, Things that travel in
negative vacuum go faster than light in a neutral vacuum as found in the
EMthruster experiments.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:38 PM, AlanG  wrote:

> Regarding Geneste's paper, the 'strange radiation' tracks described were
> replicated by Keith Fredericks and reported at ICCF18:
>
> 
> http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
> His analysis suggested they might be superluminal tachyons.
>
>
> On 10/16/2015 12:38 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>
> Jones
> Do you have ghosts at home?
> How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
> If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off it.
> Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an April 1
> joke.
> Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
> The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 'the
> book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.
> Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
> *6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
> experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, absolutely
> remarkable:*
> *
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing
> *
> makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
> YCDBSOYA
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts
>> such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
>> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a
>> publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
>> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?
>>
>>
>>
>> The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is
>> awesome. The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:12:26 -0400:
Hi,
>In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or
>4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and
>this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one shot.
>This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster
>transformation.
[snip]
It didn't have to happen all in one shot. It just needs to be the end result
after running for the duration of the test. In fact if it had happened all in
one shot, all the energy would have been released at once, and there would be a
hole in the roof.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Bob Higgins

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value
of new papers.  We should be fair, honest, and not defamatory.  We should
not impugn the integrity of the authors.  I tried to be fair and explicit
in what I said.  I would love for the authors to respond on Vortex - lets
get at the truth.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
>> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
>> the insurmountable problems.
>
>
> I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this
> field -- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the
> dawn of the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude,
> and people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
> stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
> understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
> they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
> certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).
>
> The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
> conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
> opinion.
>
> We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
> as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

I see some of my favorite words in that * Geneste *paper. You might have
had this * Geneste *information available to you right here on vortex.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Jones
> Do you have ghosts at home?
> How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
> If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off it.
> Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an April 1
> joke.
> Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
> The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 'the
> book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.
> Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
> *6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
> experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, absolutely
> remarkable:*
> *https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing
> *
> makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
> YCDBSOYA
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts
>> such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
>> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a
>> publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
>> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?
>>
>>
>>
>> The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is
>> awesome. The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value
> of new papers.
>

I agree.  I wasn't criticizing your very apt points.  I was just commenting
on the decision of the authors to propose the idea.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Bob

Now this is a much better critical tone than presented in the last dozen or so 
negative critical comments.  The last series of comments reminded me of the 
tone of comments being fired at P in 1989 and 1990 by the wise old physics 
establishment.  At that time it was the Coulomb barrier that could not be 
crossed.  Now it is the nasty neutrons that necessarily are dangerous and 
engender bad gammas.  

I remain unconvinced about the bad neutrons and energetic gammas, although I 
recognize the conditions referred to by the critics as being real and resulting 
in bad gammas.  

My conclusion is the critics do not understand the physics and or other science 
of small systems of particles that have properties much different than that of 
the systems they know.  If the authors are embarrassed as has been suggested 
they should be, I doubt they will come to Vortex-L for consultation.  

Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value of 
new papers.  We should be fair, honest, and not defamatory.  We should not 
impugn the integrity of the authors.  I tried to be fair and explicit in what I 
said.  I would love for the authors to respond on Vortex - lets get at the 
truth. 

Bob Higgins 


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

  On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:


In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an 
embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize the 
insurmountable problems.

  I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this field 
-- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the dawn of the 
scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude, and people should 
be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a stigma.  As the 
authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this understanding will 
either modify the approach they take, or at least they'll know which concerns 
to address up front, knowing there will be certain types of complaint (e.g., 
free neutrons, gammas, etc.).

  The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing 
conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my opinion.

  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such as 
the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to fragments of 
insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

  Eric

[Vo]:coding error

2015-10-16 Thread a.ashfield

I am again getting this error message again.  The site is shown properly 
for a second and then is replaced by the following message.


Content Encoding Error

The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an 
invalid or unsupported form of compression.


Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:45:39 -0700:
Hi,

My comment here below referred specifically to the Lundin - Lidgren paper, and
was meant to explain why I put little faith in it. In short I see the absence of
gammas in real life as strong evidence that the process they describe is not
what actually happens.

>Robin and Eric--
>
>You are correct based on data associated with two particle (nuclei and 
>neutron) absorption reactions.  I agree that there will be prompt gammas 
>associated with most if not all neutron absorption reactions, since there is 
>no coupling to transfer energy from the new isotope to an assemblage of 
>other particles--a  coherent system.
>
>However, it may be that a coherent system of Ni may absorb a neutron and 
>distribute the excess energy to many particles, including electrons, of 
>system.This has been my assumption for some time that the energy 
>coupling in the LENR reactions is via spin energy sharing within the 
>coherent system.   The no-gamma experience has never made sense with the 
>transmutations and other ash seen in LENR.  I would assume you would 
>consider that the transmutations did not occur without gammas.
>
>We differ in that I believe they have occurred without gammas.   It's too 
>easy to measure gammas for so many experimenters to have missed them.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: Bob Cook
>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:23 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>
>In reply to Mixent:
>
>I disagree with your comment that every reaction is going to produce an
>energetic gamma immediately.  Most of the Ni isotopes that absorb a neutron
>are stable or decay by a beta ray.  I noted the radioactive Ni isotopes that
>have a gamma in their decay mode.
>
>Li-7 goes to Li-8 and hence to Be-8 without any gamma.  It ends up expelling
>a beta and two alphas I believe.  O-16 with a neutron goes to stable O-17
>and it goes to O-18 which is also stable.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:36 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
>break-through
>
>In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>
>It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which
>isotope it
>creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma immediately.
>ALL
>the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas,
>and
>most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
>1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the
>process.
>2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.
>
>
>>RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--
>>
>>It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a 
>>neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily 
>>absorbed by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other 
>>isotopes of Ni.  Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is 
>>sufficiently exposed to thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal 
>>neutron flux in a Ni nano particle, based on the estimated production of 
>>spalled neutrons would be a desirable side calculation.
>>
>>The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in 
>>order to prevent outside activationsee the 3rd paragraph on page 4.
>>
>>There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still remain 
>>stable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Jones Beene
>>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>>
>>From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
>>
>>Ø
>>
>>Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation about 
>>resonance which might tie in with the Swedes paper...
>>
>>
>>Mark, No problem with the resonance. Its the neutrons that are the 
>>problem.
>>
>>What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is 
>>that neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there 
>>is no induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory 
>>is almost an embarrassment.
>>
>>
>>
>>Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest energy 
>>(ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything they come 
>>in contact with. The good news would be  this activation should serve as 
>>instant proof of LENR when it happens, but the bad news is that it never 
>>happens.
>>
>>Most of the mass of the Hot Cat is the element aluminum  in the form of 
>>alumina ceramic. Neutron activation of aluminum occurs by numerous neutron 
>>capture reactions and the cross-section is substantial for thermal neutrons 
>>(few barns) and gets higher with colder neutrons. Such reactions as 27Al + 
>>n = 28Al, 27Al(n,a)

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Not if the energy spike was thermalized throughout a global BEC.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:43 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:12:26 -0400:
> Hi,
> >In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3
> or
> >4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and
> >this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one shot.
> >This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster
> >transformation.
> [snip]
> It didn't have to happen all in one shot. It just needs to be the end
> result
> after running for the duration of the test. In fact if it had happened all
> in
> one shot, all the energy would have been released at once, and there would
> be a
> hole in the roof.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through


Robin and Eric--

You are correct based on data associated with two particle (nuclei and 
neutron) absorption reactions.  I agree that there will be prompt gammas 
associated with most if not all neutron absorption reactions, since there is 
no coupling to transfer energy from the new isotope to an assemblage of 
other particles--a  coherent system.


However, it may be that a coherent system of Ni may absorb a neutron and 
distribute the excess energy to many particles, including electrons, of 
system.This has been my assumption for some time that the energy 
coupling in the LENR reactions is via spin energy sharing within the 
coherent system.   The no-gamma experience has never made sense with the 
transmutations and other ash seen in LENR.  I would assume you would 
consider that the transmutations did not occur without gammas.


We differ in that I believe they have occurred without gammas.   It's too 
easy to measure gammas for so many experimenters to have missed them.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Bob Cook

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to Mixent:

I disagree with your comment that every reaction is going to produce an
energetic gamma immediately.  Most of the Ni isotopes that absorb a neutron
are stable or decay by a beta ray.  I noted the radioactive Ni isotopes that
have a gamma in their decay mode.

Li-7 goes to Li-8 and hence to Be-8 without any gamma.  It ends up expelling
a beta and two alphas I believe.  O-16 with a neutron goes to stable O-17
and it goes to O-18 which is also stable.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
break-through

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which
isotope it
creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma immediately.
ALL
the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas,
and
most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the
process.
2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.



RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--

It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a 
neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily 
absorbed by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other 
isotopes of Ni.  Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is 
sufficiently exposed to thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal 
neutron flux in a Ni nano particle, based on the estimated production of 
spalled neutrons would be a desirable side calculation.


The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in 
order to prevent outside activation—see the 3rd paragraph on page 4.


There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still remain 
stable.






From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint

Ø

Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation about 
resonance which might tie in with the Swede’s paper...



Mark, No problem with the resonance. It’s the neutrons that are the 
problem.


What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is 
that neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there 
is no induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory 
is almost an embarrassment.




Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest energy 
(ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything they come 
in contact with. The good news would be – this activation should serve as 
instant proof of LENR when it happens, but the bad news is that it never 
happens.


Most of the mass of the Hot Cat is the element aluminum – in the form of 
alumina ceramic. Neutron activation of aluminum occurs by numerous neutron 
capture reactions and the cross-section is substantial for thermal neutrons 
(few barns) and gets higher with colder neutrons. Such reactions as 27Al + 
n = 28Al, 27Al(n,a) 24Na, 27Al(n,2n)26Al and 27Al(n,p)27Mg show up at once.



Even if by some miracle, only one neutron out of a million diffuses to the 
tube wall - these insidious little bastards would activate the alumina into 
a radioactive health hazard within minutes of excess heat showing up. The 
excited states following activation will undergo beta decay over protracted 
time periods and emit gammas as the nuclei de-excite to their respective 
ground states. Radioactivity would continue for months.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Hi Bob,

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO FAST NEUTRONS IN THE  SUGGESTED REACTIONS.
>

The discussion below concerns gammas rather than neutrons.  There would be
a gamma photon with every nickel neutron capture, which is the main
proposed reaction.  (And a gamma photon with every other neutron capture.)
 I also think neutrons would be a problem, but they're not discussed below.

Eric



> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Eric Walker 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:41 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
>
> I believe the authors know what they are about.
>>
>
> The authors approach the energy balance problem in two steps, and the
> first step is extremely endothermic.  It's pretty difficult to separate a
> neutron from 7Li or d and requires on the order of ~ MeV.  Only after this
> first step is the energy debt paid back in a second step involving the
> exothermic neutron capture reaction (which would be accompanied by
> deexcitation gammas).  I think the Bank of Heisenberg would send their
> repossession men before the second step could occur in quantity.
>
> The authors say this about the energy balance:
>
>
> Nickel embodies the internal power/heat source via neutron capture, while
> spallation is a cooling factor for lithium and deuterium. Nickel is
> therefore the main attractor of matter within the reactor confinement.
>
>
> In other words, losing that neutron is understood to be "cooling."
>
> Also, to expand upon Jones's point, consider that to produce 1 W of heat
> at ~ 10 MeV per neutron capture, you will need ~ 6.242e+11 captures per
> second.  If your apparatus was able to stop all but 0.1 percent of the
> deexcitation gammas, you'd still get 62420 gammas per second leaking
> through the containment.  Now scale that 1 W up to 1 kW or 10 kW for useful
> power, and that 62420 gammas becomes 62.4 million gammas per second
> escaping through the containment.  You will now need walls that can stop
> 0.001 percent or more gammas to hide the signal in the background.
> Even if you could accomplish this, after running your reactor for a while,
> the apparatus would be extremely radioactive.
>
> The authors do not appear to be aware that these implications of their
> explanation are difficulties that need to be addressed, either in general
> or in the context of what is known about LENR.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Eric--

It is my understanding that prompt gammas from an excited nucleus which has 
just absorbed a neutron do not happen all at once.  The spectrum of gammas that 
are measured occur rapidly but not at once. 

In a coherent system it is my idea that transitions—many if possible—occur at 
the same time.  There is no lag associated with significant adjustments of the 
items that make up the coherent system as there is in a single nucleus.  The 
adjustments (energy states associated with MANY particles and orbital spin in a 
magnetic or electric field) occur all at once with no lag time.  The field or 
fields provide the couple.  (It’s spooky action at a distance.)

Bob Cook  



From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Hi Bob,

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:


  HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO FAST NEUTRONS IN THE  SUGGESTED REACTIONS.

The discussion below concerns gammas rather than neutrons.  There would be a 
gamma photon with every nickel neutron capture, which is the main proposed 
reaction.  (And a gamma photon with every other neutron capture.)  I also think 
neutrons would be a problem, but they're not discussed below.

Eric



  Bob Cook 

  From: Eric Walker 
  Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:41 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

  On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


I believe the authors know what they are about. 

  The authors approach the energy balance problem in two steps, and the first 
step is extremely endothermic.  It's pretty difficult to separate a neutron 
from 7Li or d and requires on the order of ~ MeV.  Only after this first step 
is the energy debt paid back in a second step involving the exothermic neutron 
capture reaction (which would be accompanied by deexcitation gammas).  I think 
the Bank of Heisenberg would send their repossession men before the second step 
could occur in quantity.

  The authors say this about the energy balance:

Nickel embodies the internal power/heat source via neutron capture, while 
spallation is a cooling factor for lithium and deuterium. Nickel is therefore 
the main attractor of matter within the reactor confinement.

  In other words, losing that neutron is understood to be "cooling."

  Also, to expand upon Jones's point, consider that to produce 1 W of heat at ~ 
10 MeV per neutron capture, you will need ~ 6.242e+11 captures per second.  If 
your apparatus was able to stop all but 0.1 percent of the deexcitation 
gammas, you'd still get 62420 gammas per second leaking through the 
containment.  Now scale that 1 W up to 1 kW or 10 kW for useful power, and that 
62420 gammas becomes 62.4 million gammas per second escaping through the 
containment.  You will now need walls that can stop 0.001 percent or 
more gammas to hide the signal in the background.  Even if you could accomplish 
this, after running your reactor for a while, the apparatus would be extremely 
radioactive.

  The authors do not appear to be aware that these implications of their 
explanation are difficulties that need to be addressed, either in general or in 
the context of what is known about LENR.


  Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Teslaalset

Mats blog also indicates following remarks:

*Lundin and Lidgren have made a brief successful experiment and they have
verified the model through calculations against results from well-known
LENR experiments such as the Lugano report with Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat
.
Earlier 2015 they also filed a patent application describing the process.*

*“We did an experiment on our own but we stopped it. We realised that we
were sitting on a neutron source and that’s not something you should do in
your basement,” *

So, it seems they performed some tests on their model, confirming neutron
spallation and realizing a potential neutron challenge.

Also:
*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with all
necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body since
the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Alain Sepeda

as far as I understand, low energy neutrons will be a hazard because of the
transmutations they cause, if the target is not controlled and safe...
a neutron in iron, oxygen, carbon, may produce something radioactive, or
just structural damage...

anyway as I've heard from Svein O , the paper propose that the neutrons are
swapped between two nucleus after a period of entanglement, with higher
probability for a swap that produce energy.

No neutron can exit because it would not be energy effective...

in a way this match well the idea of Ed Storms about what have to happen
inside his NAE, the hydroton : a quantum object emerge with the
entanglement of many atoms, and when the entanglement is broken, there is
some probability that a state of lower energy is occupied.

anyway I feel that we are a bit too enthusiastic on that theory proposal,
as all enthusiasm before have been cooled, at least a little.



2015-10-15 21:39 GMT+02:00 John Berry :

> Excuse my relative ignorance of nuclear physics (not my bag, baby), but if
> a Neutron is ejected by conventional means, it will exit with enough energy
> to pose a hazard in the ways mentioned previously.
>
> But being that Neutrons are not charged, if they are induced to be ejected
> with comparatively low energy (slow neutron radiation), could the hazards
> of radioactive isotopes and neutron radiation be mitigated?
>
> Of course if they are ejected with very low energy, I'm not sure how that
> helps excess energy show up.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:33 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
>> I posted a ref from physorg on Tue 10/6/2015 4:10 PM…
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg104970.html
>>
>> It involves a new observation about resonance which might tie in with the
>> Swede’s paper...
>>
>> -mark
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:47 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
>> break-through
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW: Before pinning a medal on these guys, I want to present a contrary
>> opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no scoop here. Unless it is BS which is being scooped.
>>
>>
>>
>> The theory looks a lot like a mashup of W-L cold neutrons and
>> Hagelstein’s neutron hopping, neither of which have a shread of physical
>> evidence. The do not show neutron activation which needs to be shown for
>> any such theory to work. They accept the flawed Lugano report as accurate
>> and apparently do not have an accurate understanding of nuclear spallation.
>>
>>
>>
>> In short – this looks like a rather poor effort to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work
>> Mats.
>>
>>
>>
>> The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow
>> neutron transmutation stimulated by a an electric field gradient (maybe
>> across a surface) at a certain resonance.  Lots  of parameters that can be
>> engineered.   Seems to fit Rossi’s conditions well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mats Lewan 
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:50 AM
>>
>> *To:* mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>>
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>>
>>
>>
>> Essentially no new physics but a little-known physical effect describing
>> matter’s interaction with electromagnetic fields — *ponderomotive Miller
>> forces* — would explain energy release and isotopic changes in LENR.
>> This is what Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish
>> scientists, claim, describing their theory in a paper called *Nuclear
>> Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing* (full
>> length paper here
>> )
>> that will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the 11th International
>> Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals
>> , hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.
>>
>>
>>
>> Read more here:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/
>>
>> Mats
>>
>> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Alain Sepeda

gamma have to be emited in most case, or else energy is transfered as
momentum, who finish as indirect gamma or impacts.

anyway the implicit that may not be true is that this happen in one shot.

the key idea of ed Storms is that the emission of excess energy is not done
in one shot, but by the slow decay of an entangled group of atoms behaving
like a big structured quantum object, able to emit small photons, because
of a rich population of energy level...

I feel that this idea cannot be avoided, but the question is how.
Ponderomotive force if it can connect the EM field with the nucleus may
allow an entangled hydroton (or a WL coherent patch, or anything similar)
may allow the creation of the energy level, around keV...

Is it ? I don't know, and I'm not optimistic... anyway it happens, so
something must do the job.

now, I propose a theory soup...

Ed storms conclude that LENr is acaused by a NAE, which is a quantum
object, insulated from chemistry context, which can emit middle enrgy
photons (keV) from the potential energy of light nucleus.

Widom/Srivastava propose that SPP, evanescent waves, allow huge EM field to
exists at the surface of metals (field that are incredible out of surface),
and that hydrogen nucleus may get entangled in groups and same with
electrons.

Ponderometive force came here to propose that very strong and ihomogeneous
EM field may give energy to nucleons.

connect all and you get another theory :

SPP, evanescent waves, creates huge fields with huge gradients, which
allows protons to get entangled, electron to get entangled.

this gradient of EM field allows transitions associated with nucleus
exchanges and moves.

a NAE apears in that context, where nucleus, and electrons are insulated,
in huge EM fields, and nucleus are entangled with tha EM field, and behave
like a big quantum object.

since it is insulated and entangled, that object can transitions between no
so physical states, in not so physical ways, who however are not far in
energy level... small photons are emited, absorbed.

at one moment the energy level match a very physical state, where two
nucleus have been swapped, or fusioned. the NAE can suffer decoherence...

It is probably too simple, and I may have forgotten many details (spin
conservation, effect of potential barrier on tunneling)...
tell me where I forget a key detail...

2015-10-16 6:36 GMT+02:00 :

> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which
> isotope it
> creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma
> immediately. ALL
> the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas,
> and
> most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
> 1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the
> process.
> 2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.
>
>
> >RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--
> >
> >It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a
> neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily
> absorbed by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other
> isotopes of Ni.  Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is
> sufficiently exposed to thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal
> neutron flux in a Ni nano particle, based on the estimated production of
> spalled neutrons would be a desirable side calculation.
> >
> >The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in
> order to prevent outside activation—see the 3rd paragraph on page 4.
> >
> >There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still
> remain stable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Jones Beene
> >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
> >
> >From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
> >
> >Ø
> >
> >Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation
> about resonance which might tie in with the Swede’s paper...
> >
> >
> >Mark, No problem with the resonance. It’s the neutrons that are the
> problem.
> >
> >What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is
> that neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there
> is no induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory
> is almost an embarrassment.
> >
> >
> >
> >Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest
> energy (ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything
> they come in contact with. The good news would be – this activation should
> serve as instant proof of LENR when it happens, but the bad news is that it
> never happens.
> >
> >Most of the mass of the Hot Cat is the element aluminum – in the form of
> alumina ceramic. Neutron activation of aluminum occurs by numerous

[Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Alain--

You noted: >>SPP, evanescent waves, creates huge fields with huge gradients, 
which allows protons to get entangled, electron to get entangled.<<

This is close to what I consider is happening.   Except I call the entanglement 
a coherent system of particles with many degrees of freedom for response, but 
only one being the lowest energy state that conserves angular momentum that 
happens in increments of spin quanta.  

Ed Storm’s s idea about thermo dynamics, particularly the first and second laws 
are not violated.  In this regard a coherent system seems to always go to its 
lowest energy state.  I consider all the the possible   states reflect the 
flexibility of the interaction of particles  on a continuous basis via electric 
and magnetic fields.  The assumption of a new state happens very fast, with 
additional complexity providing more degrees of freedom and a “fine tuning” of 
the lowest possible energy.  In this regard when spin states are considered by 
the coherent system—including the various states of electrons in a coherent 
system—the degrees of freedom are enormous compared to a two particle system of 
a neutron and a nucleus with its finite number of different states and coupling 
mechanisms offered by the electric and magnetic fields.  Thus, you only get 
prompt gammas with large energy changes to reach a ground state.  

In LENR you get prompt changes in spin states of all particles in the entire 
coherent system (entangled particles).  The energy changes associated with the 
very fine transitions of such a coherent system do not entail hot gammas, but 
only fine structure modifications that have a very high probability of 
happening in a very short period, compared to the transitions in an excited 
nucleus resulting from an absorbed neutron with its prompt gammas.  

In a nutshell, I consider the time it takes a coherent system—entangled using 
another term—to realize the lowest possible energy state is the shortest time 
possible, if time moves in discrete intervals.  If conservation of angular 
momentum (intrinsic spin) and its associated energy affords a lower energy 
state upon introduction of a new particle that stimulates a change to the 
system, that system will respond and take on the lowest energy state, 
conserving angular momentum. 
Linear momentum is not a major issue to conserve, since the changes to the 
coherent system do not have to make use of kinetic energy to achieve the lowest 
energy state.  Balancing kinetic energy of particles and their momentum in a 
many particle system may reduce the degrees of freedom and increase the time it 
takes to reach the lowest energy state.  The probability of this happening is 
extremely low compared to the reduction of the coherent system’s energy via the 
distribution of spin energy through out the system.  Thus, slow neutrons with 
minimal linear momentum and related kinetic energy favor the distribution of 
spin energy in the coherent system they disturb.
Bob Cook
From: Alain Sepeda 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:14 AM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

gamma have to be emited in most case, or else energy is transfered as momentum, 
who finish as indirect gamma or impacts. 

anyway the implicit that may not be true is that this happen in one shot.

the key idea of ed Storms is that the emission of excess energy is not done in 
one shot, but by the slow decay of an entangled group of atoms behaving like a 
big structured quantum object, able to emit small photons, because of a rich 
population of energy level...

I feel that this idea cannot be avoided, but the question is how.
Ponderomotive force if it can connect the EM field with the nucleus may allow 
an entangled hydroton (or a WL coherent patch, or anything similar) may allow 
the creation of the energy level, around keV...

Is it ? I don't know, and I'm not optimistic... anyway it happens, so something 
must do the job.

now, I propose a theory soup...

Ed storms conclude that LENr is acaused by a NAE, which is a quantum object, 
insulated from chemistry context, which can emit middle enrgy photons (keV) 
from the potential energy of light nucleus.

Widom/Srivastava propose that SPP, evanescent waves, allow huge EM field to 
exists at the surface of metals (field that are incredible out of surface), and 
that hydrogen nucleus may get entangled in groups and same with electrons.

Ponderometive force came here to propose that very strong and ihomogeneous EM 
field may give energy to nucleons.

connect all and you get another theory :

SPP, evanescent waves, creates huge fields with huge gradients, which allows 
protons to get entangled, electron to get entangled.

this gradient of EM field allows transitions associated with nucleus exchanges 
and moves.

a NAE apears in that context, where nucleus, and electrons are insulated, in 
huge EM fields, and nucleus are entangled with tha EM field, and behave

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jones,
You might be right they understand nothing - nada.
But as you said first thing first.
To be categoric about others believe might backfire. There might be a shred
of truth in their ideas, why not just find out if that is so and add that
to the previous knowledge.

A couple of comments. Those guys are part of the European Aerospace
establishment as you call it. Kiruna (North of the polar circle was set up
in the 60is as a station for studying Northern Light.
Your suspicion that they snub at all other data acquired over the years
does not have any foundation either.

I do agree that if you do not think it is possible they have anything, then
wait and see what they produce. Get a schedule and check the outcome. Then
one can make statements with accuracy.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Ø  If the authors are embarrassed as has been suggested they should be, I
> doubt they will come to Vortex-L for consultation.
>
>
>
> First things first. The real problem is that there is a fabulous Library
> of LENR experiments, readily available to consult, and free to explore.
> They should go there first and study it.
>
>
>
> Jed Rothwell has put countless hours and his own funds over 25 years to
> memorialize the efforts of dozens of scientists and thousands of papers. None
> of these experiments going back to 1989 – representing 25 years of blood,
> sweat and tears - has demonstrated that neutrons are a relevant factor in
> LENR and none of them has shown that gamma radiation is a relevant factor.
> One other theory which focused on the neutron modality – that of Widom and
> Larsen, has gotten lots of exposure with no experimental backing – and the
> Swedes failed to acknowledge it, indicating they were unaware of prior work.
>
>
>
> The real problem, therefore, is ignorance (and/or arrogance) to think that
> this body of work which we all have benefited from - has no meaning.
> Newcomers to the field, possibly desiring to make a positive impression on
> the European Aerospace establishment  went to a fair amount of effort, but
> with no supporting data – to build a theory which has as its very
> foundation a dependency on neutrons. Take the neutrons away – they have
> nothing at all.
>
>
>
> They are essentially thumbing their nose on the everything that has
> transpired since 1989, so yes… they should be embarrassed, and yes, they
> should have done their homework first. Instead, they burden us with yet
> another useless document that is dead on arrival, full of errors and very
> similar to W-L but without attribution of their contribution.
>
>
>
> Of course – all of this criticism can change with supporting experiments
> showing neutrons, which they say they are prepared to do - but until this
> work is actually done, it makes no sense for us on vortex to keep up this
> bickering and recrimination, in defense of their deep ignorance about the
> field.
>
>
>
> Face it – they are snubbing and ignoring 25 years of LENR history – and it
> becomes imperative that they must provide their own data, not more idle
> speculation. (we get enough of that here without their help). J
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:58:10 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Not if the energy spike was thermalized throughout a global BEC.

It makes no difference. Release of that much energy instantly in such a confined
space would result in an explosion, though perhaps not really large enough to
blow a hole in the roof. ;) However the chances of the device itself surviving
are minimal.

BTW note that the nuclear energy release from 1 milli-gram of Ni would be the
equivalent of more than half a kilo of TNT.

>
>On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:43 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:12:26 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> >In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3
>> or
>> >4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and
>> >this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one shot.
>> >This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster
>> >transformation.
>> [snip]
>> It didn't have to happen all in one shot. It just needs to be the end
>> result
>> after running for the duration of the test. In fact if it had happened all
>> in
>> one shot, all the energy would have been released at once, and there would
>> be a
>> hole in the roof.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Craig Haynie

What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction?
Then why was it considered so important?

Craig


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. 
wrote:

> Add some BORAX to the water,  I hear that's even better.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:11 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> >*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with
> >all necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body
> >since the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*
>
> In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a
> good
> neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

The first thing that should be critiqued is their empirical process and data, 
and then their hypothesis as to the physics… NOT the other way around! Coming 
down on them due to the hypothesis could cause the LENR community to dismiss 
valid data, which could provide some new insights…

-mark iverson

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value of 
new papers.  We should be fair, honest, and not defamatory.  We should not 
impugn the integrity of the authors.  I tried to be fair and explicit in what I 
said.  I would love for the authors to respond on Vortex - lets get at the 
truth.

 

Bob Higgins 

 

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 

In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an embarrassment 
to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable 
problems.

 

I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this field -- 
it feels a little like what it might have been like during the dawn of the 
scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude, and people should 
be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a stigma.  As the 
authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this understanding will 
either modify the approach they take, or at least they'll know which concerns 
to address up front, knowing there will be certain types of complaint (e.g., 
free neutrons, gammas, etc.).

 

The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing 
conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my opinion.

 

We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such as 
the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to fragments of 
insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

The energy from muon decay leaves electrons and the remainder of this
energy is reabsorbed back into the SPP soliton. All the while more muons
are generated in a continuing cycle from the SPPs. The Solitons are also
slowly decaying through the emission of hawking radiation in the infrared
range, This is part of the thermalization of high energy radiation. Also,
these SPPs explode in a bosenova when they reach energy storage capacity,
they then release XUV and soft x-rays which will also thermalize.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:40 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:14:29 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >This is called super-absorption. The energy release would be spread
> equally
> >throughout a BEC of a billon coherent solitons each getting a few hundred
> >thousand electron volts. These solitons store energy. Their energy holding
> >capacity is 64 GeV each but most hold far less.
>
> I'm curious how you come by this figure?
>
> >Then there is the energy
> >that produce subatomic particles such as muon and mesons. These particles
> >need a lot of energy devoted to their creation. The release of energy is
> >buffered by these subatomic particles because they have a relatively long
> >lifetime.  Muons decay over a very long time and release their energy
> >content very slowly.
>
> Even assuming all the energy is converted into muons, a 2 micro-second
> half-life
> means that they are almost all gone within 10-20 micro-seconds. That's
> still an
> explosion (unless they all leave the reactor before they decay, but in
> that case
> the reactor produces no usable energy).
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:14:29 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>This is called super-absorption. The energy release would be spread equally
>throughout a BEC of a billon coherent solitons each getting a few hundred
>thousand electron volts. These solitons store energy. Their energy holding
>capacity is 64 GeV each but most hold far less. 

I'm curious how you come by this figure?

>Then there is the energy
>that produce subatomic particles such as muon and mesons. These particles
>need a lot of energy devoted to their creation. The release of energy is
>buffered by these subatomic particles because they have a relatively long
>lifetime.  Muons decay over a very long time and release their energy
>content very slowly.

Even assuming all the energy is converted into muons, a 2 micro-second half-life
means that they are almost all gone within 10-20 micro-seconds. That's still an
explosion (unless they all leave the reactor before they decay, but in that case
the reactor produces no usable energy).
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?


Maybe.  That possibility brings to mind this incident, where a fake article
written by a physics professor was published in a journal of postmodern
cultural studies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Jones Beene

From: Bob Cook 

 

Ø  If the authors are embarrassed as has been suggested they should be, I doubt 
they will come to Vortex-L for consultation.  

 

First things first. The real problem is that there is a fabulous Library of 
LENR experiments, readily available to consult, and free to explore. They 
should go there first and study it.

 

Jed Rothwell has put countless hours and his own funds over 25 years to 
memorialize the efforts of dozens of scientists and thousands of papers. None 
of these experiments going back to 1989 – representing 25 years of blood, sweat 
and tears - has demonstrated that neutrons are a relevant factor in LENR and 
none of them has shown that gamma radiation is a relevant factor. One other 
theory which focused on the neutron modality – that of Widom and Larsen, has 
gotten lots of exposure with no experimental backing – and the Swedes failed to 
acknowledge it, indicating they were unaware of prior work.

 

The real problem, therefore, is ignorance (and/or arrogance) to think that this 
body of work which we all have benefited from - has no meaning. Newcomers to 
the field, possibly desiring to make a positive impression on the European 
Aerospace establishment  went to a fair amount of effort, but with no 
supporting data – to build a theory which has as its very foundation a 
dependency on neutrons. Take the neutrons away – they have nothing at all.

 

They are essentially thumbing their nose on the everything that has transpired 
since 1989, so yes… they should be embarrassed, and yes, they should have done 
their homework first. Instead, they burden us with yet another useless document 
that is dead on arrival, full of errors and very similar to W-L but without 
attribution of their contribution.

 

Of course – all of this criticism can change with supporting experiments 
showing neutrons, which they say they are prepared to do - but until this work 
is actually done, it makes no sense for us on vortex to keep up this bickering 
and recrimination, in defense of their deep ignorance about the field. 

 

Face it – they are snubbing and ignoring 25 years of LENR history – and it 
becomes imperative that they must provide their own data, not more idle 
speculation. (we get enough of that here without their help). J

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

>*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with all
>necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body since
>the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*

In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a good
neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

I had the same thought about the hypothetical hole.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 2:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:12:26 -0400:
Hi,

In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or
4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and
this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one shot.
This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster
transformation.

[snip]
It didn't have to happen all in one shot. It just needs to be the end result
after running for the duration of the test. In fact if it had happened all 
in
one shot, all the energy would have been released at once, and there would 
be a

hole in the roof.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

This is called super-absorption. The energy release would be spread equally
throughout a BEC of a billon coherent solitons each getting a few hundred
thousand electron volts. These solitons store energy. Their energy holding
capacity is 64 GeV each but most hold far less. Then there is the energy
that produce subatomic particles such as muon and mesons. These particles
need a lot of energy devoted to their creation. The release of energy is
buffered by these subatomic particles because they have a relatively long
lifetime.  Muons decay over a very long time and release their energy
content very slowly.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:58:10 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Not if the energy spike was thermalized throughout a global BEC.
>
> It makes no difference. Release of that much energy instantly in such a
> confined
> space would result in an explosion, though perhaps not really large enough
> to
> blow a hole in the roof. ;) However the chances of the device itself
> surviving
> are minimal.
>
> BTW note that the nuclear energy release from 1 milli-gram of Ni would be
> the
> equivalent of more than half a kilo of TNT.
>
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:43 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:12:26 -0400:
> >> Hi,
> >> >In the Lugano test, the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2,
> 3
> >> or
> >> >4 neutrons from lithium 7 to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61
> and
> >> >this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one
> shot.
> >> >This is what this latest theory cannot explain. This is called cluster
> >> >transformation.
> >> [snip]
> >> It didn't have to happen all in one shot. It just needs to be the end
> >> result
> >> after running for the duration of the test. In fact if it had happened
> all
> >> in
> >> one shot, all the energy would have been released at once, and there
> would
> >> be a
> >> hole in the roof.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Robin van Spaandonk
> >>
> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >>
> >>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.

Add some BORAX to the water,  I hear that's even better.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
break-through

In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

>*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with 
>all necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body 
>since the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*

In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a good
neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Vo]:Lifetime of atoms extended using a mirror

LENR changes the speed at which time flows by producing negitive vacuum
energy. Positive vacuum energy make time flow more slowly whereas Negative
vacuum energy makes time flow faster. This ability to control the speed at
which time flows has been experimentally demonstrated in this experiment:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm

Re: [Vo]:Lifetime of atoms extended using a mirror

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:28:02 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>LENR changes the speed at which time flows by producing negitive vacuum
>energy. Positive vacuum energy make time flow more slowly whereas Negative
>vacuum energy makes time flow faster. This ability to control the speed at
>which time flows has been experimentally demonstrated in this experiment:
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm

This experiment describes a change in the half-life of an artificial atom
(actually an electronic circuit). That doesn't necessarily mean a change in the
rate of flow of time. In fact, I get the impression that the resonance implies
that the half-life is "atom" dependent. IOW two different "atoms" with different
half-lives sitting next to one another would have different changes to the their
half-lives, implying that the effect was not related to the flow of time in
general.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Lifetime of atoms extended using a mirror

This experiment should be viewed through the lenz of our experience with
the increase in the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. I have referenced
many times here the experiment where U232 half life was decreased from 69
years to 6 microseconds.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:09 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:28:02 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >LENR changes the speed at which time flows by producing negitive vacuum
> >energy. Positive vacuum energy make time flow more slowly whereas Negative
> >vacuum energy makes time flow faster. This ability to control the speed at
> >which time flows has been experimentally demonstrated in this experiment:
> >
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013103115.htm
>
> This experiment describes a change in the half-life of an artificial atom
> (actually an electronic circuit). That doesn't necessarily mean a change
> in the
> rate of flow of time. In fact, I get the impression that the resonance
> implies
> that the half-life is "atom" dependent. IOW two different "atoms" with
> different
> half-lives sitting next to one another would have different changes to the
> their
> half-lives, implying that the effect was not related to the flow of time in
> general.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:11:02 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The energy from muon decay leaves electrons and the remainder of this
>energy is reabsorbed back into the SPP soliton. 

I would expect a fair amount to be lost in neutrinos. Only that which remained
with the electrons would be retrieved.

>All the while more muons
>are generated in a continuing cycle from the SPPs. The Solitons are also
>slowly decaying through the emission of hawking radiation in the infrared
>range, This is part of the thermalization of high energy radiation. Also,
>these SPPs explode in a bosenova when they reach energy storage capacity,
>they then release XUV and soft x-rays which will also thermalize.

You still haven't mentioned how you came by the figure of 64 GeV.

BTW are you also assuming that the muons remain trapped?
If so, why bother with them at all?  (...since they would then behave as though
they were virtual particles). In the Hawking radiation decay, you already have a
mechanism for converting the reaction energy into thermal photons.

How have you determined that said photons should be in the infrared?

>
>On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:40 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:14:29 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >This is called super-absorption. The energy release would be spread
>> equally
>> >throughout a BEC of a billon coherent solitons each getting a few hundred
>> >thousand electron volts. These solitons store energy. Their energy holding
>> >capacity is 64 GeV each but most hold far less.
>>
>> I'm curious how you come by this figure?
>>
>> >Then there is the energy
>> >that produce subatomic particles such as muon and mesons. These particles
>> >need a lot of energy devoted to their creation. The release of energy is
>> >buffered by these subatomic particles because they have a relatively long
>> >lifetime.  Muons decay over a very long time and release their energy
>> >content very slowly.
>>
>> Even assuming all the energy is converted into muons, a 2 micro-second
>> half-life
>> means that they are almost all gone within 10-20 micro-seconds. That's
>> still an
>> explosion (unless they all leave the reactor before they decay, but in
>> that case
>> the reactor produces no usable energy).
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Lifetime of atoms extended using a mirror

Atomic clocks count time through the counting of atomic vibrations. In the
EMdrive experiments, laser beams that when through certain zones in the
resonant cavity showed faster than light behavior.

see

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/49360/20150428/nasa-may-have-accidentally-discovered-faster-than-light-travel.htm

"NASA is currently studying the technology for future applications, but few
expected anything like this to happen: according to a post over at the NASA
Space Flight forums
, when a team
of researchers fired lasers into the resonance chamber, the particles were
accelerated to astronomical speeds...with some moving even faster than the
speed of light."

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:40 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:22:09 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >This experiment should be viewed through the lenz of our experience with
> >the increase in the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. I have referenced
> >many times here the experiment where U232 half life was decreased from 69
> >years to 6 microseconds.
>
> A change in half-life doesn't necessarily mean a change in the rate of
> flow of
> time. It could just be exactly what if appears to be, a change in
> half-life. Now
> if you had multiple different isotopes all together, and their half lives
> all
> changed to the same degree e.g. all decreased by a factor of 10, then you
> might
> have evidence of a change in the rate of flow of time. Even better would be
> several clocks that relied on physically different mechanisms to measure
> the
> flow of time, all changing by the same amount.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

see

http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/

These thing he sees are SPPs

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:09 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:11:02 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The energy from muon decay leaves electrons and the remainder of this
> >energy is reabsorbed back into the SPP soliton.
>
> I would expect a fair amount to be lost in neutrinos. Only that which
> remained
> with the electrons would be retrieved.
>
> >All the while more muons
> >are generated in a continuing cycle from the SPPs. The Solitons are also
> >slowly decaying through the emission of hawking radiation in the infrared
> >range, This is part of the thermalization of high energy radiation. Also,
> >these SPPs explode in a bosenova when they reach energy storage capacity,
> >they then release XUV and soft x-rays which will also thermalize.
>
> You still haven't mentioned how you came by the figure of 64 GeV.
>
> BTW are you also assuming that the muons remain trapped?
> If so, why bother with them at all?  (...since they would then behave as
> though
> they were virtual particles). In the Hawking radiation decay, you already
> have a
> mechanism for converting the reaction energy into thermal photons.
>
> How have you determined that said photons should be in the infrared?
>
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:40 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:14:29 -0400:
> >> Hi,
> >> [snip]
> >> >This is called super-absorption. The energy release would be spread
> >> equally
> >> >throughout a BEC of a billon coherent solitons each getting a few
> hundred
> >> >thousand electron volts. These solitons store energy. Their energy
> holding
> >> >capacity is 64 GeV each but most hold far less.
> >>
> >> I'm curious how you come by this figure?
> >>
> >> >Then there is the energy
> >> >that produce subatomic particles such as muon and mesons. These
> particles
> >> >need a lot of energy devoted to their creation. The release of energy
> is
> >> >buffered by these subatomic particles because they have a relatively
> long
> >> >lifetime.  Muons decay over a very long time and release their energy
> >> >content very slowly.
> >>
> >> Even assuming all the energy is converted into muons, a 2 micro-second
> >> half-life
> >> means that they are almost all gone within 10-20 micro-seconds. That's
> >> still an
> >> explosion (unless they all leave the reactor before they decay, but in
> >> that case
> >> the reactor produces no usable energy).
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Robin van Spaandonk
> >>
> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >>
> >>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

How does electron volts convert to magnetic field strength in tesla? The
top magnetic field strength to produce a quark gluon soup is 10^^13 tesla.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:05 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:20:17 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >see
> >
> >
> http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
> >
> >These thing he sees are SPPs
>
> My first impression is that these tracks are the result of a grain of grit
> being
> scraped across the plate.
> My second impression is that they are helical track caused by a charged
> particle
> in a magnetic field.
>
> Assuming for the moment that they are real tracks, then the assumption
> that all
> the energy of the particle is kinetic may not be valid. If they have
> rotational
> energy as well, then the energy/momentum calculation could be off, and
> consequently the conclusion that they are superluminal could be wrong.
>
> The energy value they come up with is 4.5E14 eV, which is a lot more than
> 64 GeV
> (i.e. it's 45 GeV).
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Lifetime of atoms extended using a mirror

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 21:22:09 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>This experiment should be viewed through the lenz of our experience with
>the increase in the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. I have referenced
>many times here the experiment where U232 half life was decreased from 69
>years to 6 microseconds.

A change in half-life doesn't necessarily mean a change in the rate of flow of
time. It could just be exactly what if appears to be, a change in half-life. Now
if you had multiple different isotopes all together, and their half lives all
changed to the same degree e.g. all decreased by a factor of 10, then you might
have evidence of a change in the rate of flow of time. Even better would be
several clocks that relied on physically different mechanisms to measure the
flow of time, all changing by the same amount.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:20:17 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>see
>
>http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
>
>These thing he sees are SPPs

My first impression is that these tracks are the result of a grain of grit being
scraped across the plate.
My second impression is that they are helical track caused by a charged particle
in a magnetic field.

Assuming for the moment that they are real tracks, then the assumption that all
the energy of the particle is kinetic may not be valid. If they have rotational
energy as well, then the energy/momentum calculation could be off, and
consequently the conclusion that they are superluminal could be wrong.

The energy value they come up with is 4.5E14 eV, which is a lot more than 64 GeV
(i.e. it's 45 GeV).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread David Roberson

Why does the image appear stretched within the surface of the film?  This only 
makes sense if the actual particle has a great deal of width at right angles to 
its motion through the film.  Am I missing something here?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: mixent 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 12:29 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through


In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:20:17
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>see
>
>http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
>
>These
thing he sees are SPPs

My first impression is that these tracks are the
result of a grain of grit being
scraped across the plate.
My second impression
is that they are helical track caused by a charged particle
in a magnetic
field.

Assuming for the moment that they are real tracks, then the assumption
that all
the energy of the particle is kinetic may not be valid. If they have
rotational
energy as well, then the energy/momentum calculation could be off,
and
consequently the conclusion that they are superluminal could be
wrong.

The energy value they come up with is 4.5E14 eV, which is a lot more
than 64 GeV
(i.e. it's 45 GeV).

Regards,

Robin van
Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:56:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction?
>Then why was it considered so important?
>
>Craig
.. another reason why their explanation is probably invalid, or they are
inventing a new process rather than explaining the existing ones.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

2015-10-16 Thread torulf.greek



Sokal article is clerly an danger in this field. 

On Fri, 16 Oct
2015 16:59:32 -0500, Eric Walker  wrote:  

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:07
PM, Jones Beene  wrote: 

 Maybe the intent is to shame Mats - or Rossi,
or the whole field by promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out? 
Maybe.
That possibility brings to mind this incident, where a fake article
written by a physics professor was published in a journal of postmodern
cultural studies:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair [2]


Eric 
  

Links:
--
[1] mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through