Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[Axil Axil]

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2754156A2/en

The useful metals, as described in WO2010058288, can be Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn,
Fe, Co, Ni, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, Sn, Sb, Te,
Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Hf, Ta,
W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, Th, U, Pu and transuranic metals, an alloy or, more
in general, a mixture of two or more than two of the above listed metals.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:45 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> From the piantelli patent, just about any transition metal will support
> the LENR reaction.
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:15 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>> If one subscribes to a Millsean approach, palladium is somewhat unique In
>> the Periodic Table in that it is relatively non-reactive with oxygen or
>> other oxidants while having an ionization potential which is near the first
>> Rydberg level at 27.2 eV. Nickel alone has no such “entry level” Rydberg
>> value …
>>
>>
>>
>> The four other metal substitutes for Pd at the first Rydberg level are
>> Mo, Zn, Cu and Cs – and all of them plus bare protons have assorted
>> chemical reactivity problems meeting requirements for catalyzing the first
>> drop in orbital according to Mills.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is according to my older version of his theory which may have
>> changed. Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also  qualify as self-catalytic but
>> they are usually too reactive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any of these metals would be interesting as a catalyst substitute for
>> expensive palladium – but all are relatively reactive in ways which could
>> quench the effect. The best realistic catalytic fit is molybdenum and as an
>> inexpensive di-sulfide it would be interesting to try. It is commonly
>> available as a lubricant and relatively unreactive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Nicholas Cafarelli 
>>
>>
>>
>> Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.
>>
>>
>>
>> What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel
>> rod after the tap water treatment?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this an example of simplication?  Simplification through elimination.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:ni and ca

[Axil Axil]

>From the piantelli patent, just about any transition metal will support the
LENR reaction.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:15 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> If one subscribes to a Millsean approach, palladium is somewhat unique In
> the Periodic Table in that it is relatively non-reactive with oxygen or
> other oxidants while having an ionization potential which is near the first
> Rydberg level at 27.2 eV. Nickel alone has no such “entry level” Rydberg
> value …
>
>
>
> The four other metal substitutes for Pd at the first Rydberg level are Mo,
> Zn, Cu and Cs – and all of them plus bare protons have assorted chemical
> reactivity problems meeting requirements for catalyzing the first drop in
> orbital according to Mills.
>
>
>
> This is according to my older version of his theory which may have
> changed. Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also  qualify as self-catalytic but
> they are usually too reactive.
>
>
>
> Any of these metals would be interesting as a catalyst substitute for
> expensive palladium – but all are relatively reactive in ways which could
> quench the effect. The best realistic catalytic fit is molybdenum and as an
> inexpensive di-sulfide it would be interesting to try. It is commonly
> available as a lubricant and relatively unreactive.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Nicholas Cafarelli 
>
>
>
> Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.
>
>
>
> What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel rod
> after the tap water treatment?
>
>
>
> Is this an example of simplication?  Simplification through elimination.
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:ni and ca

[JonesBeene]

If one subscribes to a Millsean approach, palladium is somewhat unique In the 
Periodic Table in that it is relatively non-reactive with oxygen or other 
oxidants while having an ionization potential which is near the first Rydberg 
level at 27.2 eV. Nickel alone has no such “entry level” Rydberg value …

The four other metal substitutes for Pd at the first Rydberg level are Mo, Zn, 
Cu and Cs – and all of them plus bare protons have assorted chemical reactivity 
problems meeting requirements for catalyzing the first drop in orbital 
according to Mills. 

This is according to my older version of his theory which may have changed. 
Hydrogen ions (bare protons) also  qualify as self-catalytic but they are 
usually too reactive.

Any of these metals would be interesting as a catalyst substitute for expensive 
palladium – but all are relatively reactive in ways which could quench the 
effect. The best realistic catalytic fit is molybdenum and as an inexpensive 
di-sulfide it would be interesting to try. It is commonly available as a 
lubricant and relatively unreactive.  


From: Nicholas Cafarelli

Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.

What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel rod 
after the tap water treatment?

Is this an example of simplication?  Simplification through elimination.

Re: [Vo]:niandca

[Axil Axil]

Consider this resent post

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.04876

Excitation of multiple surface plasmon-polaritons(SPPs) by an equichiral
sculptured thin film
with a metal layer defect was studied theoretically in the Sarid
configuration, using the
transfer matrix method. Multiple SPP modes were distinguished from
waveguide modes in
optical absorption for p- polarized plane wave. The degree of localization
of multiple SPP
waves was investigated by calculation of the time averaged Poynting vector.
*The resultsshowed that the long-range and short-range SPP waves can
simultaneously be excited at both interfaces of metal core in this proposed
structure which may be used in a broad range of sensing applications.*

When multiple dissimilar metal layers are uses to form Surface Plasmon
Polaritons(SPP), each separate layer generates it own unique polariton SPP
waveform. This could possibly means that the number of polaritons is
multiplied by the number of metal layers used.

I wonder is a mush using multiple micro layers of nickel, palladium, and
titanium would produce three times the polariton population.

If the LENR reaction is only based solely on plasmon production, a another
soft metal coating on the nickel mesh might also work in the R20 that
includes silver, aluminum, copper, gallium and so on.


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:04 PM Nicholas Cafarelli  wrote:

> Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.
>
> What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel rod
> after the tap water treatment?
>
> Is this an example of simplication?  Simplification through elimination.
>
> --
> anyc.xyz
>
> That 21st Century Male Torch Singer at your service.
>
> [image: Mailtrack]
> 
>  Sender
> notified by
> Mailtrack
> 
>  08/02/19,
> 08:02:18 PM
>

[Vo]:niandca

[Nicholas Cafarelli]

Recent posts make me wonder if the Palladium is required.

What would happen if the Nickel mesh were only burnished with a Nickel rod
after the tap water treatment?

Is this an example of simplication?  Simplification through elimination.

-- 
anyc.xyz

That 21st Century Male Torch Singer at your service.

[image: Mailtrack]

Sender
notified by
Mailtrack

08/02/19,
08:02:18 PM

Re: [Vo]:A result that puzzles theorists

[Axil Axil]

How does air fit in and in general how do LENR poisons defeat the LENR
reaction?

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:09 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Light In solid matter couples to the SO(4) 1FC  orbit. As this adds mass
> the radius of the orbits expands. A more fine effect is the small change in
> charge that may happen due to more mass moving on a larger orbit.
> The above orbits are all electron orbits and thus adding mass makes the
> electron a bit more repulsive.
>
> Jürg Wyttebach
>
>
> Am 02.08.19 um 23:16 schrieb Axil Axil:
>
>
>
> *https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/88
>  Focus: Light Seems to Pull
> Electrons Backward*
>
>
> *Light hitting a metal surface at an angle sends the electrons moving in
> the direction opposite to the light, a result that puzzles theorists. *
>
> The interaction of light with electrons will produce polaritons.
> Polaritons have negative mass. The light gives electrons negative mass so
> they move in the negative direction from the force imparted on them by the
> light.
>
> But when the light interacts with air which is mostly nitrogen, polaritons
> are not formed and the light imposes a force in which the electrons move in
> the direction positive to the force imparted by the light.
>
> There is a lessen here to be learned by LENR engineering. Air is a LENR
> poison. Polaritons on a metal surface will not form when exposed to
> nitrogen.
>
> Freedom from surface contamination on a LENR active metal surface must be
> perfect for the LENR reaction to occur. Any poison on that surface will
> destroy the plasmonic reaction that brings forth polaritons.
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:FW: coherent system energy states

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:52:00
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]

Have you found any evidence that gamma ray emitters don't emit gamma rays when
the nucleus emitting the gamma ray is incoporated in a semi-conductor crystal? 

Note that absorbtion of external gamma rays by semi-conductors, that then
convert the gamma energy into other forms is very inefficient (2%)*, which is
something I would not expect if the lattice as a whole were absorbing the
energy. (Of course you may argue that since the source of the gamma in this case
is external, the nucleus from which it was emitted had no opportunity to couple
with the lattice. Hence my question above.

* See e.g.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330650579_Direct_Energy_Conversion_From_Gamma_Ray_to_Electricity_Using_Silicon_Semiconductor_Cells


As I understand it, an external gamma ray is usually at least partly absorbed by
an atomic electron, which results in the atom being ionized, and the electron
leaving with at least some of the energy of the gamma. The electron may then in
turn ionize other atoms. The net result is lots of ionized atoms and free
electrons.

If those free electons are anywhere other than in the junction of a diode, then
their energy will eventually be converted to heat when they recombine with the
ions. Even those electrons that are in the junction will lose some of their
energy to electrical resistance. Given that the junction is usually only a small
part of a semi-conductor diode, the overall efficiency may be expected to be
low, as seen in the paper quoted here above.


>ANSWERS:
>
>
>  1.  A  coherent system is adiabatic system of energy, including local 
> packets of energy—electrons positrons and neutrinos---that are coupled by a 
> EM field that responds very quickly (less than 10e-30mseconds) to energy 
> additions or losses by changing he special relation of the energy packets.  A 
> good example is a semi conductor crystal that absorbs an electron packet of 
> energy and very quickly changes the allowable energy state of conduction  
> electrons.  There is no apparent delay associated with the allowed energy 
> state across the macroscopic rang of the semi conductor.  Systems which 
> harbor phonic energy are coherent systems, since the lattice acts as a whole 
> without any time dely.
>
>The energy of the coherent system is constrained by  small quanta of energy 
>and angular momentum in accordance with Planck’s theory of quantized energy 
>and quantized angular momentum.  In addition the coherent system will adjust 
>the relative positions of energy packets to increase their relative motions 
>(kinetic energies) and reduce their total potential energy increasing entropy 
>per the second law of thermodynamics..
>
>
>  1.  As noted above the coherent system is coupled by EM fields—primarily 
> magnetic fields that connect electron orbital angular momentum with nuclear 
> angular momentum, including energy packet intrinsic spin  angular momentum 
> which  reflects the magnetic moment associated with those packets of energy.
>
>
>
>  1.  There is no gamma emission within the coherent system—only instanteous 
> changes of  angular momentum  and/or energy between between locations within 
> the coherent system.  (Later in time adjacent coherent systems may conduct 
> heat between them selves via radiant EM coupling or other coupling involving 
> phonic energy changes of the original coherent system.  Too much phonic 
> energy will destroy the lattice of the system in question.
>
>
>
>Bob Cook
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:A result that puzzles theorists

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Light In solid matter couples to the SO(4) 1FC  orbit. As this adds mass 
the radius of the orbits expands. A more fine effect is the small change 
in charge that may happen due to more mass moving on a larger orbit.
The above orbits are all electron orbits and thus adding mass makes the 
electron a bit more repulsive.


Jürg Wyttebach


Am 02.08.19 um 23:16 schrieb Axil Axil:

*https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/88

Focus: Light Seems to Pull Electrons Backward*

/Light hitting a metal surface at an angle sends the electrons moving 
in the direction opposite to the light, a result that puzzles theorists.

/

The interaction of light with electrons will produce polaritons. 
Polaritons have negative mass. The light gives electrons negative mass 
so they move in the negative direction from the force imparted on them 
by the light.


But when the light interacts with air which is mostly nitrogen, 
polaritons are not formed and the light imposes a force in which the 
electrons move in the direction positive to the force imparted by the 
light.


There is a lessen here to be learned by LENR engineering. Air is a 
LENR poison. Polaritons on a metal surface will not form when exposed 
to nitrogen.


Freedom from surface contamination on a LENR active metal surface must 
be perfect for the LENR reaction to occur. Any poison on that surface 
will destroy the plasmonic reaction that brings forth polaritons.



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:A result that puzzles theorists

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.au.dk/typo3temp/_processed_/csm_JedrzejFarnes-000_b58a3aadf2.png

How negative mass reacts to an applied force:

[image: image.png]

There is a lessen here to be learned by LENR engineering in general and
more specifically for the Mizuno replicators. Air is a LENR poison.
Polaritons on a metal surface will not form when exposed to nitrogen.

Freedom from surface contamination on a LENR active metal surface must be
perfect for the LENR reaction to occur. Any poison on that LENR surface
will destroy the plasmonic reaction that brings forth polaritons.

There is another lesson to be drawn here.

Rossi loads his reactor with fuel. That fuel has polaritons based EVOs
pre-formed on the surfaces of the fuel particles.

This is the difference between a LENR reaction in which polariton EVOs form
in parallel with  LENR heat production as it begins and a reaction when the
EVOs are produced and seeded before the reaction begins.

Rossi can pre-load fuel into his reactor in the presence of air before
reactor initiation with no ill effects to the LENR reaction, whereas Mizuno
must completely purge his reactor of air before reaction startup.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:16 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>
> *https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/88
> Focus: Light Seems to Pull
> Electrons Backward*
>
>
> *Light hitting a metal surface at an angle sends the electrons moving in
> the direction opposite to the light, a result that puzzles theorists.*
>
> The interaction of light with electrons will produce polaritons.
> Polaritons have negative mass. The light gives electrons negative mass so
> they move in the negative direction from the force imparted on them by the
> light.
>
> But when the light interacts with air which is mostly nitrogen, polaritons
> are not formed and the light imposes a force in which the electrons move in
> the direction positive to the force imparted by the light.
>
> There is a lessen here to be learned by LENR engineering. Air is a LENR
> poison. Polaritons on a metal surface will not form when exposed to
> nitrogen.
>
> Freedom from surface contamination on a LENR active metal surface must be
> perfect for the LENR reaction to occur. Any poison on that surface will
> destroy the plasmonic reaction that brings forth polaritons.
>

[Vo]:A result that puzzles theorists

[Axil Axil]

*https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/88
Focus: Light Seems to Pull
Electrons Backward*


*Light hitting a metal surface at an angle sends the electrons moving in
the direction opposite to the light, a result that puzzles theorists.*

The interaction of light with electrons will produce polaritons. Polaritons
have negative mass. The light gives electrons negative mass so they move in
the negative direction from the force imparted on them by the light.

But when the light interacts with air which is mostly nitrogen, polaritons
are not formed and the light imposes a force in which the electrons move in
the direction positive to the force imparted by the light.

There is a lessen here to be learned by LENR engineering. Air is a LENR
poison. Polaritons on a metal surface will not form when exposed to
nitrogen.

Freedom from surface contamination on a LENR active metal surface must be
perfect for the LENR reaction to occur. Any poison on that surface will
destroy the plasmonic reaction that brings forth polaritons.

RE: [Vo]:Patterson (James), Mizuno and the nano-gods

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

It took the AEC/Navy in the 1940’s about 4 years to produce a full scale 
prototype reactor for a nuclear sub that went to sea in the early 1950’s

No Poniznuc issues then and only one prototype reactor.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 6:17:13 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Patterson (James), Mizuno and the nano-gods

Years ago (~25) the trendiest technological breakthrough in LENR was the 
microbeads of James Patterson.

There is some similarity in assessing that episode to the present case of 
Mizuno, even as  we are anticipating  a better outcome. Here is a poorly 
written Wiki page on the topic:

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

Which gives way too much credit to the skeptics. Patterson was doing nano 
before nano became cool, as they say … ahead of the world-changing advancements 
that nanotechnology now seems to be  opening up (even though we are not there 
yet). There is little doubt that he had strong gain at times but could not 
reproduce it himself. Moreover, Patterson  was secretive, and failed to grasp 
the operative mechanism of his own technique.

Possibly there was a simple detail which went overlooked… like a tap water 
rinse.

In retrospect – and assuming Mizuno is replicated – the moral to the story 
could be this – drop the secrecy, drop the vanity and greed, and let others 
have full and complete understanding of the anomaly you have found.  In the 
Patterson CETI cell, it could very easily have been the case that there was the 
same overlooked detail like calcite, which went unnoticed.

Moreover, even today with the benefit of several decades of mixed results in 
LENR  there could easily be another key ingredient besides or in addition to 
the those which are obvious -  which Mizuno is/was not completely aware of – 
even now.  There was way too much secrecy back then in the Patterson era – and 
millions went unclaimed because of what can be best described as a failure to 
see the big picture, Mizuno, to his credit sees the big picture and yet there 
may  still be  annoying details out there which are lurking.

It seems that in the nano world, the nano-god giveth and the nano-god taketh 
way… meaning that something as simple as going from 100 nm in thickness down to 
30 nm is the difference between no gain and large gain.

The recent video from DeNeum in Estonia of all places, is the type of thing 
which could really make a difference if it turns out to be even half as robust 
as the Mizuno efforts. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a good vid is 
worth 100,000.

In fact, perhaps that video will spur many more of them along the way towards 
eventual success – and especially from Master Mizuno himself.

Jones

[Vo]:Patterson (James), Mizuno and the nano-gods

[JonesBeene]

Years ago (~25) the trendiest technological breakthrough in LENR was the 
microbeads of James Patterson.

There is some similarity in assessing that episode to the present case of 
Mizuno, even as  we are anticipating  a better outcome. Here is a poorly 
written Wiki page on the topic:

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

Which gives way too much credit to the skeptics. Patterson was doing nano 
before nano became cool, as they say … ahead of the world-changing advancements 
that nanotechnology now seems to be  opening up (even though we are not there 
yet). There is little doubt that he had strong gain at times but could not 
reproduce it himself. Moreover, Patterson  was secretive, and failed to grasp 
the operative mechanism of his own technique. 

Possibly there was a simple detail which went overlooked… like a tap water 
rinse.

In retrospect – and assuming Mizuno is replicated – the moral to the story 
could be this – drop the secrecy, drop the vanity and greed, and let others 
have full and complete understanding of the anomaly you have found.  In the 
Patterson CETI cell, it could very easily have been the case that there was the 
same overlooked detail like calcite, which went unnoticed. 

Moreover, even today with the benefit of several decades of mixed results in 
LENR  there could easily be another key ingredient besides or in addition to 
the those which are obvious -  which Mizuno is/was not completely aware of – 
even now.  There was way too much secrecy back then in the Patterson era – and 
millions went unclaimed because of what can be best described as a failure to 
see the big picture, Mizuno, to his credit sees the big picture and yet there 
may  still be  annoying details out there which are lurking.

 It seems that in the nano world, the nano-god giveth and the nano-god taketh 
way… meaning that something as simple as going from 100 nm in thickness down to 
30 nm is the difference between no gain and large gain.

The recent video from DeNeum in Estonia of all places, is the type of thing 
which could really make a difference if it turns out to be even half as robust 
as the Mizuno efforts. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a good vid is 
worth 100,000.

In fact, perhaps that video will spur many more of them along the way towards 
eventual success – and especially from Master Mizuno himself.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Fwd: Motley Fool: Lockheed Martin Doubles Down on Cold Fusion

[russ.george]

They should be called 'PonziMacs'

 

From: Brian Ahern  
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Motley Fool: Lockheed Martin Doubles Down on Cold
Fusion

 

The scaling laws make tokomacs impossible.

 

  _  

From: David L. Babcock mailto:olb...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Motley Fool: Lockheed Martin Doubles Down on Cold
Fusion 

 

"Cold fusion".  Gah!  Requires a very hot -magnetic confinement!- plasma.
Someone at LM is an idiot.

 

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:07 PM Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

-- Forwarded message -
From: Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com> >
Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Motley Fool: Lockheed Martin Doubles Down on Cold Fusion
To: Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com> >

 

Motley Fool: Lockheed Martin Doubles Down on Cold Fusion.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/07/29/lockheed-martin-doubles-down-on-co
ld-fusion.aspx