Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Time symmetry requires that the laws of nature operate the same when time
> goes either forward or backwards.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_translation_symmetry
>


This typical thinking assumes much. Like 'doing the math' actually reflects
the Reality.

That is why we (for instance) have to put up with nonsense like
0-dimensional 'singularities' and the like...

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Here is Eric Walker's latest move of one of my responses over to his
garbage thread, without explanation, without notice, and without moving the
precipitating post which apparently uses the same offensive term of
'bullshit'.


Online
kevmol...@gmail.com

Intermediate

   - 37 minutes ago
   



   - New
   -




woodworker wrote:


Maybe the reason they aren't "all over this" is because it was bullshit.



Then it would be in IH's best interest to document it and get the judge to
see this guy is a lying con man.   That would be in IH's best interest,
wouldn't it?   You find yourself in a legal tangle with some conman who
posts all kinds of bullshit and one of those bullshit items is an offer to
drop the case, would you as a lawyer be all over it or would you just do
what you did right here and dismiss it as bullshit?



But I suppose we should all defer to your extensive legal expertise and
experience.


Well I'm certainly done deferring to your extensive legal expertise and
experience because you have been demonstrably wrong several times now.
I'm just a layman but you're supposedly an expert and a layman is poking
holes in your bullshit right and left.
Display Less


Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

This post has previous versions that are saved.



On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> ​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after
> you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?
>
> At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted
> standards? ​
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
>>> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>>>
>>
>> Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
>> with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
>> information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
>> continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

What the Rossi experiments has shown over many years is that LENR in a
lattice is not workable because the reaction cannot be controlled. The LENR
reaction wants to operate at the boiling point of the metal lattice
(nickel) which is 3000K. Rossi has struggled to control the LENR reaction
at low temperatures but he always fails because LENR would invariably get
to 3000K and meltdown his reactor. So Rossi finally decided to use reactor
structural material that doesn't melt at 3000K. This material must be an
insulator that does not melt at 3000K. Mills has stumbled on the same
reaction and his SunCell runs at the vapor point of silver (2200C). Mills
has solved the meltdown problem is another way, he justs runs everything as
a liquid without any containment.


Using a lattice for LENR is a losing proposition. The plasma approach to
the LENR reaction is the only way to go. I beleive that this tube material
is boron nitride, a transparent isolator whose melting point is 3000C.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Time symmetry requires that the laws of nature operate the same when time
> goes either forward or backwards.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_translation_symmetry
>
> To the best of my knowledge, most physicists don't believe that antimatter
> is *actually* matter moving backwards in time. It's not even entirely
> clear what would it really mean to move backwards in time, from the popular
> viewpoint.
>
> If I'm remembering correctly, this idea all comes from a story that
> probably originated with Richard Feynman. At the time, one of the big
> puzzles of physics was why all instances of a particular elementary
> particle (all electrons, for example) are apparently identical. Feynman had
> a very hand-wavy idea that all electrons could in fact be the same
> electron, just bouncing back and forth between the beginning of time and
> the end. As far as I know, that idea never developed into anything
> mathematically grounded, but it did inspire Feynman and others to calculate
> what the properties of an electron moving backwards in time would be, in a
> certain precise sense that emerges from quantum field theory. What they
> came up with was a particle that matched the known properties of the
> positron.
>
> Just to give you a rough idea of what it means for a particle to "move
> backwards in time" in the technical sense: in quantum field theory,
> particles carry with them amounts of various conserved quantities as they
> move. These quantities may include energy, momentum, electric charge,
> "flavor," and others. As the particles move, these conserved quantities
> produce "currents," which have a direction based on the motion and sign of
> the conserved quantity. If you apply the time reversal operator (which is a
> purely mathematical concept, not something that actually reverses time),
> you reverse the direction of the current flow, which is equivalent to
> reversing the sign of the conserved quantity, thus (roughly speaking)
> turning the particle into its antiparticle.
>
> For example, consider electric current: it arises from the movement of
> electric charge, and the direction of the current is a product of the
> direction of motion of the charge and the sign of the charge.
>
> Positive charge moving left is equivalent to negative charge moving right. If
> you have a current of electrons moving to the right, and you apply the time
> reversal operator, it converts the rightward velocity to leftward velocity.
> But you would get the exact same result by instead converting the electrons
> into positrons and letting them continue to move to the right; either
> way, you wind up with the net positive charge flow moving to the right.
>
> By the way, optional reading if you're interested: there is a very basic
> (though hard to prove) theorem in quantum field theory, the TCP theorem,
> that says that if you apply the three operations of time reversal, charge
> conjugation (switch particles and antiparticles), and parity inversion
> (mirroring space), the result should be exactly equivalent to what you
> started with. We know from experimental data that, under certain exotic
> circumstances, the combination of charge conjugation and parity inversion
> does *not* leave all physical processes unchanged, which means that the
> same must be true of time reversal: *physics is* not *time-reversal
> invariant*. Of course, since we can't *actually* reverse time, we can't
> test in exactly what manner this is true.
>
> The SPP can be compared to the electron in terms of time symmetry breaking
> into a positron. The SPP is not LENR active until it has been converted to
> its antiparticle by a time reversal operator. That operator is the KERR
> effect that changes the rotation of photons inside the whispering gallery
> wave. The purpose of the LENR stimulus is to change the nature of the SPP
> into its LENR active form.
>
>
> [image: 20170119174546739132.jpg]
>
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

​Ok then.   At what point are you "disengaging"?   If you "clarify" after
you "disengage" you haven't really "disengaged", have you?

At what point do you start moderating according to your own posted
standards? ​

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
>> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>>
>
> Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
> with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
> information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
> continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

Time symmetry requires that the laws of nature operate the same when time
goes either forward or backwards.

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

To the best of my knowledge, most physicists don't believe that antimatter
is *actually* matter moving backwards in time. It's not even entirely clear
what would it really mean to move backwards in time, from the popular
viewpoint.

If I'm remembering correctly, this idea all comes from a story that
probably originated with Richard Feynman. At the time, one of the big
puzzles of physics was why all instances of a particular elementary
particle (all electrons, for example) are apparently identical. Feynman had
a very hand-wavy idea that all electrons could in fact be the same
electron, just bouncing back and forth between the beginning of time and
the end. As far as I know, that idea never developed into anything
mathematically grounded, but it did inspire Feynman and others to calculate
what the properties of an electron moving backwards in time would be, in a
certain precise sense that emerges from quantum field theory. What they
came up with was a particle that matched the known properties of the
positron.

Just to give you a rough idea of what it means for a particle to "move
backwards in time" in the technical sense: in quantum field theory,
particles carry with them amounts of various conserved quantities as they
move. These quantities may include energy, momentum, electric charge,
"flavor," and others. As the particles move, these conserved quantities
produce "currents," which have a direction based on the motion and sign of
the conserved quantity. If you apply the time reversal operator (which is a
purely mathematical concept, not something that actually reverses time),
you reverse the direction of the current flow, which is equivalent to
reversing the sign of the conserved quantity, thus (roughly speaking)
turning the particle into its antiparticle.

For example, consider electric current: it arises from the movement of
electric charge, and the direction of the current is a product of the
direction of motion of the charge and the sign of the charge.

Positive charge moving left is equivalent to negative charge moving right. If
you have a current of electrons moving to the right, and you apply the time
reversal operator, it converts the rightward velocity to leftward velocity.
But you would get the exact same result by instead converting the electrons
into positrons and letting them continue to move to the right; either way,
you wind up with the net positive charge flow moving to the right.

By the way, optional reading if you're interested: there is a very basic
(though hard to prove) theorem in quantum field theory, the TCP theorem,
that says that if you apply the three operations of time reversal, charge
conjugation (switch particles and antiparticles), and parity inversion
(mirroring space), the result should be exactly equivalent to what you
started with. We know from experimental data that, under certain exotic
circumstances, the combination of charge conjugation and parity inversion
does *not* leave all physical processes unchanged, which means that the
same must be true of time reversal: *physics is* not *time-reversal
invariant*. Of course, since we can't *actually* reverse time, we can't
test in exactly what manner this is true.

The SPP can be compared to the electron in terms of time symmetry breaking
into a positron. The SPP is not LENR active until it has been converted to
its antiparticle by a time reversal operator. That operator is the KERR
effect that changes the rotation of photons inside the whispering gallery
wave. The purpose of the LENR stimulus is to change the nature of the SPP
into its LENR active form.


[image: 20170119174546739132.jpg]





On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at
>> http://restframe.com/
>>
>>
>> Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does
>> understand how the metalized hydride behaves.
>>
>> Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal is a
>> tachyon.
>>
>
>
> How can time -- motion, that is -- have a 'negative' aspect..?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric, you said you would not post any more.

The issue isn't that Mary Yugo insults people.  The issue is that you ALLOW
those insults from one side but not another.   You like to read intent in
what I do but you aren't reading intent into what THEY do.

And I'm not even saying to exclude Mary.   I'm saying you should quote
everyone's post who has an insult, take out the insult, and post the
uninsulting post while moving the original post to your garbage thread.   I
think if you did that you would find tons of insults from one side and not
so many from our side.   But you aren't listening, you have your head
firmly up your back side.

"once discussion devolves into trading of insults" -- here is a prime
example.   The discussion devolves as soon as the FIRST insult is thrown,
not the second.   The legal principle is to focus on the guy who throws the
first punch, not the second.   I'm shaking my head at how incredibly stupid
you have set things up and even defend the stupidity.

Vorts will see for themselves whether you pull your head out of your ass.
And there's a thread that I posted about how many replications there are
where you allowed Shanahan to derail even though one of the posted goals of
the moderators is to not allow threads to get derailed.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
>> but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
>> one side of the insults.
>>
>
> Crass language and attacks are not content; they're just ways of
> undermining a civil discussion.  Sometimes Mary insults people, but this is
> more because she has no filter rather than because she's seeking to
> escalate a discussion into a fight.  There is no charge to her insults.
> She almost always focuses on substantive points.  To exclude Mary, whose
> views are controversial and disagreeable to many, would be to subtly shape
> the debate and exclude someone who has occasionally been a source of
> interesting information.
>
> Debate consists of arguments; once a discussion devolves into attacks and
> the trading of insults, it is no longer a debate.  Discussion with Mary
> never devolves into the simple trading of insults as she almost always
> addresses some substantive point.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
> something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.
>

Just to clarify, Kevin -- I said I was disengaging discussing the matter
with you.  I think our discussion has provided people with enough
information to put your initial complaint in context.  I'll be happy to
continue to discuss the matter with anyone else.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Geez, Eric, it's like pulling teeth.   You don't see where the source of
the problem is.   The source is when someone STARTS insults and gets away
with it.   You let some people on your forum insult away.   Now you want to
attract Vorts who are going to have to go through the same kind of bullshit
in order to post on your forum without going on probation.   You don't even
see the problem.

You like to characterize some posts as "subtle" while others are "crass"
but NOWHERE on your forum is that bullshit delineation outlined so that
people can know ahead of time.   It's completely full of shit.

You say I have the last word but... then ... look below and now you have
something else to say.   You aren't even a man of your word.

At least the Vorts know what they're up against.   You may not realize this
that I did you a huge favor but I'm not sure it's a good thing to give
Vorts warning of a completely unfair setup where you are going to look
through Vortex but not Shane's nor Mary's history of trolling.Eric:
Pull your head out.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
>> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
>> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
>> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>>
>
> In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
> as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
> and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
> to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
> seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
> such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.
>
> You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
>> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>>
>
> Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
> you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
> Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
> Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
> action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.
>
> I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at
> LENR Forum at this point and allow you the last word.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

Whenever muons appear, fusion of light elements will occur and fission of
heavy elements will happen. So fusion could be a secondary reaction set up
by the primary reaction which is the creation of muons.

Muons can be produced in two ways, one... they could be a product on
nucleon decay, and two... muons could be produced from hadronization... the
creation of muons from energy.

Holmlid mentions a condition where he has stored metallic hydrogen in a
darken lab and there was little or no muons produced by this stuff, but
when he turned the fluorescent lab overhead room lights on, Holmlid saw a
rapid rise in muon production and a gradual but steady decrease in muon
production over time after the lights were turned off. Those muons might be
coming from hadronization.

Reference:
Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis:
Novel converter arrangements

Two different sources for producing H(0) have been used
for this study. They are similar to a source described in a
previous publication.28 Potassium-doped iron oxide catalyst
samples (cylindric pellets)32,33 in the sources produce the ultradense
H(0) from hydrogen or deuterium gas flow at pressures
of 10−5–100 mbars. The sources give a slowly decaying muon
signal for several hours and days after being used for producing
H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production
by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by
turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short
time.

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> I am not sure why there being no advantage for deuterium means that this
> was not cold fusion.  If there was a fusion process in these situations
> that started with protons then would this also not be cold fusion?  Given
> that we are in a territory that is far removed from the standard plasma
> conditions where the orthodox rules for fusion were forged, I think we
> cannot rule out the possibility that there could be proton based fusion
> options.
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 03/07/2017 02:03, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or both and
>> there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold fusion
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Just as a clarification of semantics being used in this thread:

It is useful to use the term gamma to describe EM radiation that originates 
from a change in the energy state of a nuclear entity or reaction between two 
or more nuclear entities.  Thus, an excited nuclear entity may decay from an 
elevated kinetic energy state—an isomeric state—to a lower energy state giving 
a gamma of relatively low energy.  It is called a gamma because it resulted  
from a nuclear transition.  All other EM radiation is not properly called gamma 
radiation IMHO.  Various types of non-gamma radiation may be very high energy 
photons exceeding most gamma radiation.

Bob Cook






From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 5:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

The Fredericks work is with photographic emulsion, which is a
light-sensitive chemical reaction used in photography. That kind of film
is much easier to expose and consequently it has limited usefulness for
LENR. Even body heat from the experimenter's handling can produce fogging.

X-ray film is much more difficult to expose and consequently, when
fogging occurs, it means that something more energetic (enough to
produce x-rays) is taking place. However, in both cases silver is a main
ingredient of the film. Thus if one wishes to get away from film
altogether, and try to verify that a novel type of radiation is being
produced, then it may help to retain silver, and this is what Alan is
doing. Silver may have special properties, such as for converting dense
hydrogen back to normal hydrogen.

Alan's first test run is underway and details can be seen in the Google
Live Doc at

https://goo.gl/rTDz87

Imagine (as an arguable mechanism) that nickel contact converts a tiny
amount of hydrogen into a dense form (UDH)... and then silver contact
converts it back to full density. If this process is not symmetrical in
terms of energy, then soft x-rays could be the end result. As to where
that x-ray energy comes from - that can be determined later but if it
were to be actual fusion, we would expect gammas.

The Arata work and Ahern's replication is similar - and in all cases,
the lack of electrolysis current only means that the radiation effect
does not depend on electrochemistry - only on mechanical contact. As for
Nigel's point about actual fusion as the underlying mechanism - yes,
nothing including fusion should be ruled out at this stage - but finding
an alternative mechanism makes this more palatable for the mainstream
and we do not need another "miracle" to explain the lack of gammas.


  Kevin O'Malley wrote:
 > Why does it matter that this was NOT electrolysis?
 >
 > Didn't Arrata load up his cells with pycnodeuterium and no power input?
 >
 >  Che wrote:
 >  Axil Axil  wrote:
 >
 > IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A.
Fredericks at http://restframe.com/
 >
 >
 > Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he
does understand how the metalized hydride behaves.
 >
 > Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal
is a tachyon.
 > How can time -- motion, that is -- have a 'negative' aspect..?

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[ROGER ANDERTON]

which is sad, because Galileo's physics led to the idea of point-particle; 
which many people rebel against such an existential crisis in  physics
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in physics 
R Anderton ANPA 2016

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in phys...
 Copernician Revolution led to Existential crisis, the fall-out of which we 
still suffer. Boscovich's theory ...  |   |

  |

  |

 
 

On Monday, 3 July 2017, 18:05, Eric Walker  wrote:
 

 My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address.
Eric

-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Walker 
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden
To: ROGER ANDERTON 


Hi Roger,
If Galileo directed repeated, charged personal attacks with crass language at 
valued participants on LENR Forum, he might not have lasted long.  I don't know 
what his personality was like, and I suspect he just made claims that people 
didn't want to here [hear].  But if he was pugnacious in the sense of changing 
the conversation from a debate to simple personal attacks, the world would have 
had to benefit from his knowledge and insight through some channel other than 
LENR Forum.
Eric


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, ROGER ANDERTON  
wrote:

 >>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants
Galileo was pugnacious


On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker  wrote:
 

 Hi Kevin,
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed at 
least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a 
one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you put ME 
on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.


In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such as 
woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass and 
sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent to you.  
Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we seek to 
attract.  We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants such as 
yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I WAS 
PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up. 


Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said you 
were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR Forum), 
you were basically put in the category of participants such as Sifferkoll the 
minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in action on Vortex, 
so your reputation proceeded you.
I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR 
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric


   




   

Fwd: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

My reply accidentally went to Roger's personal email address.

Eric


-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Walker 
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden
To: ROGER ANDERTON 


Hi Roger,

If Galileo directed repeated, charged personal attacks with crass language
at valued participants on LENR Forum, he might not have lasted long.  I
don't know what his personality was like, and I suspect he just made claims
that people didn't want to here [hear].  But if he was pugnacious in the
sense of changing the conversation from a debate to simple personal
attacks, the world would have had to benefit from his knowledge and insight
through some channel other than LENR Forum.

Eric



On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> >>We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
>
> Galileo was pugnacious
>
>
>
> On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>
>
> In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
> as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
> and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
> to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
> seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
> such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.
>
> You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>
>
> Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
> you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
> Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
> Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
> action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.
>
> I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at
> LENR Forum at this point and allow you the last word.
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants
Galileo was pugnacious


On Monday, 3 July 2017, 16:11, Eric Walker  wrote:
 

 Hi Kevin,
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed at 
least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a 
one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you put ME 
on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.


In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such as 
woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass and 
sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent to you.  
Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we seek to 
attract.  We would ideally not attract pugnacious participants such as 
yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I WAS 
PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up. 


Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said you 
were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR Forum), 
you were basically put in the category of participants such as Sifferkoll the 
minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in action on Vortex, 
so your reputation proceeded you.
I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR 
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric


   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
> but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
> one side of the insults.
>

Crass language and attacks are not content; they're just ways of
undermining a civil discussion.  Sometimes Mary insults people, but this is
more because she has no filter rather than because she's seeking to
escalate a discussion into a fight.  There is no charge to her insults.
She almost always focuses on substantive points.  To exclude Mary, whose
views are controversial and disagreeable to many, would be to subtly shape
the debate and exclude someone who has occasionally been a source of
interesting information.

Debate consists of arguments; once a discussion devolves into attacks and
the trading of insults, it is no longer a debate.  Discussion with Mary
never devolves into the simple trading of insults as she almost always
addresses some substantive point.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Eric Walker]

Hi Kevin,

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
> at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
> one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
> put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.
>

In your pugnacious attacks, you will drive away informed participants such
as woodworker.  woodworker's slights were subtle.  Your retorts were crass
and sought to escalate the matter.  Hopefully the distinction is apparent
to you.  Informed participants with relevant experience are the people we
seek to attract.  We would ideally *not* attract pugnacious participants
such as yourself, but there's only so much we can do.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
> WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.
>

Yes, point conceded.  Better recollecting what I had in mind when I said
you were on "probation" (not something that has not been formalized at LENR
Forum), you were basically put in the category of participants such as
Sifferkoll the minute I saw that you were on the attack.  I've seen you in
action on Vortex, so your reputation proceeded you.

I'm going to disengage in this discussion with you about moderation at LENR
Forum at this point and allow you the last word.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Jones Beene]

The Fredericks work is with photographic emulsion, which is a 
light-sensitive chemical reaction used in photography. That kind of film 
is much easier to expose and consequently it has limited usefulness for 
LENR. Even body heat from the experimenter's handling can produce fogging.


X-ray film is much more difficult to expose and consequently, when 
fogging occurs, it means that something more energetic (enough to 
produce x-rays) is taking place. However, in both cases silver is a main 
ingredient of the film. Thus if one wishes to get away from film 
altogether, and try to verify that a novel type of radiation is being 
produced, then it may help to retain silver, and this is what Alan is 
doing. Silver may have special properties, such as for converting dense 
hydrogen back to normal hydrogen.


Alan's first test run is underway and details can be seen in the Google 
Live Doc at


https://goo.gl/rTDz87

Imagine (as an arguable mechanism) that nickel contact converts a tiny 
amount of hydrogen into a dense form (UDH)... and then silver contact 
converts it back to full density. If this process is not symmetrical in 
terms of energy, then soft x-rays could be the end result. As to where 
that x-ray energy comes from - that can be determined later but if it 
were to be actual fusion, we would expect gammas.


The Arata work and Ahern's replication is similar - and in all cases, 
the lack of electrolysis current only means that the radiation effect 
does not depend on electrochemistry - only on mechanical contact. As for 
Nigel's point about actual fusion as the underlying mechanism - yes, 
nothing including fusion should be ruled out at this stage - but finding 
an alternative mechanism makes this more palatable for the mainstream 
and we do not need another "miracle" to explain the lack of gammas.



 Kevin O'Malley wrote:
> Why does it matter that this was NOT electrolysis?
>
> Didn't Arrata load up his cells with pycnodeuterium and no power input?
>
>  Che wrote:
>  Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. 
Fredericks at http://restframe.com/

>
>
> Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he 
does understand how the metalized hydride behaves.

>
> Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal 
is a tachyon.

> How can time -- motion, that is -- have a 'negative' aspect..?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Good post from EcatWorld, pulling some items from behind a paywall:


Engineer48  • 20 hours ago

 [hush]​[hide comment]

Some details of the initial shots fired by IH & Rossi:

https://www.law360.com/tria...


Law360, Miami (June 30, 2017, 9:57 PM EDT) -- An Italian inventor suing
over an $89 million licensing agreement for an energy catalyzer patent
opened trial Friday in Miami, telling jurors that the licensees had
repeatedly touted the technology and said it had "potential to change the
world" before reneging on the agreement.
Brian Chaiken of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL, who represents
Italian inventor Andrea Rossi, told the jury that Rossi and his Leonardo
Corp. are owed $89 million from licensees Cherokee Investment Partners LLC
and related entity Industrial Heat LLC, which boasted about acquiring the
technology for a low-energy nuclear reactor called the E-Cat through a 2012
agreement, but failed to live up to their end of the deal.

"They wasted no time telling investors and potential investors that E-Cat
actually works and that they were in possession of the technology," Chaiken
said.

At one point, in an investment memorandum, International Heat said the
future success of the company was dependent on one key individual: Rossi,
according to Chaiken.

"They're telling their investors they've got LeBron James on their team and
if they're going to the NBA Finals, they're going to ride him all the way
there," he said.

But International Heat changed its tune in May 2015, he said, when it
successfully sold 4 percent of the company for $50 million. After that
investment, Chaiken said the narrative changed, and the company began to
say that Rossi was unreliable and that the test results of his E-Cat
technology were unreliable.

Christopher Pace of Jones Day — who represents International Heat,
Cherokee, its founder Thomas Darden and manager John T. Vaughn — told
jurors a different story, one in which his clients were deliberately lied
to regarding the performance of the E-Cat.

Under the terms of the 2012 agreement, totaling $100 million, International
Heat was supposed to make three payments: first, a $1.5 million payment to
buy the E-Cat equipment, then a $10 million fee for the technology, and
finally an $89 million payment once the equipment passed performance tests
after 400 days of operation.

That performance test allegedly took place in a warehouse in Doral,
Florida, but Pace told jurors the whole thing was a sham.

He said his clients let Rossi take the equipment from North Carolina, where
the defendants are located, to Florida because Rossi said he had found a
customer that wanted to use the E-Cat and could test it in a real-world
scenario. Rossi told them the customer, JM Products, was an affiliate of
Johnson Matthey, a U.K.-based multinational chemical company.

But Pace said his clients later discovered that JM Products was a sham
company set up by third-party defendant Henry Johnson at the direction of
Rossi.

Pace told jurors that his clients tried to gain access to JM Products'
warehouse but were blocked and told that the company was engaged in a
secretive manufacturing process. When International Heat finally got an
engineer into the warehouse, they found clear problems, he said.

The amount of water that Rossi claimed the E-Cat machines were turning into
steam each day — about 9,000 gallons — was impossible, because at most, the
pumps available there could pump only 5,000 gallons of water per day, Pace
said. International Heat had also called Florida Power & Light to check on
the electricity records for the warehouse and found discrepancies with what
Rossi was reporting, according to Pace.

He said the defendants acknowledged to investors that Rossi was a risk
because of previous failed business ventures and a reputation for being
difficult, but they gave him latitude because they felt that he had a
remarkable technology that produced clean energy cheaply. Pace argued that
it is Rossi who should refund the $11 million paid out by the defendants
because of the lies he told them.

"Those E-Cat boxes weren't filled with magic," he told jurors. "They were
simply filled with lies."

The trial, which got off to a rocky start after the first jury was
dismissed Thursday, is slated to last five weeks.

Leonardo and Rossi are represented by John W. Annesser, Brian Chaiken and
D. Porpoise Evans of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL.

The defendants are represented by Christopher R.J. Pace, Christopher M.
Lomax and Christina Mastrucci of Jones Day.

The case is Andrea Rossi et al. v. Thomas Darden et al., case number
1:16-cv-21199, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

[Vo]:Re: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th

[Frank Znidarsic]

Energy , cold Fusion, and Antigravity I can't give it away.  There is no 
interest on anyone's part.


Parrot Teacher is again #2 in sales.


https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/mobile-apps/9408731011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_mas_1_3_last




That is telling.


Frank Znidarsic



-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: fznidarsic ; vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Jul 2, 2017 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th





Free Book Promotion


July 3, 2017
July 5, 2017
Scheduled




-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Jun 27, 2017 9:29 am
Subject: Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th



Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity will be free July 4th





https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Fusion-Antigravity-Znidarsic-Science-ebook/dp/B00AD6ARD6/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8




Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

Why does it matter that this was NOT electrolysis?

Didn't Arrata load up his cells with pycnodeuterium and no power input?

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at
>> http://restframe.com/
>>
>>
>> Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does
>> understand how the metalized hydride behaves.
>>
>> Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal is a
>> tachyon.
>>
>
>
> How can time -- motion, that is -- have a 'negative' aspect..?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric:
I notice that you didn't bother to address my example.   Twice, now.
Readers will be the judge of your moderating capabilities.

You claim that by giving Mary the boot you'd be editorializing the content
but you're already editorializing the content by coming down hard on only
one side of the insults.   Readers will be the judge

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>>
>> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
>> thread.
>
>
> Here are some of your posts that were moved; readers will be the judge of
> how much value you added to the conversation in posting them, and how much
> they simply served to needlessly make the place a little more toxic:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62695#post62695
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62652#post62652
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62662#post62662
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62674#post62674
>
> Once I saw that you were in full-on attack mode, I began to move your
> posts to the bargain bin with prejudice, in order to avoid allowing the
> place to devolve into the war that you sought to bring about.
>
> And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been moved to
>> another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>
>
> How about these two notices?  The first in the bargain bin thread, where
> everyone but you will have known to look, and the second in the thread
> where you were posting your belligerent stuff:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62688#post62688
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-
> darden-developments-part-2/?postID=62696#post62696
>
>
>> You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
>> notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.
>
>
> Hopefully we’ve cleared up this misconception.
>
> You say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as
>> a result.
>>
>> Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
>> another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
>> what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
>> quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
>> post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
>> notice.
>>
>> Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even knowing
>> about it.
>
>
> You were given a request and then a warning, as I said above.  You were on
> a roll, and if you were allowed to continue, you would have brought the
> conversation down a notch, which you did, while you were in your zone.
>
>
>> Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults
>> over to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with
>> the insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.
>> I did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.
>
>
> Part of your difficulty may be that you’re willing to escalate what you
> perceive to be subtle slights into a full-blown brawl.  Subtle slights that
> don’t use foul language have a much easier time making it through than
> full-on ad homs with crass language.
>
> You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for
>> 2 years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone
>> upthread tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his claim.   For a
>> lawyer, he sure missed quite a few legal points.
>
>
> My perception, and it’s just my perception, is that he knows something
> about the law from years of experience practicing it.  That does count for
> something.
>
> Mary Yugo isn't even a woman.   He got booted rightfully so from this
>> forum and he/she's trolling yours.   If you had wisdom you'd remove her/it
>> from your forum as well.
>
>
> In giving Mary the boot, we would be editorializing the content.
>
>
>> You should just admit that you made a mistake and hope that vorts will
>> want to head on over to your discussion.
>
>
> I’m quite happy with my treatment of you, as it's kept the level of
> conversation over at LENR Forum from taking a dive as a consequence of your
> belligerent interactions, and you’re still on probation.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>>
>> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
>> thread.   And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been
>> moved to another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>>   You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
>> notification onthread until 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric:

Of COURSE you're happy with your own moderating because you are so
one-sided at the approach.

You have a perception of someone who claims to be a lawyer who has missed
at least 2 major aspects of the law with respect to this case.  You have a
one-sided perception.   HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE INSULTS.  But you
put ME on probation.   That says volumes about your moderating ability.

You say I was given a request on a side thread, and then a warning AFTER I
WAS PUT ON PROBATION.   Your approach is completely screwed up.


Here is the latest.   Someone says I post a lie even though it was Rossi
who posted it.   When are you going to put a stop to the bullshit that you
have power to stop?

Dewey Weaver wrote:


Kevmo - not going to let you get away with the Rossi IP license buyout
offer mention - that is yet another lie and it did not happen.


Regarding your other non-stop creative Planet Rossi inference pattern- do
you think that your "Rossi realization" scenario included getting caught
claiming that an empty reactor was generating as much excess heat output as
a "loaded reactor"?

Dewey: It has been shown upthread that Rossi claimed to offer the IP
buyout. It may be a Rossi lie but it IS a claim on his blog, along with
other bloviating claims that many of us would like to see addressed. So
quit calling it a lie unless you can prove that Rossi did not claim it.


The moderators of this forum preclude me from responding to your "loaded
insults" so I would suggest you quit posting them.




On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Eric, you're completely full of shit.
>>
>> The example I posted wasn't even an insult and it was moved to some other
>> thread.
>
>
> Here are some of your posts that were moved; readers will be the judge of
> how much value you added to the conversation in posting them, and how much
> they simply served to needlessly make the place a little more toxic:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62695#post62695
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62652#post62652
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62662#post62662
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62674#post62674
>
> Once I saw that you were in full-on attack mode, I began to move your
> posts to the bargain bin with prejudice, in order to avoid allowing the
> place to devolve into the war that you sought to bring about.
>
> And NO, you are NOT giving notice that certain posts have been moved to
>> another thread.   NOT EVEN ONE of my posts had that notification.
>
>
> How about these two notices?  The first in the bargain bin thread, where
> everyone but you will have known to look, and the second in the thread
> where you were posting your belligerent stuff:
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-
> items/?postID=62688#post62688
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-
> darden-developments-part-2/?postID=62696#post62696
>
>
>> You're so concerned about spam that it goes down to NOT EVEN ONE
>> notification onthread until you're getting questioned about it.
>
>
> Hopefully we’ve cleared up this misconception.
>
> You say it was a judgement call; your judgement is called into question as
>> a result.
>>
>> Some of this stuff is so simple.   I've seen comments that were moved to
>> another thread but they had already been quoted.   So what you could do...
>> what you should do... what I would do with your capabilities...   is just
>> quote the comment, remove the offending remarks and say that the original
>> post was moved to the timeout/penalty box thread.Then everyone is on
>> notice.
>>
>> Instead you prefer to put people on "probation" without them even knowing
>> about it.
>
>
> You were given a request and then a warning, as I said above.  You were on
> a roll, and if you were allowed to continue, you would have brought the
> conversation down a notch, which you did, while you were in your zone.
>
>
>> Also, if you're going to be sending some comments that contain insults
>> over to other threads then you should start with the guy who starts with
>> the insults.   Your treatment of the issue has been completely one-sided.
>> I did not start with the insults against the lawyer, he started in on me.
>
>
> Part of your difficulty may be that you’re willing to escalate what you
> perceive to be subtle slights into a full-blown brawl.  Subtle slights that
> don’t use foul language have a much easier time making it through than
> full-on ad homs with crass language.
>
> You value the newbie lawyer over someone like me who's been signed on for
>> 2 years because, well, he claims to be a lawyer even though someone
>> upthread tried to dox him and question the legitimacy of his 

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at
> http://restframe.com/
>
>
> Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does
> understand how the metalized hydride behaves.
>
> Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal is a
> tachyon.
>


How can time -- motion, that is -- have a 'negative' aspect..?

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

I am not sure why there being no advantage for deuterium means that this 
was not cold fusion.  If there was a fusion process in these situations 
that started with protons then would this also not be cold fusion?  
Given that we are in a territory that is far removed from the standard 
plasma conditions where the orthodox rules for fusion were forged, I 
think we cannot rule out the possibility that there could be proton 
based fusion options.


Nigel

On 03/07/2017 02:03, Jones Beene wrote:
these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or both 
and there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold fusion

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

more...

In the proton 21 case, no hydrogen is present. So the perplexing thing for
me to understand is that both nanowires and metalized hydrogen look and
perform identically in these emission studies.


In order to preface Keith Fredericks' video, a proviso is offered. In order
to get the monopole magnetic property of the nanoparticle to express
itself, a PT (parity-time symmetry breaking) state change is required.


In other works, the nanoparticle does not follow time symmetry after the
state change. This could be the reason why it looks like it is going
backward in time.


For example, the nanoparticle behaves like the positron that looks like an
electron that has suffered a PT state change and therefore  acts like an
electron  going backward in time.



ICCF-18 : Keith Fredericks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRKblAn8lLI

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> Holmlid has explained that metalized hydrogen is a superatom where the
> positive charge carriers are located in the center of the crystal and the
> negative charged carriers are located in a cloud orbiting around the
> positive center.
>
>
>
>
> This metalized structure is an example of HOLE superconductivity. Protons
> are the holes and they are superconducting.
>
>
> Particle tracks produced by LENR ash show a strange type of particle that
> looks to me like metalized hydrogen particles charged up with and carrying
> a large about of energy,
>
>
>
> The photos of this metalized crystal in X-ray photo emulsions show what is
> going on. A handful of people or groups that I know of have done research
> on this metalized hydride but they might have not understood what the
> particle that they were seeing actually was.
>
>
>
> These groups were the guys describing the monopole, the AIRBUS guys,
> Leonid Urutskoev, and the Proton 21 people.
>
>
> IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at
> http://restframe.com/
>
>
> Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does
> understand how the metalized hydride behaves.
>
> Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal is a
> tachyon.
>
>
> This tachyon is a very energy intensive analog particle that acts like a
> synthetic monopole. Keith has captured the paths of these particles as they
> ionize photo emulsion chemicals. From this method, he has detected the
> magnetic and energy content of these analog particles.
>
>
>
> I have continually explained how duality in physics works; metalized
> hydrides behave like a tachyon. There is an entire field in string theory
> that predicts what a tachyon will do. One feature of its behavior is
> Hadronization where energy is converted into mesons.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization
>
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/
>
>
>
> What Holmlid has built might be a quasiparticle of metallized hydrogen
> that looks like and behaves just like a tachyon is projected to behave in
> string theory.
>
>
> Keith has calculated that the energy carried by these strange particles is
> huge at 7.29 × 10e6 GeV /c2 and with a magnetic field of β0 = 1.83 × 10e7
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> In the early days of cold fusion (early 1990s) there were dozens of
>> papers on so-called "low energy emissions" which happened merely from
>> loading or exposure of hydrogen to both nickel and palladium - and often
>> with no other input power being used.
>>
>> This was NOT electrolysis. Many of the papers originated in India or
>> Italy and few from the USA. The testing was done using x-ray film, often
>> the kind used by dentists and the result is a foggy film known as an
>> "autoradiograph". In fact, the radioactive properties of Uranium were first
>> discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel using fogging of film, in a very
>> similar way.
>>
>> Various filters can be used to estimate the energy of the emission -
>> which is called "low energy" in many of the papers, but it was in the soft
>> x-ray range of 500 eV to 10 keV. These photons are far from low energy
>> compared to visible light and are only "low" compared to gammas.
>>
>> The upper end of this range is where tritium decay occurs, and based on
>> that and the estimated half-life of exposed metal - some of the old papers
>> conclude that tritium was being produced from light water and nickel, which
>> is most unlikely given the lack of a suitable mechanism for tritium.
>>
>> Names of experimenters are Focardi, Piantelli, Srinivasan,
>> Sankaranarayanan, Notoya, Rout and others.
>>
>> BTW - these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or
>> both and there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold fusion
>> per se. For instance, "Copious low energy emissions from Palladium loaded
>> with hydrogen or deuterium," Indian Journal of Technology, 29, 5071, (1991)
>> Rout et al. At least one paper got picked 

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid has explained that metalized hydrogen is a superatom where the
positive charge carriers are located in the center of the crystal and the
negative charged carriers are located in a cloud orbiting around the
positive center.




This metalized structure is an example of HOLE superconductivity. Protons
are the holes and they are superconducting.


Particle tracks produced by LENR ash show a strange type of particle that
looks to me like metalized hydrogen particles charged up with and carrying
a large about of energy,



The photos of this metalized crystal in X-ray photo emulsions show what is
going on. A handful of people or groups that I know of have done research
on this metalized hydride but they might have not understood what the
particle that they were seeing actually was.



These groups were the guys describing the monopole, the AIRBUS guys, Leonid
Urutskoev, and the Proton 21 people.


IMHO, the person who has done the best work is Keith A. Fredericks at
http://restframe.com/


Keith does not know what he is seeing has comes about, but he does
understand how the metalized hydride behaves.

Keith thinks that the energy loaded metalized hydride crystal is a tachyon.


This tachyon is a very energy intensive analog particle that acts like a
synthetic monopole. Keith has captured the paths of these particles as they
ionize photo emulsion chemicals. From this method, he has detected the
magnetic and energy content of these analog particles.



I have continually explained how duality in physics works; metalized
hydrides behave like a tachyon. There is an entire field in string theory
that predicts what a tachyon will do. One feature of its behavior is
Hadronization where energy is converted into mesons.


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



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-known-about-tachy/



What Holmlid has built might be a quasiparticle of metallized hydrogen that
looks like and behaves just like a tachyon is projected to behave in string
theory.


Keith has calculated that the energy carried by these strange particles is
huge at 7.29 × 10e6 GeV /c2 and with a magnetic field of β0 = 1.83 × 10e7

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> In the early days of cold fusion (early 1990s) there were dozens of papers
> on so-called "low energy emissions" which happened merely from loading or
> exposure of hydrogen to both nickel and palladium - and often with no other
> input power being used.
>
> This was NOT electrolysis. Many of the papers originated in India or Italy
> and few from the USA. The testing was done using x-ray film, often the kind
> used by dentists and the result is a foggy film known as an
> "autoradiograph". In fact, the radioactive properties of Uranium were first
> discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel using fogging of film, in a very
> similar way.
>
> Various filters can be used to estimate the energy of the emission - which
> is called "low energy" in many of the papers, but it was in the soft x-ray
> range of 500 eV to 10 keV. These photons are far from low energy compared
> to visible light and are only "low" compared to gammas.
>
> The upper end of this range is where tritium decay occurs, and based on
> that and the estimated half-life of exposed metal - some of the old papers
> conclude that tritium was being produced from light water and nickel, which
> is most unlikely given the lack of a suitable mechanism for tritium.
>
> Names of experimenters are Focardi, Piantelli, Srinivasan,
> Sankaranarayanan, Notoya, Rout and others.
>
> BTW - these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or both
> and there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold fusion per
> se. For instance, "Copious low energy emissions from Palladium loaded with
> hydrogen or deuterium," Indian Journal of Technology, 29, 5071, (1991) Rout
> et al. At least one paper got picked up by Fusion Technology.
>
> It is too bad that this niche was not pursued further to determine the
> mechanism of the soft x-rays and to attempt scale-up. In retrospect, the
> implications of this kind of energetic radiation happening from mere
> exposure of metal to hydrogen, and with zero added power should have gotten
> more people excited than it did. For those of us who are revisiting this
> niche in light of what Holmlid has (more recently) reported - it is very
> exciting... since Holmlid has a viable theory and identification of the
> species responsible.
>
> In short, this niche of relatively energetic photons occurring
> spontaneously, with no power applied other than pumping the H2 gas, may
> represent a more commercializable result than actual fusion since the
> radiation is easily shielded, and especially since it was said to be 100%
> reproducible at the time. If Holmlid is correct, the ash could be the most
> valuable part of the process.
>
>
>