Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

Time outside the vortex moves faster than normal in a equalized vacuum were
positive and negative vacuum energies are equal.

Should read

Time outside the vortex moves faster than normal because the reaction is
happening in a zone of positive vacuum energy. In a equalized vacuum were
positive and negative vacuum energies are equal, time move at its usual
rate.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Time slows down inside a cavity where negative vacuum energy builds up. As
> a counterbalance to the negative vacuum energy inside the cavity, positive
> vacuum energy builds up outside the cavity. Therefore, outside the cavity
> where the vacuum energy is positive  is where time accelerates.
>
> In a catalyst, a SPP vortex forms where the vacuum energy is reduced. The
> chemical reaction does not need to happen inside the vortex. The chemical
> reaction happens just outside the vortex where the vacuum energy is
> positively amplified. Time outside the vortex moves faster than normal in a
> equalized vacuum were positive and negative vacuum energies are equal.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob, I think here again is where the Jan Naudt’s paper on relativistic
>> hydrogen applies to the hydrinos and Rydberg atoms the same. You asked “?
>> How do you ascribe mass density to something only one atomic layer thick? “
>>  IMHO the hydrogen atom morphs with changes in ether density provided by
>> the nano geometry environment in exactly the same way a hydrogen atom
>> ejected from the sun at  high fractions of C appears to change from our
>> perspective but without the needed velocity, like the near C hydrogen
>> ejected from the corona you have relativistic change in mass but it might
>> actually be a decrease in mass since  containment lowers vacuum density
>> below the value for a stationary open space observer. The point being
>> gravitational square law changes in vacuum density are  trumped by
>> London/Casimir forces at nano scale and you can have ratios of  vacuum
>> density between Casimir cavities and *earth bound paradox twin/observer*
>> on the same order as the ratio between  *earth bound paradox
>> twin/observer *and the near C twin. I believe Lorentzian contraction
>> should appear the same from either perspective but the mass change in this
>> case would seem to mean the mass of the quantum geometry that is depleting
>> the ether density should increase from the perspective of the modified
>> hydrogen traveling thru the depleted region. From our oerspective [like the
>> near C twin] we see the modified hydrogen as Lorentzian contracted, time
>> dilated such that radioactive forms of hydrogen appear to decay faster but
>> from local observation actually “put in the normal time” spending thousands
>> of years in these Casimir cavities while only a few seconds pass for us
>> sitting in the lab outside the reactor. Everytime I go out on this limb I
>> get less afraid as I see other pieces of the puzzle slowly embracing the
>> temporal aspects of this anomaly.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:10 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
>> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
>> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
>> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
>> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
>> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
>> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
>> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
>> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
>> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
>> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
>> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
>> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
>> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
>> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
>> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
>> rotational spectroscopy.
>>
>>
>>
>> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
>> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
>> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
>> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
>> 

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil, you may be correct about [snip] where the vacuum energy is positive  is 
where time accelerates.[/snip]
“and if you will excuse the pun I have had my mind wraped around this axil 
before.. that is that the vacuum density has to be  opposite of that which 
occurs to an object approaching near C velocity since  “we” accelerate from 
it’s perspective so if you are correct about energy density having to be 
positive to accelerate then the density must decrease for the near C paradox 
twin – I was assuming  vacuum density had to increase as your velocity 
increased like the raindrops on a windshield analogy but there is that point 
beyond 45 degrees in the Pythagorean relationship where the x axis velocity 
starts to decrease as the object takes on more and more of the temporal vector 
…which would start to lower the intersection rate from our perspective.. In  
the river of time analogy the car is turned upstream into the very flow we use 
as our measuring device instead of across the river like normal objects not 
near C.  In any case am glad to see you agree the vacuum pressures in Casimir 
cavities are balance inside and outside such that we are not getting something 
for nothing – the quantum effects just segregates the density regions to the 
point where physical matter can interact with them and then it is still up to 
us to come up with a Maxwellian scheme to exploit.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:06 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

Time slows down inside a cavity where negative vacuum energy builds up. As a 
counterbalance to the negative vacuum energy inside the cavity, positive vacuum 
energy builds up outside the cavity. Therefore, outside the cavity where the 
vacuum energy is positive  is where time accelerates.

In a catalyst, a SPP vortex forms where the vacuum energy is reduced. The 
chemical reaction does not need to happen inside the vortex. The chemical 
reaction happens just outside the vortex where the vacuum energy is positively 
amplified. Time outside the vortex moves faster than normal in a equalized 
vacuum were positive and negative vacuum energies are equal.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
> wrote:
Bob, I think here again is where the Jan Naudt’s paper on relativistic hydrogen 
applies to the hydrinos and Rydberg atoms the same. You asked “?  How do you 
ascribe mass density to something only one atomic layer thick? “  IMHO the 
hydrogen atom morphs with changes in ether density provided by the nano 
geometry environment in exactly the same way a hydrogen atom ejected from the 
sun at  high fractions of C appears to change from our perspective but without 
the needed velocity, like the near C hydrogen ejected from the corona you have 
relativistic change in mass but it might actually be a decrease in mass since  
containment lowers vacuum density below the value for a stationary open space 
observer. The point being gravitational square law changes in vacuum density 
are  trumped by London/Casimir forces at nano scale and you can have ratios of  
vacuum density between Casimir cavities and earth bound paradox twin/observer 
on the same order as the ratio between  earth bound paradox twin/observer and 
the near C twin. I believe Lorentzian contraction should appear the same from 
either perspective but the mass change in this case would seem to mean the mass 
of the quantum geometry that is depleting the ether density should increase 
from the perspective of the modified hydrogen traveling thru the depleted 
region. From our oerspective [like the near C twin] we see the modified 
hydrogen as Lorentzian contracted, time dilated such that radioactive forms of 
hydrogen appear to decay faster but from local observation actually “put in the 
normal time” spending thousands of years in these Casimir cavities while only a 
few seconds pass for us sitting in the lab outside the reactor. Everytime I go 
out on this limb I get less afraid as I see other pieces of the puzzle slowly 
embracing the temporal aspects of this anomaly.
Fran

From: Bob Higgins 
[mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to wonder 
about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously a single 
atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen is more 
"dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think anyone would 
categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed matter. The X(1) 
species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular for H/D and the 
alkali metals having commonly 7 or more 

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

Ordinary Rydberg matter is NOT a "nanowire", the Rydberg atomic clusters
comprising X(1) are flat hexagonal pico-snoflakes.  In this X(1)
pico-snowflake, the matter is not dense - the atomic spacing is nearly
twice what it is in an ordinary molecule.  Winterberg proposes that the
snowflakes can stack into columns but I have not seen evidence of this
reported.  Holmlid proposes that the ultra-dense form of deuterium
D(-1)=D(0) is sort of a two atom tube, but there is no evidence of this
form either.  As far as I can tell, the pico-snowflake form of X(1) RM is
well reproduced, modeled and confirmed.  The ultra-dense form is just
speculation, and even the existence of the ultra-dense RM itself is on
extremely shaky, un-reproduced ground.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rydberg matter is a nanowire. This is a nanoparticle. The shape of Rydberg
> matter is important. It acts as an antenna that transmits magnetic power
> with each flack of the nanowire sending magnetic power to the tip of the
> particle. If there are 10,000 levels, then these 10,000 flacks produce
> magnetic power sent to the nanowire tip. This mechanism is an EMF
> amplification mechanism. This mechanism has been experimentally verified
> and I have shown fluorescent micrograph pictures of this process here
> multiple times.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
>> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
>> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
>> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
>> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
>> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
>> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
>> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
>> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
>> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>>
>> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
>> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
>> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
>> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
>> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
>> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
>> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
>> rotational spectroscopy.
>>
>> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
>> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
>> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
>> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
>> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
>> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
>> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
>> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
>> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
>> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
>> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
>> and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense
>>> hydrogen he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic
>>> hydrogen. This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
>>> containment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
>>> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
>>> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
>>> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

[Alain Sepeda]

Hope fully I mostly agree with you, and I agree I exaggerated the speed of
change.

For flooding the market, it is possible if you make big share of the planet
factories work for you, and China is a good place for that.


About the comparison with internet infrastructure, my metaphor were not so
good.
as you explain, Internet itself was a commodity build painfully by military
and academics, for their own use, like HTTP/HTML was by CERN.
Telcos used the technology to organise concrete infrastructure and provide
IP bandwidth, the provide Internet access to company then people.
The open nature of the protocol, and liberalization of the telco's market
prevented them to build cash cows.
But this is only the first level of innovation...
like technology is for LENR.

The second and most important change, was the revolution of usage.
Internet did not build Amazon, but it enabled it.
government got back his money because the economy goes better that way,
because it can change it's organisation, simplify and fluidify
procedures... maybe not as fast as possible, but it benefit from it's
creation, indirectly.
A government benefit from the wealth of it's industry, especially USA who
have the strategic control on most Internet/Web giants, and technology.

Multinational however show that the natural scale for getting back your
benefits is not the Nation-State, as GAFAs company escape taxes... anyway
they stay US in their research core, and US in their strategic obedience
(Thanks you Snowden).

Now you say, mostly right, that the revolution will not bring Western
economy belly-up...
we agree that it may happen for stock exchange, because markets think in
future... but business will continue. only pension funds and saving may be
impacted...

what will happen for incumbent industries, and operators. Slowly they will
lose market, slowly but surely like Kodak and Fujifilm.
Kodak nearly died because they tried to exploit their old business too long.
Fujifilm pivoted to new direction exploiting their competences...



but there is something important, they all had access to digital camera
technology. It was not protected widely, even if a little.

We sure need that LENR technology be available to anyone who pay a
reasonable price.
But LENR research, need money, so there is a need for a price.
In fact you cannot pay for the technology, there is still none (none
available for you), you need to pay so that a constellations of lab is
built that will create the technologies, that you will use, like many other
who paid for the labs.

this is not far from the crowdfunding model of some music artist... fund my
Album, (I will pay the studios, the choristers, the musicians, me), and I
send you my CD when it is done.

Maybe states could pay for it, as they did during the 50-60s  but recent
investment of governments in technology, except when they are the users
(eg: military), seems not optimal, too fashion, and more volatile than some
visionary industrialists.(this is a point where we probably disagree)

Maybe also the Nation-state borders are today without any meaning? However
I don't predict a great success if someone organise a LENR21 international
conference...


2015-11-12 17:42 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>
>
>> #1 the naive one.  Developing a small device, and sell it in small
>> quantity to make money. The problem is as soon as it will be understood it
>> is a LENR working device, that there is a HUGE demand, and immediately big
>> players will develop an alternative technology and kill your little
>> business.
>>
>
> This would not work for 2 reasons. First, as you say big players will
> definitely develop cold fusion. Nothing can stop them from doing this.
> Second, as I said, regulators will never allow people to sell nuclear
> fusion reactors until they have been thoroughly vetted and until the
> physics establishment believes it can explain them by theory.
>
>
>
>> #2  resonates like Rossi's vision is to develop discretely a technology,
>> then in few weeks, show that you can flood the market with your "V1.0", at
>> low cost...
>>
>
> You cannot possibly flood the market in a few weeks. The market is 7
> billion people. It will take decades before demand levels off with market
> saturation.
>
>
>
>> No competitor will develop any alternative technology (V2.0), but you
>> will have disrupted all business on earth, even LENR startups...
>>
>
> No company is large enough to do that. Even if you have a patent, the US
> government will not allow a patent holder to withhold vital technology from
> competition. The government will force you to license the technology.
>
> If you do not have a patent every industrial company on earth will simply
> take the technology and many of them will soon produce far better version
> than you can.
>
>
>>
>
>> Shell,,Exxon,,Toyota,,Peugeot will be belly up in 15 days, and the
>> pension fund will be ruined, if not negative 

[Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Axil Axil]

The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
satisfactory.

See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39,
28 July 1990.

http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html

Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going.
Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum,
every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other
words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire
cosmos.

When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that
contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of
the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including
how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the
strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit
the nucleus.

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

Time slows down inside a cavity where negative vacuum energy builds up. As
a counterbalance to the negative vacuum energy inside the cavity, positive
vacuum energy builds up outside the cavity. Therefore, outside the cavity
where the vacuum energy is positive  is where time accelerates.

In a catalyst, a SPP vortex forms where the vacuum energy is reduced. The
chemical reaction does not need to happen inside the vortex. The chemical
reaction happens just outside the vortex where the vacuum energy is
positively amplified. Time outside the vortex moves faster than normal in a
equalized vacuum were positive and negative vacuum energies are equal.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> Bob, I think here again is where the Jan Naudt’s paper on relativistic
> hydrogen applies to the hydrinos and Rydberg atoms the same. You asked “?
> How do you ascribe mass density to something only one atomic layer thick? “
>  IMHO the hydrogen atom morphs with changes in ether density provided by
> the nano geometry environment in exactly the same way a hydrogen atom
> ejected from the sun at  high fractions of C appears to change from our
> perspective but without the needed velocity, like the near C hydrogen
> ejected from the corona you have relativistic change in mass but it might
> actually be a decrease in mass since  containment lowers vacuum density
> below the value for a stationary open space observer. The point being
> gravitational square law changes in vacuum density are  trumped by
> London/Casimir forces at nano scale and you can have ratios of  vacuum
> density between Casimir cavities and *earth bound paradox twin/observer*
> on the same order as the ratio between  *earth bound paradox
> twin/observer *and the near C twin. I believe Lorentzian contraction
> should appear the same from either perspective but the mass change in this
> case would seem to mean the mass of the quantum geometry that is depleting
> the ether density should increase from the perspective of the modified
> hydrogen traveling thru the depleted region. From our oerspective [like the
> near C twin] we see the modified hydrogen as Lorentzian contracted, time
> dilated such that radioactive forms of hydrogen appear to decay faster but
> from local observation actually “put in the normal time” spending thousands
> of years in these Casimir cavities while only a few seconds pass for us
> sitting in the lab outside the reactor. Everytime I go out on this limb I
> get less afraid as I see other pieces of the puzzle slowly embracing the
> temporal aspects of this anomaly.
>
> Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:10 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?
>
>
>
> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>
>
>
> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
> rotational spectroscopy.
>
>
>
> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
> and 

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

Rydberg matter is a nanowire. This is a nanoparticle. The shape of Rydberg
matter is important. It acts as an antenna that transmits magnetic power
with each flack of the nanowire sending magnetic power to the tip of the
particle. If there are 10,000 levels, then these 10,000 flacks produce
magnetic power sent to the nanowire tip. This mechanism is an EMF
amplification mechanism. This mechanism has been experimentally verified
and I have shown fluorescent micrograph pictures of this process here
multiple times.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>
> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
> rotational spectroscopy.
>
> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
> and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense
>> hydrogen he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic
>> hydrogen. This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
>> containment.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
>> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
>> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
>> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

Now, let us consider what makes Hydrogen Rydberg matter special in LENR
engineering.

One cause for the special nature of the hydrogen Rydberg matter
nanoparticle is its potential to focus SPP radiation from the tip of the
hydrogen Rydberg matter particle.

The plains of the Rydberg matter particle could accumulate, transfer
through parabolic reflection, and focus the SPP magnetic beams that are
generated along the entire length of the Rydberg molecule into a tightly
focused spot in front of the nanoparticle.



On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rydberg matter is a nanowire. This is a nanoparticle. The shape of Rydberg
> matter is important. It acts as an antenna that transmits magnetic power
> with each flack of the nanowire sending magnetic power to the tip of the
> particle. If there are 10,000 levels, then these 10,000 flacks produce
> magnetic power sent to the nanowire tip. This mechanism is an EMF
> amplification mechanism. This mechanism has been experimentally verified
> and I have shown fluorescent micrograph pictures of this process here
> multiple times.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
>> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
>> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
>> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
>> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
>> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
>> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
>> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
>> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
>> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>>
>> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
>> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
>> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
>> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
>> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
>> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
>> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
>> rotational spectroscopy.
>>
>> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
>> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
>> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
>> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
>> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
>> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
>> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
>> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
>> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
>> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
>> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
>> and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense
>>> hydrogen he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic
>>> hydrogen. This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
>>> containment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
>>> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
>>> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
>>> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and
radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper,
"Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum
Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells
of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.
>
> It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
> dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
> was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
> Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
> New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
> According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
> should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
> spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
> a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
> does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
> condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
> around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
> alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
> violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
> satisfactory.
>
> See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39,
> 28 July 1990.
>
> http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html
>
> Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
> problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
> were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
> in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
> for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
> electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
> as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
> gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
> exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
> the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going.
> Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum,
> every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other
> words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire
> cosmos.
>
> When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that
> contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of
> the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including
> how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the
> strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit
> the nucleus.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Axil Axil]

Do you have a link address?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and
> radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper,
> "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum
> Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells
> of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.
>>
>> It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
>> dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
>> was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>> Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
>> New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
>> According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
>> should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
>> spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
>> a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
>> does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
>> condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
>> around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
>> alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
>> violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
>> satisfactory.
>>
>> See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39,
>> 28 July 1990.
>>
>> http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html
>>
>> Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
>> problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
>> were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
>> in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
>> for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
>> electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
>> as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
>> gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
>> exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
>> the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going.
>> Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum,
>> every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other
>> words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire
>> cosmos.
>>
>> When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that
>> contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of
>> the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including
>> how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the
>> strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit
>> the nucleus.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New RTSC candidate with a lesson for LENR

[Lennart Thornros]

Bob,
I really think you expressed some very important concerns.
Your writing is very good (wish my command of the language was as good).
I often say the 'bureaucrats', when I complain about the system we have. I
should change that. You are right there is nothing wrong with them as
people. It is the system we have allowed that creates opportunities hard to
resist and with huge rewards for compliance.
Pointing at the university system should open the eyes to everyone. See the
recent elimination of the leadership in Missouri. One can have any opinion
one prefer about if it is the way to handle a problem. For sure it
indicates that the leadership is so far from the students that they need to
communicate via media. Does that tell us that the organization is too large
for what it is set out to do. I live in CA. The UC system is lead by a
politician with qualifications that might be good on paper. The system is
so over organized that even a person with no experience of organizations
must wonder. There are 208,000 employees to educate 234,000 students.
Almost on-on-one. Passing through the system is very much basics for a job
opportunity today. Only very few students (percentage wise) has capacity to
utilize the resources they have occupied. (Not the students fault.)
Considering that only a few students benefitted from the resources the
price tag is just stupid. The rest of the students, just went for the test
- the exam - a job opportunity - good in itself but could have been
achieved with a fraction of the cost.
The school system works for rewarding politicians no longer fitting the
mold and to hide behind the real ly gifted students, which can lead us in
the future. I think it requires segregation in the school system - we just
have to learn that one fraction is as important as another. As an analogy
there is an article about ants
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-ants-teach-you-leadership-amit-basu it
shows how ants send out scouts / leaders to find food sources. However,
without all the working ants there would be no anthill. The need to
segregate should be based solely on objective evaluations. I know that is
utopia but as close as possible.
The secrecy you talk about is perhaps the root of the problem. Secrecy
creates more secrecy and undermine trust. It really has zero long term
benefits. Of course we live in a word where people steal ideas so keeping
secrets until they can be exploited I can understand. I think that is a
very short time and it ends the minute you have confirmation. The notion
that the government keeps secrets from the people in the nation is absurd.
Once again for short term tactical reasons I see the reasons. As soon as
the secret is exposed - full exposure would be much better than this half
lie, which most of the time is the end result. There is no value in keeping
secrets because it shows some negative sides of prominent people for
example. It just starts a rumour mill that creates a picture of a shady
person ands sooner or later the full story will be revealed and the shady
image will now accentuate the issue.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:48 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:New RTSC candidate with a lesson for LENR
>
> Jones--
>
> You noted:
>
> >>>The meltdowns happened in 2012 (published by Szpak and Dea in J. Cond.
> Mat. Nuc. Sci) before SPAWAR was disbanded and apparently the meltdown results
> were not pursued by anyone else thereafter, despite the shocking military
> implications. Too bad, but symptomatic of the many external circumstances
> which have kept LENR from advancing.
>
> I suppose the “conspiracy theorist” (not there are any of them here)
> might cynically opine that the Navy R program was ostensibly shut down as
> a false front, so that it could be moved into a “dark program”… however,
> none of the participants seem to believe that… at least not publicly. It
> is the only scenario which would make one think that all large
> bureaucracies are inherently incompetent (Rickover notwithstanding).<<<
>
>
>
> I for one in this Vortex group am cynically and do opine that the SPAWAR’S
> effort in LENR became BLACK along with 5300 some odd other programs (still
> on the books)  over the years, most of them labeled as such by the DOD AND
> DOE.
>
> My cynicism does not come from a concern with the incompetence of the US
> government, however.  It is based on a disagreement with the value system
> that seems to drive decisions this government makes.  Specifically, the
> value promoted by this government that secrecy regarding scientific
> endeavors and secret knowledge as it relates to development of weapons and
> 

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:


> The second and most important change, was the revolution of usage.
> Internet did not build Amazon, but it enabled it.
> government got back his money because the economy goes better that way. . .
>

I agree. It was similar to the way the government built railroads and later
highways.



> we agree that it may happen for stock exchange, because markets think in
> future... but business will continue. only pension funds and saving may be
> impacted...
>

Yes, I agree that the stock market values will be impacted long before
real-world profits or losses appear. Especially for fossil fuel companies.
I think in the short term it will be easier to identify which companies
will lose money because of cold fusion, and more difficult predict which
companies will benefit from cold fusion.



> what will happen for incumbent industries, and operators. Slowly they will
> lose market, slowly but surely like Kodak and Fujifilm.
>

Exactly.



> We sure need that LENR technology be available to anyone who pay a
> reasonable price.
> But LENR research, need money, so there is a need for a price.
>

Sure. I expect it will be very expensive at first. It will be used in niche
markets.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Higgins]

It actually took me a while to get a readable copy of this paper and I have
cleaned up the better copy.  Here is where I keep it on my Google drive:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2TllPckVraXNmLTg/view?usp=sharing


On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Do you have a link address?
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and
>> radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper,
>> "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum
>> Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells
>> of the criteria for electron motion to exist without radiation.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.
>>>
>>> It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are
>>> dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This
>>> was clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced
>>> Studies in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in
>>> New Scientist (28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly.
>>> According to classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton
>>> should be radiating energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should
>>> spiral into the atomic nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in
>>> a flash of light. But that does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it
>>> does not happen, you will be told it is because of Bohr's quantum
>>> condition. This quantum condition states that electrons in specific orbits
>>> around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if you ask why not, or
>>> alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of electromagnetics are
>>> violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of being less than
>>> satisfactory.
>>>
>>> See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist,
>>> pp.36-39, 28 July 1990.
>>>
>>> http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html
>>>
>>> Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this
>>> problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics
>>> were valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds
>>> in its orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence
>>> for the existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating
>>> electromagnetic fields or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost
>>> as it moved in its orbit, and then calculated the power that the electron
>>> gained from the ZPF. The two turned out to be identical; the loss was
>>> exactly made up for by the gain. It was like a child on a swing: just as
>>> the swing started to slow, it was given another push to keep it going.
>>> Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF inherent within the vacuum,
>>> every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse. In other
>>> words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic structures throughout the entire
>>> cosmos.
>>>
>>> When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that
>>> contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of
>>> the vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including
>>> how pions are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the
>>> strong force behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit
>>> the nucleus.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones, nice conjecture but how do we explain achieving more containment than a 
diamond anvil? Does quantum effect also divide down physical containment such 
that these magnetic fields won't simply push away the fe oxides and/or geometry 
sustaining active sites?  Does this theory better support NAE in the coated 
inner wall of the reactor vs the bulk powder?
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance


A key paper for those who subscribe to the SPP modality in LENR - which is 
operational in at least one form (the Holmlid effect) is: "Plasmonics with a 
Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale" by Svetlana V. Boriskina 
(MIT).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657

Boriskina provides insight into the plasmonic focusing mechanism - which is 
necessary to focus wavelengths of visible coherent light (in the range of green 
to yellow, or 535 nm to 580 nm) down to approximately 1 nm and below. She 
explains this by invoking an analogy of the 'photon fluid' (and magneto 
hydrodynamics) where light waves will be locally amplified and upshifted via 
convective vortex acceleration. The result is like an eddy current of photons 
up to a million time more powerful than before.

Thus, the Holmlid effect is explained by trapped light which is swirled into 
optical vortices by EM fields. These are transitory tornado-like areas of 
circular/helical motion of flux. The result is magnetic fields of extreme local 
intensity (kilo-Tesla to mega-T.) which effectively compress and densify 
hydrogen into a new phase which can be well beyond metallic. Metallic hydrogen 
required compressive forces in the range of 500 GPa, but dense hydrogen 
requires at least an order of magnitude more force, which is well beyond the 
mechanical strength of a diamond anvil, for instance. The payoff is Holmlid's 
new phase of dense hydrogen which becomes stable, once formed, without added 
pressure. Metallic hydrogen is not stable in an unpressurized condition and 
immediately reverts to the gas.

The specific resonance values for the vortex formation depend on the matrix 
metal. With Holmlid's experiments using iron-oxide matrix, the resonance value 
for photons is 535 nm which is green light. For palladium, using PdCl and LiCl 
electrolyte the strongest emission line is 542 nm which is yellow green. 
Electrolysis creates its own internal photons at the emission lines of the 
electrolyte.

BTW - Boriskina apparently has no present connection to LENR per se, but as a 
theorist, she could become more important to the field than almost any other 
theorist (including Hagelstein) - to the extent that the SPP modality is shown 
to be correct. She appears to be relatively young which is bonus, should her 
insight prevail - since LERN field is aging rapidly.

http://www.bio-page.org/boriskina/

RE: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

[Roarty, Francis X]

Guys, I watched the lecture and it was good and yes I can also understand why 
Jones see this terminology as a distraction – too many people immediately focus 
on the mass and gravitational effect as being only macro and even Jones admits  
“Sure, there is a tiny minimum mass for black holes to exist, so they do not 
have to be only cosmological - but that minimum mass is known, and it is much 
higher than anything seen in real experiments – such as the Holmlid effect. In 
principle, the smallest possible black hole will have a minimum mass equal to 
or above the Planck mass. That is indeed small on the scale where we usually 
encounter black holes.”  IMHO thois reinforces the idea that Quantum effects 
can segregates the quantum foam such that black holes and wormholes from far 
below the Plank scale can be packed together into regions above the plank scale 
such that interaction with physical particles do not necessarily have to cancel 
out and the ether can be tpped. We all have our pet theories how this may 
happen and if Axil happens to think photons/ polaritons can form vortices that 
is ok with me, It might even tie into my relativistic interpretation of Casimir 
effect and Ron Mallett’s Space-time Twisting by Light (STL) project. Might be 
the LENR funding problem will finally be solved if someone sends tomorrow’s 
lottery number back through iterative looping thru Axil’s SPP vortices :_)

Fran


From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 3:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance


From: Axil Axil

>   …The following article explains way rotating light is important in 
> explaining the various miracles associated with LENR. This also takes us up 
> to and beyond the cutting edge of science and string theory…. Prof. Daniele 
> Faccio: "Black Holes, With A Twist" - Inaugural Lecture

Few observers have a problem with black holes on a cosmological scale. However, 
even the smallest possible black hole provides absolutely no insight for 
understanding LENR - and in fact, using the term simply provide the skeptic 
with another place to hang a hat. It is a crank notion.

Sure, there is a tiny minimum mass for black holes to exist, so they do not 
have to be only cosmological - but that minimum mass is known, and it is much 
higher than anything seen in real experiments – such as the Holmlid effect. In 
principle, the smallest possible black hole will have a minimum mass equal to 
or above the Planck mass. That is indeed small on the scale where we usually 
encounter black holes.

However, the Planck mass is calculated to about 22 micrograms – which is about 
10^19 hydrogen atoms. That is the smallest possible size. The energy necessary 
to produce such a nano black hole is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the 
total energy available from the LHC, indicating that even the Large Hadron 
Collider cannot produce mini black holes… and obviously they have no bearing on 
the identity of SPP.

Therefore, IMHO - it is rather silly to throw out a term which cannot be 
justified in theory or in experiment, especially when it adds nothing 
intuitive. As I said, this term merely reinforces the notion among some 
physicists that the LENR community is grasping at straws to explain results.

Jones Beene wrote:

A key paper for those who subscribe to the SPP modality in LENR – which is 
operational in at least one form (the Holmlid effect) is: “Plasmonics with a 
Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale” by Svetlana V. Boriskina 
(MIT).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657

Boriskina provides insight into the plasmonic focusing mechanism – which is 
necessary to focus wavelengths of visible coherent light (in the range of green 
to yellow, or 535 nm to 580 nm) down to approximately 1 nm and below. She 
explains this by invoking an analogy of the 'photon fluid' (and magneto 
hydrodynamics) where light waves will be locally amplified and upshifted via 
convective vortex acceleration. The result is like an eddy current of photons 
up to a million time more powerful than before.

Thus, the Holmlid effect is explained by trapped light which is swirled into 
optical vortices by EM fields. These are transitory tornado-like areas of 
circular/helical motion of flux. The result is magnetic fields of extreme local 
intensity (kilo-Tesla to mega-T.) which effectively compress and densify 
hydrogen into a new phase which can be well beyond metallic. Metallic hydrogen 
required compressive forces in the range of 500 GPa, but dense hydrogen 
requires at least an order of magnitude more force, which is well beyond the 
mechanical strength of a diamond anvil, for instance. The payoff is Holmlid’s 
new phase of dense hydrogen which becomes stable, once formed, without added 
pressure. Metallic hydrogen is not stable in an unpressurized condition and 
immediately reverts to the gas.

The specific resonance values for 

[Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Cook]

Bob--

Thanks for making that interesting paper available.  I have always assumed that 
angular momentum of particles and systems can only change in discrete small 
amounts.  

The paper seems to make a point that this limit on how angular momentum can 
change in a system of particles causes a certain stability in the system.  
However, if the options for transition in a system—coherent system---that cause 
a more stable system—one with less potential energy—then the transitions will 
occur, if they entail discrete angular momentum changes and the loss of the 
required potential energy to reach the new stability configuration.   

This may be what happens in LENR with the loss of potential energy turning up 
as vibrational energy (increased electronic orbital momentum) of the coherent 
system—a nano particle of Ni filled with H,  for example.

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

It actually took me a while to get a readable copy of this paper and I have 
cleaned up the better copy.  Here is where I keep it on my Google drive: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2TllPckVraXNmLTg/view?usp=sharing


On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  Do you have a link address?

  On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:

Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and 
radiation/non-radiation, you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper, "Classically 
Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for Quantum Theory", Physical 
Review, Volume 135, Number 1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells of the criteria for 
electron motion to exist without radiation. 


On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

  The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

  It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are 
dependent upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This was 
clearly demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies 
in Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in New Scientist 
(28 July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly. According to 
classical concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton should be radiating 
energy. As a consequence, as it loses energy, it should spiral into the atomic 
nucleus, causing the whole structure to disappear in a flash of light. But that 
does not happen. When you ask a physicist why it does not happen, you will be 
told it is because of Bohr's quantum condition. This quantum condition states 
that electrons in specific orbits around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But 
if you ask why not, or alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of 
electromagnetics are violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of 
being less than satisfactory.

  See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39, 
28 July 1990.

  http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html

  Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this 
problem with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics were 
valid, and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds in its 
orbit around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence for the 
existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields 
or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost as it moved in its orbit, 
and then calculated the power that the electron gained from the ZPF. The two 
turned out to be identical; the loss was exactly made up for by the gain. It 
was like a child on a swing: just as the swing started to slow, it was given 
another push to keep it going. Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF 
inherent within the vacuum, every atom in the universe would undergo 
instantaneous collapse. In other words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic 
structures throughout the entire cosmos.

  When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that 
contain atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of the 
vacuum are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including how pions 
are formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the strong force 
behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit the nucleus.

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

[Jones Beene]

Fran - The only way Holmlid's claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen
he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen. This
means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme containment.

 

For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the pressure
requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the Holmlid
phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different, the species
could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.

 

From: Roarty, Francis X 

 

Jones, nice conjecture but how do we explain achieving more containment than
a diamond anvil? Does quantum effect also divide down physical containment
such that these magnetic fields won't simply push away the fe oxides and/or
geometry sustaining active sites?  Does this theory better support NAE in
the coated inner wall of the reactor vs the bulk powder? 

Fran

 

 

A key paper for those who subscribe to the SPP modality in LENR - which is
operational in at least one form (the Holmlid effect) is: "Plasmonics with a
Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale" by Svetlana V. Boriskina
(MIT). 

  http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657

Boriskina provides insight into the plasmonic focusing mechanism - which is
necessary to focus wavelengths of visible coherent light (in the range of
green to yellow, or 535 nm to 580 nm) down to approximately 1 nm and below.
She explains this by invoking an analogy of the 'photon fluid' (and magneto
hydrodynamics) where light waves will be locally amplified and upshifted via
convective vortex acceleration. The result is like an eddy current of
photons up to a million time more powerful than before.

Thus, the Holmlid effect is explained by trapped light which is swirled into
optical vortices by EM fields. These are transitory tornado-like areas of
circular/helical motion of flux. The result is magnetic fields of extreme
local intensity (kilo-Tesla to mega-T.) which effectively compress and
densify hydrogen into a new phase which can be well beyond metallic.
Metallic hydrogen required compressive forces in the range of 500 GPa, but
dense hydrogen requires at least an order of magnitude more force, which is
well beyond the mechanical strength of a diamond anvil, for instance. The
payoff is Holmlid's new phase of dense hydrogen which becomes stable, once
formed, without added pressure. Metallic hydrogen is not stable in an
unpressurized condition and immediately reverts to the gas.

The specific resonance values for the vortex formation depend on the matrix
metal. With Holmlid's experiments using iron-oxide matrix, the resonance
value for photons is 535 nm which is green light. For palladium, using PdCl
and LiCl electrolyte the strongest emission line is 542 nm which is yellow
green. Electrolysis creates its own internal photons at the emission lines
of the electrolyte.

BTW - Boriskina apparently has no present connection to LENR per se, but as
a theorist, she could become more important to the field than almost any
other theorist (including Hagelstein) - to the extent that the SPP modality
is shown to be correct. She appears to be relatively young which is bonus,
should her insight prevail - since LERN field is aging rapidly.

  http://www.bio-page.org/boriskina/

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

fusion dilution should read fusion delusion

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Holmlid is currently suffering from the fusion dilution. He wants the
> hydrogen atoms to be very close together "Ultra dense" because it fits in
> with the theory that atoms that are close together will fuse.
>
> Just like the fusion delusion of P, the LENR mechanism has nothing to do
> with ordinary fusion. Holmlid is chasing a wild goose.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
>> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
>> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
>> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
>> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
>> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
>> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
>> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
>> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
>> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>>
>> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
>> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
>> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
>> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
>> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
>> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
>> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
>> rotational spectroscopy.
>>
>> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
>> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
>> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
>> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
>> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
>> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
>> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
>> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
>> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
>> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
>> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
>> and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense
>>> hydrogen he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic
>>> hydrogen. This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
>>> containment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
>>> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
>>> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
>>> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid is currently suffering from the fusion dilution. He wants the
hydrogen atoms to be very close together "Ultra dense" because it fits in
with the theory that atoms that are close together will fuse.

Just like the fusion delusion of P, the LENR mechanism has nothing to do
with ordinary fusion. Holmlid is chasing a wild goose.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
> wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
> a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
> is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
> anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
> matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
> for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
> Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
> metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
> something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.
>
> The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
> metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
> Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
> nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
> Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
> reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
> described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
> rotational spectroscopy.
>
> The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
> form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
> to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
> Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
> rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
> X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
> in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
> photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
> momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
> for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
> Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
> and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense
>> hydrogen he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic
>> hydrogen. This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
>> containment.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
>> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
>> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
>> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

Thanks for making that interesting paper available.  I have always assumed
> that angular momentum of particles and systems can only change in discrete
> small amounts.
>

This reminds me (somewhat off on a tangent to the topic of this thread) --
for anyone who is still learning about nuclear spin, as I am, there's an
important detail that is easy to lose sight of.  It is that a nucleus of
spin N, where N might be 0, 1/2, 7/2, 3, etc., will not necessarily
interact with other particles with the full magnitude of spin.  What is
important is the projection of the spin onto the axis of travel, which is a
function of its orientation.  So a particle with spin 3 can potentially
behave as a daughter in radioactive decays or in interactions with other
particles in the manner of a spin 0, 1, 2, or 3 particle, depending on its
relative orientation.

Another way to say this is that there are two numbers that are important in
an interaction -- the total angular momentum, J, which is a characteristic
of the state of the particle, and the angular momentum along the z axis,
"m," which is not a characteristic of its state.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

But at the same time in China, India, people will decide to embrace LENR,
> invest trillion$, to take supremacy over the West.


It's difficult to see into the future beyond having a vague sense of "big
change will happen."  But it seems clear that great strain will be placed
on the patent system, and that patent enforcement will potentially fracture
to some extent along national boundaries.  There is little chance in my
mind that entrepreneurs in Russia, India or China will be required to pay
patent fees to someone outside of those countries at such a time as LENR
becomes widely understood, at least for products sold within those
countries.  The governments will protect businesses as a matter of national
strategic interest.

Also, I think you are correct in anticipating the possibility of dystopian
consequences flowing from a situation in which the cost of energy goes to
zero, although I don't think things necessarily have to go in that
direction.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[David Roberson]

Bob, this is an interesting derivation.  I suspect that it can be boiled down 
to what I have mentioned before which is that you can construct any three 
dimensional shape that you wish out of constant current loops.  Since each loop 
does not radiate, any number of them also do not radiate.  Also, they do not 
have to be circular.

The key is to have a smooth distribution of charge flowing that does not allow 
the accumulation and distribution of the resulting electric field as a function 
of time.  Mills orbitals follow that rule according to the way I read his 
documentation.

An infinite number of three dimensional shapes exist that do not radiate 
according to this simple criteria.  Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to 
mathematically analyze complex structures of this type which leads to authors 
only finding a few out of an infinite number of possibilities.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2015 6:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.



It actually took me a while to get a readable copy of this paper and I have 
cleaned up the better copy.  Here is where I keep it on my Google drive:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2TllPckVraXNmLTg/view?usp=sharing




On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Do you have a link address?


On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:

Axil, if you want to be informed about electrons and radiation/non-radiation, 
you should read G. H. Goedecke's paper, "Classically Radiationless Motions and 
Possible Implications for Quantum Theory", Physical Review, Volume 135, Number 
1B, July 13, 1964.  It tells of the criteria for electron motion to exist 
without radiation.




On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:


The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.


It has also been shown that the atomic building blocks of matter are dependent 
upon the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) for their very existence. This was clearly 
demonstrated by Dr. Hal Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies in 
Austin, Texas. In Physical Review D, vol. 35:10, and later in New Scientist (28 
July 1990), Puthoff started by pointing out an anomaly. According to classical 
concepts, an electron in orbit around a proton should be radiating energy. As a 
consequence, as it loses energy, it should spiral into the atomic nucleus, 
causing the whole structure to disappear in a flash of light. But that does not 
happen. When you ask a physicist why it does not happen, you will be told it is 
because of Bohr's quantum condition. This quantum condition states that 
electrons in specific orbits around the nucleus do not radiate energy. But if 
you ask why not, or alternatively, if you ask why the classical laws of 
electromagnetics are violated in this way, the reply may give the impression of 
being less than satisfactory.


See:Harold E. Puthoff, "Everything for nothing", New Scientist, pp.36-39, 28 
July 1990.


http://www.ldolphin.org/everything.html


Instead of ignoring the known laws of physics, Puthoff approached this problem 
with the assumption that the classical laws of electro-magnetics were valid, 
and that the electron is therefore losing energy as it speeds in its orbit 
around the nucleus. He also accepted the experimental evidence for the 
existence of the ZPE in the form of randomly fluctuating electromagnetic fields 
or waves. He calculated the power the electron lost as it moved in its orbit, 
and then calculated the power that the electron gained from the ZPF. The two 
turned out to be identical; the loss was exactly made up for by the gain. It 
was like a child on a swing: just as the swing started to slow, it was given 
another push to keep it going. Puthoff then concluded that without the ZPF 
inherent within the vacuum, every atom in the universe would undergo 
instantaneous collapse. In other words, the ZPE is maintaining all atomic 
structures throughout the entire cosmos.


When a magnetic beam of sufficient strength falls on the vacuum that contain 
atoms, that vacuum is distorted when electromagnetic properties of the vacuum 
are changed. This disrupts those atoms in many ways including how pions are 
formed from the vacuum between protons and neutron; how the strong force 
behaves inside the proton and neutron and how electrons obit the nucleus.

[Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

[Bob Cook]

Right on--

And a changing magnetic field will change the orientation of the nuclei such 
that they pass through positions and projected angular momentum states that can 
couple with other nuclei and potentially facilitate energy changes to net lower 
potential energy—more stable systems.   

I would note that the total angular momentum of a system includes its electron 
orbital angular momentum and the intrinsic angular momentum of the electrons 
and the particles that make up a the nuclei of the system.  The total angular 
momentum can only change in discrete small quanta of h/2pi which means that 
each component, the orbital and the intrinsic angular momentum  can only change 
in increments of h/2pi.

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


  Thanks for making that interesting paper available.  I have always assumed 
that angular momentum of particles and systems can only change in discrete 
small amounts. 

This reminds me (somewhat off on a tangent to the topic of this thread) -- for 
anyone who is still learning about nuclear spin, as I am, there's an important 
detail that is easy to lose sight of.  It is that a nucleus of spin N, where N 
might be 0, 1/2, 7/2, 3, etc., will not necessarily interact with other 
particles with the full magnitude of spin.  What is important is the projection 
of the spin onto the axis of travel, which is a function of its orientation.  
So a particle with spin 3 can potentially behave as a daughter in radioactive 
decays or in interactions with other particles in the manner of a spin 0, 1, 2, 
or 3 particle, depending on its relative orientation.

Another way to say this is that there are two numbers that are important in an 
interaction -- the total angular momentum, J, which is a characteristic of the 
state of the particle, and the angular momentum along the z axis, "m," which is 
not a characteristic of its state.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

[Alain Sepeda]

I’ve read the paper Michel Vandenberghe has published on Pulse Linkedin (
link
)
an interesting paper to think about effect of disruptive innovation.  I’m
thinking about possible go-to-market by IH and Rossi, and also some BAD
Ones...



#1 the naive one.  Developing a small device, and sell it in small quantity
to make money. The problem is as soon as it will be understood it is a LENR
working device, that there is a HUGE demand, and immediately big players
will develop an alternative technology and kill your little business.  Like
did Edison, you need to propose a full value chain, from the generator to
the light-bulb, including the repair-man, the installation….



#2  resonates like Rossi's vision is to develop discretely a technology,
then in few weeks, show that you can flood the market with your "V1.0", at
low cost... (Imagine Darden have a contract for 10TW e-cat/year in China at
1$/W) Of course you have a method to allow maintenance and repair instantly
on the planet (MOOC, certifications of professional, certified training,
certified training of training companies)

No competitor will develop any alternative technology (V2.0), but you will
have disrupted all business on earth, even LENR startups...



Shell,,Exxon,,Toyota,,Peugeot will be belly up in 15 days, and the pension
fund will be ruined, if not negative equity.  In modern economy you cannot
behave like Edison and kill just the gas-lighting in New York, then
Philadelphia, then Paris... If you start doing that today, immediately,
despite all logic (of course oil, old cars, old boilers, will still have a
value for a decade, and companies can adapt in that decade), trillion$ of
business go belly up all over the planet.  1929 crisis is a joke compared
to what might happen.



#3 You can also imagine that all developed economies block/slow LENR, that
all western business wait to synchronize their adaptation, to LENR, waiting
for LENR to be easily accessible to all companies, well trained in school
and universities... But at the same time in China, India, people will
decide to embrace LENR, invest trillion$, to take supremacy over the West.
If West resist, and they have it to avoid half of their business to go
belly-up in the next month, it will trigger a WW3.



This is why I consider that Tom Darden is doing "forward guidance" as we
say in central bank policy... preparing the minds, with small messages,
full of ambiguity, so that observers enter into a superposition state,
between "LENR is real" and "LENR is unreal", the "is real" becoming more
and more dominant.  In fact if we try to innovate like with Edison or
Rockefeller, today it will trigger a shockwave at speed of e-mail and
fast-trading over the planet.



I hope Tom Darden have a plan.



Michel's vision is that everybody, especially incumbent business, should
have access to resources to integrate the LENR technology, have access like
you have access to internet, for a fee, not for free.



One need to pay for that access, because LENR research need funding, and
LENR applications can pay for it, but LENR Technology should be considered
as a commercial commodity required for any business, and not as a cash-cow
captured by few tycoons. My boiler plumber should have access to LENR
technology, like my gas utility, my electric utility, my car manufacturer,
my toy manufacturer, my computer manufacturer, to adapt. And it should be
clear to them that they have to do it as quick as possible, or go belly up.



Imagine that Internet does not yet exist, but sure some guy in California,
or in Lannion in France will develop one version. If it is closed protocol
like was IBM-SNA, few people will use it, and Uber or Amazon will not
exist. Big Margin, but small market. To be open, the big luck was that it
was developed for military and academic usage, in an open way... Imagine we
don't have this change, but that people have a vision of an internet, but
need research to make it's specifications to create "the web".



Now tell to every taxi company, to every hypermarket, that if they fund the
some geek (who cares, you just pay for the technology, not for the lab
name) in California, or Lannion, they will have access to internet
technology when available, to IP backbones wired by old telcos, and
connected by yet-unknown startup , to Applications Servers, at fair
price... and tell them that it is their job to build Amazon and Uber,
before someone else do...





To change everything, for nothing to change. If everybody adapt quickly,
and CAN adapt because the technology is open (free like speech, not like
beer), then there will be no disruption, just few success and failures
because some people did it better or worse than the others.  It is like the
click-and-mortar companies today... they survived. Unlike the full mortar.



2015-11-12 4:00 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

[Stephen Cooke]

I just read this article in Space Daily:

http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/UMD_discovery_could_enable_portable_particle_accelerators_999.html

It includes some interesting aspects that I could not help wondering if they 
are relevant to Holmlid's experiment. But in particular the discussion here. 
The self focusing of the beam and acceleration and radiation aspects could be 
relevant maybe?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 Nov 2015, at 15:26, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen he 
> describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen. This 
> means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme containment.
>  
> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the pressure 
> requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the Holmlid phase, 
> which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different, the species could 
> be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>  
> From: Roarty, Francis X
>  
> Jones, nice conjecture but how do we explain achieving more containment than 
> a diamond anvil? Does quantum effect also divide down physical containment 
> such that these magnetic fields won’t simply push away the fe oxides and/or 
> geometry sustaining active sites?  Does this theory better support NAE in the 
> coated inner wall of the reactor vs the bulk powder?
> Fran
>  
>  
> A key paper for those who subscribe to the SPP modality in LENR – which is 
> operational in at least one form (the Holmlid effect) is: “Plasmonics with a 
> Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale” by Svetlana V. Boriskina 
> (MIT).
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657
> 
> Boriskina provides insight into the plasmonic focusing mechanism – which is 
> necessary to focus wavelengths of visible coherent light (in the range of 
> green to yellow, or 535 nm to 580 nm) down to approximately 1 nm and below. 
> She explains this by invoking an analogy of the 'photon fluid' (and magneto 
> hydrodynamics) where light waves will be locally amplified and upshifted via 
> convective vortex acceleration. The result is like an eddy current of photons 
> up to a million time more powerful than before.
> 
> Thus, the Holmlid effect is explained by trapped light which is swirled into 
> optical vortices by EM fields. These are transitory tornado-like areas of 
> circular/helical motion of flux. The result is magnetic fields of extreme 
> local intensity (kilo-Tesla to mega-T.) which effectively compress and 
> densify hydrogen into a new phase which can be well beyond metallic. Metallic 
> hydrogen required compressive forces in the range of 500 GPa, but dense 
> hydrogen requires at least an order of magnitude more force, which is well 
> beyond the mechanical strength of a diamond anvil, for instance. The payoff 
> is Holmlid’s new phase of dense hydrogen which becomes stable, once formed, 
> without added pressure. Metallic hydrogen is not stable in an unpressurized 
> condition and immediately reverts to the gas.
> 
> The specific resonance values for the vortex formation depend on the matrix 
> metal. With Holmlid’s experiments using iron-oxide matrix, the resonance 
> value for photons is 535 nm which is green light. For palladium, using PdCl 
> and LiCl electrolyte the strongest emission line is 542 nm which is yellow 
> green. Electrolysis creates its own internal photons at the emission lines of 
> the electrolyte.
> 
> BTW – Boriskina apparently has no present connection to LENR per se, but as a 
> theorist, she could become more important to the field than almost any other 
> theorist (including Hagelstein) – to the extent that the SPP modality is 
> shown to be correct. She appears to be relatively young which is bonus, 
> should her insight prevail - since LERN field is aging rapidly.
> 
> http://www.bio-page.org/boriskina/

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

[Jones Beene]

Here is the paper

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.02912.

The gas jet is hydrogen, so we could be seeing something similar to Holmlid.


From: Stephen Cooke 

I just read this article in Space Daily:

http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/UMD_discovery_could_enable_portable_particle_accelerators_999.html

It includes some interesting aspects that I could not help wondering if they 
are relevant to Holmlid's experiment. But in particular the discussion here. 
The self focusing of the beam and acceleration and radiation aspects could be 
relevant maybe?

Sent from my iPhone

Jones Beene wrote:
Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen he 
describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen. This means 
it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme containment.
 
For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the pressure 
requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the Holmlid phase, 
which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different, the species could be 
stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
 
From: Roarty, Francis X 
 
Jones, nice conjecture but how do we explain achieving more containment than a 
diamond anvil? Does quantum effect also divide down physical containment such 
that these magnetic fields won’t simply push away the fe oxides and/or geometry 
sustaining active sites?  Does this theory better support NAE in the coated 
inner wall of the reactor vs the bulk powder? 
Fran
 
 
A key paper for those who subscribe to the SPP modality in LENR – which is 
operational in at least one form (the Holmlid effect) is: “Plasmonics with a 
Twist: Taming Optical Tornadoes on the Nanoscale” by Svetlana V. Boriskina 
(MIT). 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1657
Boriskina provides insight into the plasmonic focusing mechanism – which is 
necessary to focus wavelengths of visible coherent light (in the range of green 
to yellow, or 535 nm to 580 nm) down to approximately 1 nm and below. She 
explains this by invoking an analogy of the 'photon fluid' (and magneto 
hydrodynamics) where light waves will be locally amplified and upshifted via 
convective vortex acceleration. The result is like an eddy current of photons 
up to a million time more powerful than before.
Thus, the Holmlid effect is explained by trapped light which is swirled into 
optical vortices by EM fields. These are transitory tornado-like areas of 
circular/helical motion of flux. The result is magnetic fields of extreme local 
intensity (kilo-Tesla to mega-T.) which effectively compress and densify 
hydrogen into a new phase which can be well beyond metallic. Metallic hydrogen 
required compressive forces in the range of 500 GPa, but dense hydrogen 
requires at least an order of magnitude more force, which is well beyond the 
mechanical strength of a diamond anvil, for instance. The payoff is Holmlid’s 
new phase of dense hydrogen which becomes stable, once formed, without added 
pressure. Metallic hydrogen is not stable in an unpressurized condition and 
immediately reverts to the gas.
The specific resonance values for the vortex formation depend on the matrix 
metal. With Holmlid’s experiments using iron-oxide matrix, the resonance value 
for photons is 535 nm which is green light. For palladium, using PdCl and LiCl 
electrolyte the strongest emission line is 542 nm which is yellow green. 
Electrolysis creates its own internal photons at the emission lines of the 
electrolyte.
BTW – Boriskina apparently has no present connection to LENR per se, but as a 
theorist, she could become more important to the field than almost any other 
theorist (including Hagelstein) – to the extent that the SPP modality is shown 
to be correct. She appears to be relatively young which is bonus, should her 
insight prevail - since LERN field is aging rapidly.
http://www.bio-page.org/boriskina/

RE: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular for 
H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  

There is a particular alloy - LiH6  which is the compound of most interest to 
me but it is not really Rydberg matter – but it is close to what I believe 
Holmlid is seeing. However, his version is denser by far than the metallic 
version. This alloy can occur with potassium as well. It is a metallic hydrogen 
alloy which has been actually produced with the diamond anvil at 25% of the 
normally required pressure. Some info and a pic here: 
http://phys.org/news/2009-10-unexpected-hydrides-stable-metals-pressure.html

I think that Holmlid’s denser hydrogen alloy with lithium becomes a superatom 
which will not require containment, but as you say – it is still 2D and must be 
supported… The “snowflake” is an apt description. 

*   Are these Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A 
small particle of metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass 
density to something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to 
consider.

This particular one could be called any or all of the above – and with 12 
hydrogen bonds, it could be rather tightly bound. I think it is best called a 
superatom complex (see google entry).

This topic (dense hydrogen) is very complex, and it is hard to generalize. As 
for replication, I have a few ideas which are not ready for prime time, but 
which I’m writing up in the form of a concept paper. I have a strong feeling 
that dense hydrogen is the ticket to understanding LENR… but pf cpurse, only 
when replicated.

Jones



t.

Re: [Vo]:The Future Of Solar

[Lawrence de Bivort]

Hmmm. I think it is the native Americans who view the European immigration a as 
the unmitigated disaster. Of course, it was the indigenous people around the 
world who suffered from the European immigration a and colonizations. And it 
still going on in several places in the world. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:
> 
> In the US, we have a profound (and ironic) example of what disasters can be 
> experienced if immigration is unrestricted.
>  
>  
> We call them “Native Americans”  :)
>  

[Vo]:NOV 12, 2015 INFO, LENR PAGE FOR EUROPE, THEORIES

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/11/nov-12-2015-good-info-started-lenr-euro.html

My very best wishes to you all!
Peter

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

[Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to
wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously
a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen
is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think
anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed
matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular
for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these
Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules?  A small particle of
metal? Generalized condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to
something only one atomic layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.

The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali
metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited
Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The
nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.
Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well
reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well
described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from
rotational spectroscopy.

The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what
form it might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears
to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb
Explosion (CE).  Why is this species not be examined by conventional
rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the
X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be
in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to
photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular
momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis
for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place.
Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization
and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen
> he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen.
> This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme
> containment.
>
>
>
> For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the
> pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the
> Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different,
> the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment.
>

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Optical Tornadoes with specific values for resonance

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

I just read this article in Space Daily:
>
>
> http://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/UMD_discovery_could_enable_portable_particle_accelerators_999.html
>

I read the following detail with interest:

We have accelerated high-charge electron beams to more than 10 million
> electron volts using only millijoules of laser pulse energy. This is the
> energy consumed by a typical household lightbulb in one-thousandth of a
> second.


This suggests that a beam of eV-energy photons from a laser could stimulate
inner-shell transitions in heavy atoms with binding energies in the 10s of
keVs.  A corollary is that the same thing could conceivably be accomplished
in nature simply through high levels of heat (UV photons), through some
unknown mechanism.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy hosts information session at U.S. Capital

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:


> #1 the naive one.  Developing a small device, and sell it in small
> quantity to make money. The problem is as soon as it will be understood it
> is a LENR working device, that there is a HUGE demand, and immediately big
> players will develop an alternative technology and kill your little
> business.
>

This would not work for 2 reasons. First, as you say big players will
definitely develop cold fusion. Nothing can stop them from doing this.
Second, as I said, regulators will never allow people to sell nuclear
fusion reactors until they have been thoroughly vetted and until the
physics establishment believes it can explain them by theory.



> #2  resonates like Rossi's vision is to develop discretely a technology,
> then in few weeks, show that you can flood the market with your "V1.0", at
> low cost...
>

You cannot possibly flood the market in a few weeks. The market is 7
billion people. It will take decades before demand levels off with market
saturation.



> No competitor will develop any alternative technology (V2.0), but you will
> have disrupted all business on earth, even LENR startups...
>

No company is large enough to do that. Even if you have a patent, the US
government will not allow a patent holder to withhold vital technology from
competition. The government will force you to license the technology.

If you do not have a patent every industrial company on earth will simply
take the technology and many of them will soon produce far better version
than you can.


>

> Shell,,Exxon,,Toyota,,Peugeot will be belly up in 15 days, and the pension
> fund will be ruined, if not negative equity.
>

That is completely unrealistic. It would take far longer than 15 days! More
like 15 years. It is true that their stock value might plummet once it
becomes generally known that cold fusion is real. But just because a
company's stock falls in value that does not mean the company goes out of
business right away.

If Toyota, GM and most other automobile manufacturers came out with a cold
fusion car, and only Ford did not, Ford would be in deep trouble. Perhaps
after 2 or 3 years it would be forced into bankruptcy. But it will take a
very long time for any automobile company to develop a cold fusion car, and
by the time they come out with one everyone will know they are going to do
it. I doubt that the managers at Ford would sit on their hands and not
develop a cold fusion car when everyone else is doing it.

They might sit on their hands. After personal computers came out in the
early 1980s, many minicomputer manufacturers such as DEC and Data General
sat and did nothing in response. They all went out of business.



>   In modern economy you cannot behave like Edison and kill just the
> gas-lighting in New York, then Philadelphia, then Paris...
>

Edison did not kill the gaslighting business. It continued well into the
20th century, 50 years after the introduction of incandescent lights. It
died gradually.



> If you start doing that today, immediately, despite all logic (of course
> oil, old cars, old boilers, will still have a value for a decade, and
> companies can adapt in that decade), trillion$ of business go belly up all
> over the planet.  1929 crisis is a joke compared to what might happen.
>

There is no indication that the 1929 crisis was caused by changes in
technology. I will grant, one person did say this. An economics professor
at Cornell claimed that the transition from horses to automobiles caused
the crisis, according to my mother. However most people blamed other
economic trends.

I do not think there are any cases in history in which a rapid change in
technology caused an economic crisis. It is possible we are facing one now
with the increase in robotics and artificial intelligence, but it is not
happening swiftly. It will take decades.

Trillions of dollars in business do not go belly up overnight. It is not
possible to replace the entire energy generating infrastructure overnight.
I predict that it will happen faster than some other people have predicted,
because cold fusion does not need an infrastructure. However it will still
take years because people have to design new products, regulators have to
ensure they are safe, and in nearly every case the old machine has to wear
out before people will replace it. No one is going to buy a cold fusion car
or space heater when they have a new fossil fuel machine. They will wait
for it to wear out. In any case, new machines could not be manufactured
fast enough to replace all the old ones quickly. There are 286 million cars
in the U.S. alone. It takes 11 years to manufacture that many (the fleet
replacement time).

Even if you could abruptly stop manufacturing gasoline cars, to make only
cold fusion ones instead, it would still take 11 years to replace every
car. And you cannot abruptly turn off a factory and transition overnight.
It takes months or years to refit an automobile manufacturing 

RE: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob, I think here again is where the Jan Naudt’s paper on relativistic hydrogen 
applies to the hydrinos and Rydberg atoms the same. You asked “?  How do you 
ascribe mass density to something only one atomic layer thick? “  IMHO the 
hydrogen atom morphs with changes in ether density provided by the nano 
geometry environment in exactly the same way a hydrogen atom ejected from the 
sun at  high fractions of C appears to change from our perspective but without 
the needed velocity, like the near C hydrogen ejected from the corona you have 
relativistic change in mass but it might actually be a decrease in mass since  
containment lowers vacuum density below the value for a stationary open space 
observer. The point being gravitational square law changes in vacuum density 
are  trumped by London/Casimir forces at nano scale and you can have ratios of  
vacuum density between Casimir cavities and earth bound paradox twin/observer 
on the same order as the ratio between  earth bound paradox twin/observer and 
the near C twin. I believe Lorentzian contraction should appear the same from 
either perspective but the mass change in this case would seem to mean the mass 
of the quantum geometry that is depleting the ether density should increase 
from the perspective of the modified hydrogen traveling thru the depleted 
region. From our oerspective [like the near C twin] we see the modified 
hydrogen as Lorentzian contracted, time dilated such that radioactive forms of 
hydrogen appear to decay faster but from local observation actually “put in the 
normal time” spending thousands of years in these Casimir cavities while only a 
few seconds pass for us sitting in the lab outside the reactor. Everytime I go 
out on this limb I get less afraid as I see other pieces of the puzzle slowly 
embracing the temporal aspects of this anomaly.
Fran

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to wonder 
about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter.  Obviously a single 
atom of H is not metallic hydrogen.  A single molecule of hydrogen is more 
"dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter.  I don't think anyone would 
categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed matter. The X(1) 
species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular for H/D and the 
alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms.  Are these Rydberg clusters 
better described as large molecules?  A small particle of metal? Generalized 
condensed matter?  How do you ascribe mass density to something only one atomic 
layer thick?  It is interesting to consider.

The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali 
metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited 
Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals.  The nuclear 
separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule.  Existence for X(1) 
Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well reproduced, modeled, 
measured, and is utilized by many based on the well described characteristics 
of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from rotational spectroscopy.

The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what form it 
might take is completely speculative.  The evidence for it appears to be solely 
from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb Explosion (CE).  Why is 
this species not be examined by conventional rotational spectroscopy, as has 
been used to verify the existence of the X(1) Rydberg matter?  I would think 
that the comprising atoms could NOT be in a DDL state, because if they were, 
they would not be susceptible to photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed 
to have too little angular momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims 
causes CE and is his basis for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of 
matter in the first place.  Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly 
susceptible to photo-ionization and CE, it seems like it should also be 
detectable in a rotational spectrum.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene 
> wrote:
Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen he 
describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen. This means 
it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme containment.

For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the pressure 
requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the Holmlid phase, 
which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different, the species could be 
stable without any pressure or with slight containment.

[Vo]:Why black hole theory is important in LENR

[Axil Axil]

Vortex does not transmit large pictures via mail so

See

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2282-Why-black-hole-theory-is-important-in-LENR/?postID=9451#post9451