Re: [Vo]:ARPA-E announces funding for 8 cold fusion projects-added comments

[Brian Ahern]

bob cook: I admire you suggestions of magnetism and Pd.
I have much data to support your id\
 Brian  Ahern   Acton MA

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:ARPA-E announces funding for 8 cold fusion projects-added 
comments


  1.  Coupling in the LENR Pd grains is by the magnetic field present 
throughout the entangled grains of Pd-D.
  2.  Spin energy and related angular momentum  can only exist in   multiple 
quanta of  spin—h/2pi.  (Planck made this observation in the 19th century.  )
  3.  Space may also be quantized at the Planck constant scale—10-35 meters. 
–foam-like space intrinsically endowed with a constant magnetic permeability.
  4.  3-d cubic dimensions merge into 1-d spherical space at this small scale.





Quantum Magazine addresses this geometric weirdness in a paper by computer 
scientists earlier  this month.



https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-complete-quest-to-build-spherical-cubes-20230210/



AND



https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-field-theory-pries-open-mathematical-puzzle-20230216/?mc_cid=e8e39e38e1_eid=1c22739553





Bob Cook





From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2023 11:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Andrew 
Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ARPA-E announces funding for 8 cold fusion projects



Jed,



Do we get a chance to see what other projects were proposed (at least titles)? 
It may be that these eight were the best of a poor selection.



On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:04 AM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I put this DoE announcement in the LENR-CANR.org News section. Today I added 
this somewhat pessimistic note:



Some cold fusion researchers feel that these eight projects were poorly chosen. 
The goals are framed as if cold fusion is the same as plasma fusion. People 
made this mistake in 1989. For example, several projects focus on neutrons. The 
first one says, “University of Michigan will provide capability to measure 
hypothetical neutron, gamma, and ion emissions from LENR experiments.” Some 
cold fusion experiments have produced neutrons, but most do not. It seems 
likely that neutrons are a secondary effect with a prosaic cause such as 
fractofusion, rather than being a primary signature of the reaction. Excess 
heat correlated with helium, or tritium production, can occur without neutrons, 
so looking for neutrons is not a fruitful way to detect or analyze a cold 
fusion reaction.

Re: [Vo]:Another Scientific Paper

[Brian Ahern]

Jeffs

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 27, 2021, at 7:38 PM, Robin  wrote:
> 
> In reply to  MSF's message of Mon, 27 Dec 2021 22:53:55 +:
> Hi,
> 
> Just guess, but suppose that the parasites were never really a problem, but 
> rather viruses carried by the parasites?
> Ivermectin may always have been an anti-viral, but no one new it because they 
> thought it was fighting the parasite
> rather than a virus carried by the parasite?
> 
> 
> 
>> This is a paper published on the NIH's own website, whereupon they are 
>> baffled why the African nations participating in the APOC program have a 
>> much lower covid problem than the non-APOC nations.
>> 
>> They are shocked, do you hear, shocked that those treated with ivermectin 
>> don't seem to get as much covid.
>> 
>> Here's the link.
>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC7968425%2Fdata=04%7C01%7C%7Ccf70764e6a0247ed354208d9c99a5f24%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637762487127452668%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000sdata=2TfopnAeG5SoKiw8kyi65DdKFFfyajF26TFtWf9LUmc%3Dreserved=0
>> 
>> Hope they don't don't take this one down. I'm telling you, it's an enigma. 
>> Those geniuses just can't figure it out.
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Brian Ahern]

This is just a variant of TRIBOLUMINESCENCE.

From: H LV 
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spacecraft of the Future Could Be Powered By Lattice 
Confinement Fusion


Remember 10-12 years ago the buzz around x-rays from peeling tape?
https://youtu.be/r63e5y3Z3R8
If this way of generating x-rays could be harnessed it would make this lattice 
confinement fusion more economical.

Harry


On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:56 AM Jack Cole 
mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is also hard to not see some parallels with our last experiments (2016) with 
TiH2, nickel sheets, and light.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:58 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Ha! The new and improved new wording is interesting in a semantic sense... but 
get real...

Of course it is the demon cold fusion, but now we can pivot around that stigma 
and instead present it all in on a different geometry... very little changes 
but the word salad.

IOW it is the same old cold fusion (of P/F) that we know and lover ... no 
substantial difference at all... but now we differentiate so that it is very 
hot at the femtoscale and warm everywhere else... exactly like it has been for 
the past 31 years when the perspective is the much larger dimensional frame of 
reference.

I think Larry Forsley must be getting a big laugh out of this  :-)




On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 7:31:16 PM PDT, Jack Cole 
mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


They are careful to say it's not CF.  Sure seems like it originated in CF 
methods.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fusiontokamak-not-included

Re: [Vo]:"If you don't know say I don't know."

[Brian Ahern]

I know with unshakable confidence,

A copper bracelet will immunize every wearer.

From: H LV 
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 1:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:"If you don't know say I don't know."

<>
-- Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the Sate of New York, May 4th.
https://youtu.be/9Y861dM3V4w?t=1333

Re: [Vo]:Andrew Riley memorial

[Brian Ahern]

I TRIED TO WARN THEM AT 11;20 est;
I called again at 1;40 PM AND I WAS TOO LATE!

I LEARED FROM mARTIN fLEISCHMAN ON 12./23 AT MIT that they wereb using bulk 
samples of Pd. This was storing energy equal to a plastic explosive that could 
be detonated by a simple shock. It would then release the energy via 
recalescence.


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 10:46 AM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Andrew Riley memorial

Jonathan Berry mailto:aethe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I have heard of Palladium cubes exploding violently in cold fusion
tests, this wasn't the accident I hope?

No, it was a chemical explosion. It was investigated in detail. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf#page=147

(I have other documents about this, but the document quality is poor so I did 
not upload them.)

Re: [Vo]:Antimatter

[Brian Ahern]

What was the unusual coil?


From: Jonathan Berry 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Antimatter

BTW, a necessary part of that theory of "part filled containers". the idea that 
electrons, protons and such might be able to exist with less that their regular 
level of energy and density, and that such energy might be hard to detect and 
read...   Yet be felt as Bioenergy, Chi, Orgone, Scalar. etc...

But if a form of subtle matter and antimatter and it can annihilate, why 
doesn't it annihilate with regular matter releasing lots of energy???
My guess would be that it does/can, but that equal sums of energy are extracted 
from both and as such the regular particle loses close to nothing as it can 
only lose as much as the lesser party, unless the "soft" particle has quite a 
bit of energy in it.

It could however be that neither can interact or annihilate unless they are at 
the same or a very close level of energy.

If this interpretation of virtual particles not reasonable?

Couldn't I have found a way of increasing the virtual particle 
flux/emission/production?

BTW, following this line of reasoning I have created my most tangible energy 
yet.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:43 PM Jonathan Berry 
mailto:aethe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Vorts, I have an interesting connection my research has made that seems to 
connect to anti-matter.

As some of you might know (I have been on this list for what, 20 years) I began 
researching the aether, and then 7-8 years ago I made an unusual coil that 
emitted an energy that could be felt, that seemed to be "aether" like.
One observation I made about this technology was the tendency for an energy to 
form in the center of a circle, and then this energy would have "beams" come 
out of it, with one energy going up, and down, one north, one south, one east, 
one west and then also diagonals, making 8 primary beams in each direction.   
But the number isn't important.

This turns out to be not to be a unique discovery, this has been noted by 
others
Then the other day I came to realize that the energy going in the opposite 
direction, happens to "cancel" out the energy!
So the energy that goes north and the energy that goes south annihilate each 
other!

So, then I started to wonder with more seriousness, "What if my 'Aetheric 
Energy'" is virtual particle pairs?
I did also find that applying a potential (magnetic, electric, or other) would 
polarize and increase this activity.

So, I began to speculate the following...
Circles with the right energetic activity create a focal point that expresses 
more virtual particles than the background...
That the fields helps split the virtual particles apart...

And, now we come to the Crux of this post...

When two virtual particles annihilate, what happens???
Answer, nothing!

What happens when two regular particles annihilate???
Release of energy, Gamma!

What happens when one half of a virtual particle pair falls into the event 
horizon of a black hole according to accepted science? (Hawking radiation)
It becomes a real particle that if it then annihilates with another real 
particle releases energy...

So, the crux of the question is, "what change occurs to the virtual particle to 
make it real"?
And I would propose the answer is simply, Time!

Here is what i suspect is going on!
When a virtual particle is made, it is like an empty container, when it 
annihilates nothing happens.
However, if energy is "given" to the virtual particle, then it isn't any longer 
empty, but it might not have enough energy to be detected as a regular solid 
particle yet.

However, when it now annihilates, it will release the energy it does have.

I think the idea that just because it's other half fell into a black hole it 
instantly becomes "real" is nonsense, what if it's partner annihilated with 
another virtual particle, wouldn't that accomplish much the same!  Now I just 
implied that all of space should emit Hawking radiation.

When I look at some of the details of Free Energy device claims,
Antigravity and the like, there is evidence of "half way" electrons and 
mysterious releases of light, could this be partly filled "virtual" particles 
annihilating and releasing light?
it would make a lot of sense, and it makes sense with regards to Quantum 
Physics too!

If anyone wants to experience the forms that create this tangible energy, just 
ask.


John

Re: [Vo]:Antimatter

[Brian Ahern]

Brian  Ahern wants to know more about your aether issues.


From: Jonathan Berry 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Antimatter

Hi Vorts, I have an interesting connection my research has made that seems to 
connect to anti-matter.

As some of you might know (I have been on this list for what, 20 years) I began 
researching the aether, and then 7-8 years ago I made an unusual coil that 
emitted an energy that could be felt, that seemed to be "aether" like.
One observation I made about this technology was the tendency for an energy to 
form in the center of a circle, and then this energy would have "beams" come 
out of it, with one energy going up, and down, one north, one south, one east, 
one west and then also diagonals, making 8 primary beams in each direction.   
But the number isn't important.

This turns out to be not to be a unique discovery, this has been noted by 
others
Then the other day I came to realize that the energy going in the opposite 
direction, happens to "cancel" out the energy!
So the energy that goes north and the energy that goes south annihilate each 
other!

So, then I started to wonder with more seriousness, "What if my 'Aetheric 
Energy'" is virtual particle pairs?
I did also find that applying a potential (magnetic, electric, or other) would 
polarize and increase this activity.

So, I began to speculate the following...
Circles with the right energetic activity create a focal point that expresses 
more virtual particles than the background...
That the fields helps split the virtual particles apart...

And, now we come to the Crux of this post...

When two virtual particles annihilate, what happens???
Answer, nothing!

What happens when two regular particles annihilate???
Release of energy, Gamma!

What happens when one half of a virtual particle pair falls into the event 
horizon of a black hole according to accepted science? (Hawking radiation)
It becomes a real particle that if it then annihilates with another real 
particle releases energy...

So, the crux of the question is, "what change occurs to the virtual particle to 
make it real"?
And I would propose the answer is simply, Time!

Here is what i suspect is going on!
When a virtual particle is made, it is like an empty container, when it 
annihilates nothing happens.
However, if energy is "given" to the virtual particle, then it isn't any longer 
empty, but it might not have enough energy to be detected as a regular solid 
particle yet.

However, when it now annihilates, it will release the energy it does have.

I think the idea that just because it's other half fell into a black hole it 
instantly becomes "real" is nonsense, what if it's partner annihilated with 
another virtual particle, wouldn't that accomplish much the same!  Now I just 
implied that all of space should emit Hawking radiation.

When I look at some of the details of Free Energy device claims,
Antigravity and the like, there is evidence of "half way" electrons and 
mysterious releases of light, could this be partly filled "virtual" particles 
annihilating and releasing light?
it would make a lot of sense, and it makes sense with regards to Quantum 
Physics too!

If anyone wants to experience the forms that create this tangible energy, just 
ask.


John

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

[Brian Ahern]

The scaling laws make tokomacs impossible.


From: David L. Babcock 
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:38 PM
To: 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-cold-fusion.aspx

Re: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

[Brian Ahern]

The calcium is more than intriguing. It could finally knock down the door for 
lenr.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst


Alan should make sure ethanol vs =methnol does not make any difference  in the 
deposition of caco3 crystals on the Ni mesh.Jed should ask Mizuno about this 
question.



Bob Cook



Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10




From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 9:15:19 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16dP_SmSP8SuQbZ7p9eGoCwf1vwJKh7KPL7NAYv7j13o/edit

Calcium as a LENR catalyst???

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:43 PM JonesBeene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Thanks Jeff –



This could be important. Limelight – as old-fashioned as it may seem at first - 
has long been claimed to have a number of optical properties which look like 
they are related to hydrino creation.



On a related topic, and looking at Fig.3 in the first cited paper, which is the 
emission spectra of calcium sulfate, the peak is at 580 nm.



Coincidentally (or not) the palladium optical anomaly where the metal switches 
sharply from photon reflector to perfect absorber is at 590 nm. That would only 
be relevant if calcium carbonate has its peak at about the same value.



There are a number of reasons to think the Mizuno breakthrough relates more to 
Mills’ theory than to LENR.



Jones





From: Jeff Driscoll



and calcium oxide is a candoluminescent material where limelight is given off 
when hydrogen is exposed to the material at high temperature:



http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Candoluminescence-of-cave-gypsum.pdf



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXl6H7G6BMU



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



On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:26 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

For those who have not carefully followed Mills' work on dense hydrogen 
(hydrino) - calcium is listed as a favored catalyst. This could be important 
(or not) in the context of the recent Mizuno breakthrough ... certainly it has 
not been mentioned before but perhaps it should be (at least listed as a 
possibility) due to a few other related details.



The Rydberg level for Ca is the fifth - 1/5 as it is inverted and notably 
calcium is the one of the few for this level of shrinkage. There is 
complementary catalysis with the other potential catalysts present, since there 
is palladium - first level, oxygen/carbonate ion - 2nd level, nickel 7th and 
11th and now calcium in the middle - so that there is a deepening progression 
which could set up a cascade of some kind.



If one is not tied down to any particular M.O. or theory - then this spread of 
catalysis values could be relevant in the context of Alan Goldwater's new 
report on his early stage effort at replication where he finds calcium:



https://docs.google.com/document/d/16dP_SmSP8SuQbZ7p9eGoCwf1vwJKh7KPL7NAYv7j13o/edit



Really nice insight by Alan.






--

Jeff Driscoll
617-290-1998

Re: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst

[Brian Ahern]

An acetone rinse will get the water out.

From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 4:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst


FYI:



Here’s a blurb on Ethanol Purification:

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ethanol#Purification



… So it now seems there are a couple ways of not using Benzene to remove the 
remaining water.  I am not sure how Rossville is now performing their 
purification, so inquiring would be useful if interested.



- Mark



From: Mark Jurich 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 12:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calcium as a Mills catalyst



ROSSVILLE GOLD SHIELD ETHYL ALCOHOL C2H5OH 200 POOF

ONE U.S. Pint (473 ML)

GOLD SHIELD CHEMICAL CO.

HAYWARD, CA 94545

D.S.P. – CALIF. – 151



(Use to be in a Glass Container, now Plastic :( )

(STAMP SEAL, but the purification process usually leaves trace amounts of 
benzene, so please do NOT drink it!)



Happy Hunting,

Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:SPIN-LATTICE COUPLING

[Brian Ahern]

It is also known as KINETIC UNDER COOLING.


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2019 9:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:SPIN-LATTICE COUPLING


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com



  *   In the 1960’s there was reported to be a rapid heating of large steel 
block Sandia was trying to magnetize.  The block turned white hot in an 
instant, but did not melt.  The research went dark.  I can not find a reference 
to that work to this day…It may have been a resonant coupling of magnetic spin 
energy with the lattice.  (Also it may have been rapid reaction of hydrogen in 
the lattice with iron.)  Either way there should be a report.



This sounds like a form of “recalescence” which is a type of strongly energetic 
phase-change. A lack of a report could be simply to avoid liability should 
there have been an injury. That was typical even at the big labs fifty years 
ago.



Significant heat transfer can occur inadvertently during the heating/cooling 
cycle of iron (iron in particular and other metals as well). Many horrible 
accidents in steel mills have been attributed to this type of phase change  
since it is not fully understood.



The dynamics of recalescence result in a  surprisingly robust and sudden  
temperature surge  during cooling - and even a “remelt” without additional heat 
-  which is the extreme case since the molten steel can  explode. It has been 
called a type of “cyrstalization heat” which can be  tied to graphite content, 
but the thermodynamics of it are not completely understood.



I doubt if there a conspiracy of silence at Sandia at least not in regard to 
this effect, although apparently it depends on the exact amount of carbon and 
the type of carbon in the iron which is seldom known with enough precision to 
avoid it. For instance, it could be possible for 2.1% graphitic iron to 
strongly reheat but 2.2% to behave normally.

Re: [Vo]: Seals

[Brian Ahern]

I agree with Bob. Conflat seals are good for very impressive vacuums.

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 3:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Seals

Hi Dave,

This looks like standard conflat UHV gear to me.  The typical gasket used for 
conflats is a fairly thick copper ring that is sealed by compression between 
knife edges turned into the conflat faces.  In absence of a description of a 
special gasket material, I would presume it is the standard copper gasket.

Bob

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 12:32 PM Dave Roberson 
mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:





Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10



From: Dave Roberson
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:It is unlikely Mizuno’s results are a mistake



Interesting results.  One question I have is what material is used as a gasket 
between the end flanges and the SS reaction chamber?  It is hard to believe 
that nothing is required to prevent leaks.



Dave



Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10



With further reading I see that some thin gasket was used.  I answered my own 
question.  Of course the type of material is very critical for anyone wanting 
to replicate the experiment.



Dave

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]
Virus-free. 
www.avg.com

[Vo]:Re: Misuno technology a simple test

[Brian Ahern]

Ask Mizuno to run the system making excess thermal energy and then simply 
change the inlet and outlet air flows. The outlet is currently above the inlet 
and that can be a problem. This may show a dramatic drop in thermal output due 
to buoyancy driven convection.

This easy and can get quick evidence that the calorimetry is not fooling 
everyone.


From: Alberto De Souza 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One 
thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature 
difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are 
already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The 
setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the 
kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alberto De Souza 
mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In 
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: 
one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor the 
temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant 
temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is 
anomalous heat.


Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:


I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in 
the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow 
calorimetry because it is not affected such temperature variations. You do have 
to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal 
about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If 
you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half 
the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.


Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.


If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter 
than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing 
heat. An IR camera might reveal that.

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat

[Brian Ahern]

I am particularly excited about the role of rubbing in device processing.

It was used by Nichia Corp in processing the first blue LEDs in 1995.  No 
rubbing- no blue light lasing!

The rubbing causes nanoscale features to form and hold atoms in that region in 
a condition that prevents solid-solid phase transitions. They are left in a 
dynamic condition with large vibrational modes.

MIT professor (retired), Keith Johnson described these conditions in a 
Jahn-Teller formalism.


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 9:10 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno reports increased excess heat

I wrote:

By the way, the name of that detergent is cute. It is Kyukyuto which is the 
sound clean wet dishes make when you wife them. Kyu! Kyu!

WIPE them. Not wife. That has to be some kind of Freudian slip.

Ahem, let's keep this here, shall we? What happens in Vortex stays in Vortex. I 
wouldn't want that particular remark to . . . uh, to get back to my wipe. Wife!

Re: [Vo]:RTSC results confirmed … well, almost

[Brian Ahern]

Macroscopic Au-Ag has no chance for RTSC.

 However, nanoscale assemblies can result in ultra conduction.  Zero 
resistance, but no Meisner Effect.

From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2019 1:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:RTSC results confirmed … well, almost


This is a well-written article about the apparent claim of room temperature 
superconductivity coming from India last year,



https://thewire.in/the-sciences/iisc-room-temperature-superconductor-gold-silver-magnetic-susceptibility



The problem is that there is still no replication and the upgraded paper is 
less than adequate, given the importance of the claim.





Where are the replicators???



The interesting thing is that that only two elements are needed – gold and 
silver. Ubiquitous. Since these are readily available the critical detail then 
is getting the “nano” structure correct as clearly no alloy of gold and silver 
come close to RTSC by a factor of perhaps 10,000:1.



There could be alternative ways to do this, including sputtering.



For instance – we have a well developed nano-lithography industry in place in 
the computer chip industry.



If RTSC is indeed possible with any combination of nanostructure using silver 
and gold – there is no better place to stage a replication attempt than in a 
chip fab or lab.



Therefore the “gorilla in the closet” which everyone seems to be neglecting on 
this claim is IBM.



They set the standard for both HTSC, having invented it, and for state of the 
art chips. They have a ready market. There is no greater fit for this tech on 
planet earth.



Where art thou IBM ?



Given the big picture, I cannot imagine that you have not taken notice…



Jones

Re: [Vo]:New Holmlid paper on Research Gate

[Brian Ahern]

What is H2N(0) ?  There is no superfluidity without a liquid state


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 12:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:New Holmlid paper on Research Gate




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331968180_Ultradense_protium_p0_and_deuterium_D0_and_their_relation_to_ordinary_Rydberg_matter_a_review



There is a clue here about why the output in muons has been difficult for 
others to duplicate.



It turns out that the active material must be in the form of long chain 
clusters, not simply the smaller grouping.



QUOTE: “Superfluidity and a Meissner effect at room temperature are only found 
for the long chain clusters H2N(0), while the small H3(0) and H4(0) clusters do 
not have any super properties”



This means that there is a specific technique which has to be implemented to 
first densify and then to  create the extremely dense clusters in which most of 
the nuclear reaction processes take place.



Following this step, laser irradiation will  give meson showers (most types of 
kaons and pions) and, after meson decay, large fluxes of muons and other 
leptons.



The fluxes can be  extraordinarily high



Why is LLNL not all over this ???



It seems almost negligent to ignore this. Heads should roll if the Holmlid 
effect has been overlooked by the one National Lab whose missionand 
multibillion funding level  is so similar.



Not to mention the military implications.

Re: [Vo]:Possible LENR-based consumer product

[Brian Ahern]

It was an April Fools Day announcement.  I think the Mills report was also a 
joke.


From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 8:41 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible LENR-based consumer product


:-)

On 01/04/2019 04:58, AlanG wrote:
Just announced by Quantum Heat:

https://goo.gl/DbWyn1

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

Andrew Anselmo PhD Mech Eng Columbia 1995; David Pelly, BS Physics MIT 1997

The first Voltage vs Time (days) performed end of August 2011. I payed for the 
integrating meters. Andrew and David ran the experiments lasting until May 2012.
Between June and September we had little contact as he was feeling poorly due 
to the large enlargement in his brain.He disassembled  the working device.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Dave Roberson
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...


Brian—



You mention “two other engineers” that worked with you, experimenting on the 
MANELAS DEVICE.



When and  wher did the experimentation take place, and who were the others?  
Were there any notes taken or reports written in the 18 months of 
experimenting.  If so, are they classified and/or otherwise available.



Who owns the IP?  Who paid for the experimentation?  Was Manelas at hid death 
working for another entity, or was he independently funding the researcxh 
effort you mention?



Bob Cook




From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:14:47 AM
To: Dave Roberson; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

The cooling was a surprise.We expected to do much more testing. Alas, it was 
not to be.


From: Dave Roberson 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...






Sent from 
Mail<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=02%7C01%7C%7C7026ef9b08e14696a16508d6b529f7d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636895589187370586=y1KKfCp4nxscLvSL2iqC4ukgbmYplJ0toAZoKuI5deg%3D=0>
 for Windows 10



From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:31 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>; 
vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; 
jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...



I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas 
device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months.

It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on 
September 25 2012. I have the components, but  no circuit diagram.

I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are 
essential.





That is important information Brian.  During your testing did you isolate the 
device inside any form of magnetic shielding?  Also, did the device performance 
depend upon its orientation?

I recall that the brick cooled during operation, did anyone measure the heat 
flow into the brick to see how much heat energy was being absorbed from the 
local environment?

You are the right person to ask about interesting observations and I hope that 
you will share as much as you can.



Dave

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Dave Roberson
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...


Brian—



You mention “two other engineers” that worked with you, experimenting on the 
MANELAS DEVICE.



When and  wher did the experimentation take place, and who were the others?  
Were there any notes taken or reports written in the 18 months of 
experimenting.  If so, are they classified and/or otherwise available.



Who owns the IP?  Who paid for the experimentation?  Was Manelas at hid death 
working for another entity, or was he independently funding the researcxh 
effort you mention?



Bob Cook




From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:14:47 AM
To: Dave Roberson; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

The cooling was a surprise.We expected to do much more testing. Alas, it was 
not to be.


From: Dave Roberson 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...






Sent from 
Mail<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=02%7C01%7C%7C7026ef9b08e14696a16508d6b529f7d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636895589187370586=y1KKfCp4nxscLvSL2iqC4ukgbmYplJ0toAZoKuI5deg%3D=0>
 for Windows 10



From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:31 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>; 
vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; 
jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...



I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas 
device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months.

It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on 
September 25 2012. I have the components, but  no circuit diagram.

I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are 
essential.





That is important information Brian.  During your testing did you isolate the 
device inside any form of magnetic shielding?  Also, did the device performance 
depend upon its orientation?

I recall that the brick cooled during operation, did anyone measure the heat 
flow into the brick to see how much heat energy was being absorbed from the 
local environment?

You are the right person to ask about interesting observations and I hope that 
you will share as much as you can.



Dave

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Dave Roberson
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...


Brian—



You mention “two other engineers” that worked with you, experimenting on the 
MANELAS DEVICE.



When and  wher did the experimentation take place, and who were the others?  
Were there any notes taken or reports written in the 18 months of 
experimenting.  If so, are they classified and/or otherwise available.



Who owns the IP?  Who paid for the experimentation?  Was Manelas at hid death 
working for another entity, or was he independently funding the researcxh 
effort you mention?



Bob Cook




From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 8:14:47 AM
To: Dave Roberson; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

The cooling was a surprise.We expected to do much more testing. Alas, it was 
not to be.


From: Dave Roberson 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...






Sent from 
Mail<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=02%7C01%7C%7C7026ef9b08e14696a16508d6b529f7d9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636895589187370586=y1KKfCp4nxscLvSL2iqC4ukgbmYplJ0toAZoKuI5deg%3D=0>
 for Windows 10



From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:31 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>; 
vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; 
jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...



I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas 
device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months.

It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on 
September 25 2012. I have the components, but  no circuit diagram.

I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are 
essential.





That is important information Brian.  During your testing did you isolate the 
device inside any form of magnetic shielding?  Also, did the device performance 
depend upon its orientation?

I recall that the brick cooled during operation, did anyone measure the heat 
flow into the brick to see how much heat energy was being absorbed from the 
local environment?

You are the right person to ask about interesting observations and I hope that 
you will share as much as you can.



Dave

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

The cooling was a surprise.We expected to do much more testing. Alas, it was 
not to be.


From: Dave Roberson 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 8:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...






Sent from 
Mail<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbe3c0f8a8994570920b08d6b4a32bc6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636895010231442979=qfCMWpuhIEhOuG%2FCFilQDTm71KZEBUU7X6g0RN1Dapw%3D=0>
 for Windows 10



From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:31 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>; 
vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; 
jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...



I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas 
device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months.

It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on 
September 25 2012. I have the components, but  no circuit diagram.

I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are 
essential.





That is important information Brian.  During your testing did you isolate the 
device inside any form of magnetic shielding?  Also, did the device performance 
depend upon its orientation?

I recall that the brick cooled during operation, did anyone measure the heat 
flow into the brick to see how much heat energy was being absorbed from the 
local environment?

You are the right person to ask about interesting observations and I hope that 
you will share as much as you can.



Dave

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

add monopoles to 1.
see keith A. Fredericks


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 2:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

From: Brian Ahern

> The entire Manelas device operation seems to interact with something not yet 
> understood.


Let's see... here are a few of the usual suspects for the source and/or main 
side effect of said unknown energy

1) Longitudinal Spin Seebeck Effect, aka spin waves, aka longitudinal spin 
waves, aka cold electricity resulting in heat transfer and inherent cooling
2) zero point energy aka aether aka vacuum energy
3) neutrino flux
4) Van Allen belt induction (Robin's hypothesis)
5) solar flares or other cosmic radiation
6) natural magnetic precession or other kinds of autonomous resonant magnetic 
flux motion
7) applied flux motion caused by switched reluctance

or... any combination or permutation...

My guess is 1) combined with 6) and 7) but curiously, all of the above could be 
linked to varying degrees

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

The entire Manelas device operation seems to interact with something not yet 
understood.


From: Chris Zell 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...


I respectfully ask about bifilar coils.  I want to understand if something 
important has been overlooked.

Whenever I see ‘bifilar coils”, I despair because I have never read about any 
well demonstrated significant/unusual effect from them. However, perhaps that 
is not so and there is some ‘magic’ here of which I am unaware.

Re: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...

[Brian Ahern]

I want to let Vortex folks know that I did not merely hear about the Manelas 
device. I and two other engineers performed many tests over 18 months.
It worked. Manelas disassembled it to make a better one, but he stroked out on 
September 25 2012. I have the components, but  no circuit diagram.
I like Bob Cooks comments herein and I now believe that bifilar windings are 
essential.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...


The link to the Army patent has no paratical application identified that I 
could find.



Does anyone know about how the patented device is configured in the IEC engine?



Is the inference from all this that IEC device gets energy from some other 
potential energy source?



For example,  high tension electric AC transmission wires could be souch a 
source of energy , or maybe even small dynamic variations in the earth’s 
ambient field.



Of course,  conservaion of energy and/or angular momentum may be violated.   
However,  energy and angular momentum are a little alike and may be swapped one 
for the other in a   coherent system such as  is utilized in the IEC device.  
The magnetic field  may provide the coupling among the various primary 
particles present in that coherent system,  allowing the swapping to happen.  
Intrinsic spin (angular momentum) as well as orbital angular momentum—atomic 
and nuclear—could be involved.  The initial rotation provides the necessary 
resonances to restore the remanence of the materials on the atomic scale, that 
orginal state being a quasi stable low potential for the whole coherent system.



Good isotopic measurements before and after substantial mechanical energy 
extraction should reveal changes associated with a decrease of total  potential 
energy for the various isotopes.



Bob Cook








From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 6:37:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Magmo in the land of lost wages...




Apparently, the favored explanation given by investors in IEC is that the 
inventor came up with a “monopole” permanent magnet (most likely a 
pseudo-monopole).



The following older patent assigned to the US Army, is the Leupold patent, 
which describes a permanent composite magnet in which materials are laminated 
in such a way that  one pole is disproportionately far stronger than the other. 
If the disproportion is large enough, you have a pseudo-monopole



https://patents.google.com/patent/US4692732



There is definitely an analogy here to the Halbach array. As we know, that is 
an arrangement of permanent magnets which augments the field on one side of the 
array while cancelling the field to near zero on the other side. If you were 
trying to “re-patent” the Halbach or the Leupold array, then you might try to 
label it as a monopole and see if the patent office will  bite. In the mean 
time you want to remain silent.



It is definitely possible the pseudo-monopole magnets are incorporated into the 
flywheel itself. It is also possible that these permanent magnets are 
hybridized with pulse coils so as to provide  very short electrical pulses at 
low duty or  per revolution, in order to prevent immediate demagnetization.



The strange story is starting to get legs… I’m no longer a skeptic but as 
always – demagnetization will be the critical issue.



Jones



From: Dave Roberson



Nice sized flywheel.  Could store a lot of energy so it is going to be hard to 
prove that the magnets are the real source.  I am skeptical.



Dave





From: Terry Blanton



40 kw of mechanical energy



uh-huh.  They sure know what they are talking about.

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno - and possibly his most overlooked paper

[Brian Ahern]

I think Jones is on the correct path. You need > 0.8 Tesla to get the effect.


From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 11:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno - and possibly his most overlooked paper

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:52:43 + (UTC):
Hi Jones,


> Here is a suggestion for Norront Fusion (Holmlid licensee) ...

Send it to them.

>Their website indicates they have three Holmlid-effect muon generators 
>operating at the moment.
>Suggestion: Hybrid Holmlid/Mizuno device for generating neutrons.
>Place a magnetized Mizuno device in the output path of a
>Holmlid muon generator. Typically every muon catalyzes ahundred or so D+D 
>fusions. A small muon output is thereby multiplied.

I think the "output path" is in every direction, but that's not a problem, just
put the muon generator in a small cylinder concentric with a larger cylinder
containing the D.
Almost all the escaping muons will then pass through the D. The percentage used
will increase with the length of the cylinders.

>
>That is such a major improvement that physicists would be impressedto the 
>extent that massive financial support would be shifted from ITER
>and other wasteful programs towards a fusion device with an actual
>commercial future.
>There is no possible good outcome for ITER in the next 30 years, whereasa 
>Holmlid/Mizuno type device could be ready in 30 days. (if you already havethe 
>small muon generator).
>Jones
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor

[Brian Ahern]

Magnetism is largely I’ll understood

The molecular orbitals supporting ferromagnetism are in dispute


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2019, at 5:28 PM, 
"bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Andrew—

You point out: “Point charge is only a mathematical convenience,”

What you say begs the question: Is there any physical significance  to a charge 
by it self?

The next question of course is: Is the illusion of charge really a localized 
dynamic magnetic field?

It seems there should be some primary physics text that addresses the physics 
of magnetic fields  other than associate  them with the illusion of charge.

I am pretty sure I must be confused.

Bob

From: Andrew Meulenberg mailto:mules...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 10:59:04 AM
To: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; VORTEX; Andrew 
Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor

Dear Bob,

Point charge is only a mathematical convenience, valid for isotropic sources or 
conductors when measured beyond any of their charge distribution. We are taught 
in freshman physics how to treat the static fields inside a charge 
distribution. That said, the problem gets more difficult when dynamics are 
considered, and even more so for relativistic dynamics (where Jean-Luc has been 
working), and even further when the test region has a strong influence on the 
source distribution and fields.

If I remember correctly, Feynman, in his Lectures, stated that the 1/r Coulomb 
potential was valid up to the nuclear radius. I might agree down to about 10 
fm. Below that, I might argue with him unless he limits the statement to 
static, spinless, charges. Because of our interest in the deep-electron orbits, 
we are presently exploring the real nuclear region in our papers. Nevertheless, 
we are still using approximations, valid for large distances as initial 
approximations and then applying corrections for relativistic and proximity 
effects as we see them. There is little to no useful literature for such 
corrections in this region. Further in, it was easier to start from scratch and 
nuclear physics took over when spin-spin effects became stronger than 
spin-orbit effects. Cold fusion and the deep-orbits are caught in the quagmire 
region between atomic and nuclear physics.

I doubt that there will be any easy answers. I still ask the question "when do 
two fermions combine to become a boson?" We look at the H atom, positronium, 
and deuteron as bosons; but, the neutron is a fermion (because a neutrino is 
added or subtracted?). What is the femto-H atom?

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I think the relativistic considerations eliminate the reality of a “point 
charge”  assumption for electrons, particularly in the nuclear dimensional 
zones and smaller.

Andrew—If this is correct you might identify the range (distance) over which 
your theory applies and, otherwise,  clarify the question of “point charge” 
assumptions.

Bob Cook



Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10


From: Andrew Meulenberg mailto:mules...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 10:01:01 PM
To: VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [Vo]:D. Alexandrov, Proposal for the development of an LENR reactor

Dear Jones,

Thanks for asking about our work. We have published this since JCMNS -Vol 24.

J-L Paillet, Andrew Meulenberg, "Deepening Questions about Electron Deep Orbits 
of the Hydrogen Atom," J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 26 (2017) 54–68, 
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/pdf/jcmns/v26/54_JCMNS-Vol26.pdf

and are continuing to publish (from ICCF-21 presentations)

1.  J-L Paillet, A. Meulenberg, "On highly relativistic deep electrons," 
ICCF-21, 21st International Conference for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 3 
- 8 June, 2018,  Fort Collins, CO USA, to be published in JCMNS, 2019, 

Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

[Brian Ahern]

I am very interested in this from a molecular orbital basis.
What is a hole?  Is it just an unfilled molecular orbital?  Is it "where the 
electrons ain't"?


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:23 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

Hilmlid claims that his theory of Ultra dense hydrogen is based on the hole 
superconductor theory put forth by  J. E. 
Hirsch<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fsearch%2Fcond-mat%3Fsearchtype%3Dauthor%26query%3DHirsch%252C%2BJ%2BE=02%7C01%7C%7C9385bd06db644455409b08d69c285cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636868094499437783=5xQGTYbuQjm3So5tt4ym2CkpFvxnnpsmV3%2B%2Fn06Y6wU%3D=0>.
 This theory is based to energy minimization and the theory of least action.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09777<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F1703.09777=02%7C01%7C%7C9385bd06db644455409b08d69c285cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636868094499447794=NBIBETMTsjaVce%2BbOQ4cXVDgy8x8sZ5uq6P%2F6uqE4Cc%3D=0>

Why only hole conductors can be superconductors
J. E. 
Hirsch<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fsearch%2Fcond-mat%3Fsearchtype%3Dauthor%26query%3DHirsch%252C%2BJ%2BE=02%7C01%7C%7C9385bd06db644455409b08d69c285cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636868094499457805=yUaEEm5sWStNJinoNrMo3GRCz9Ts3WrlKa7Gxccx6xo%3D=0>
(Submitted on 20 Mar 2017)
The conventional theory of superconductivity says that charge carriers in a 
metal that becomes superconducting can be either electrons or holes. I argue 
that this is incorrect. In order to satisfy conservation of mechanical momentum 
and of entropy of the universe in the superconductor to normal transition in 
the presence of a magnetic field it is necessary that the normal state charge 
carriers are holes. I will also review the empirical evidence in favor of the 
hypothesis that all superconductors are hole superconductors, and discuss the 
implications of this for the search for higher Tc   superconductors.

---

Another concept that might be in play in ultra dense hydrogen is nonequilibrium 
superconductivity through polaritons. Polaritons might take hold in the  
Bose-Fermi mixture formed by a cavity exciton-polariton condensate interacting 
with a two-dimensional electron system that forms on the surface of the ultra 
dense hydrogen electron cover layer.

In a nonequilibrium superconductor, the process of superconductivity is pumped 
through the input of energy like a laser and the maximum  temperature of 
formation of the  superconductor state is a function of the density  of 
polaritons in the polariton condensate and not from ambient temperature.




On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:10 AM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Here is another paper by the inventor Salvatore Pais.

Initially, this makes one wonder if either Dr Pais is an alien from an advanced 
civilization, a collection of Navy jokesters, or a nut-case deluxe. OTOH - the 
paper is just competent enough to be taken somewhat seriously, despite its lack 
of provenance.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2019-0869<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Farc.aiaa.org%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.2514%2F6.2019-0869=02%7C01%7C%7C9385bd06db644455409b08d69c285cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636868094499467810=TIN7jBGz3C957rplzK1Y6MgmCt6eHXhYiQ1HjWluwn8%3D=0>

I'm thinking that Pais could have been one of the aliens recovered at Roswell 
who has finally been allowed to go public.. or ...

Think about the literal meaning of his name... not exactly MAGA but close and 
about as near to a spoof as the Navy could ever get at this high a level.



According to Keith Johnson's formalism, what is the highest Tc which is 
possible ?

Did he consider both Type-I and Type-II ?

Brian Ahern wrote:

> Keith Johnson retired from MIT in 1996. His formalism is known to a small 
> number of scientists.


https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fphys.org%252Fnews%252F2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html%2523jCp%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257Ca44c3270134043abc10608d69bbe5cd6%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%257C1%257C0%257C636867639237122106%26sdata%3D%252B2pCBkSQctc22lySAr3w6GoifbBCngIlD751LdxYtBc%253D%26reserved%3D0=02%7C01%7C%7C9385bd06db644455409b08d69c285cca%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636868094499477815=W6%2ByWpUSY1oH5UoL0i4CnIczG4ZW5UO4IWLuKR0bpSU%3D=0>

Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

[Brian Ahern]

No. Positive charge carriers were not contemplated.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 11:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit


Does the Keith Johnson model address POSITIVE charge carriers?



It sounds like electrons were considered in his model—what about protons—in a 
surface plasmonic array in a line of nano particles, each supporting its own 
plasma.



  Or maybe a  surface plasma of paired electron---Cooper paired electrons where 
the charge is spread out over the volume of the pair, but magnetic moments are  
acting along a line with respective moments anti- parallel along that line.  ( 
This may act like a composite BEC of zero spin, not affected by lattice 
resistance,  being a surface feature.)



https://phys.org/news/2019-01-evidence-superconductivity-room-temperature.html#nRlv<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2019-01-evidence-superconductivity-room-temperature.html%23nRlv=02%7C01%7C%7Cd569785e98d7465a78c808d69c0b7dc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636867970495565889=3k6QVqZbLYNoH%2FIOekWUQx44NNYHHogJwLWyuyCz7nA%3D=0>



https://phys.org/news/2014-06-superconducting-secrets-years.html#nRlv



Bob Cook

---


From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 4:20:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

I apologize for the bombast.

I was the DoD designated scientist to investigate high Tc in 1987. After 
interviewing many top theoretical physicists I settled on MIT professor, Keith 
Johnson. He had developed a set of programs that evaluated all of the electron 
orbitals in a cluster of atoms. He could predict properties with a cluster of 
lessthan two dozen atoms.

The predictive abilities were astounding and he told the audience at the 1983 
Int. conference on SC in  Zurich that they should examine the Perovskite 
minerals to increase Tc.  Apparently,  Alex Mueller (the conference chairman) 
listened and directed his colleague, Bednors to follow up. He did so.

They won the Nobel Prize in 1987 and they are still clueless as to the 
mechanism.

Keith Johnson retired from MIT in 1996. His formalism is known to a small 
number of scientists.


From: John Berry 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

Thanks God!  Good job we can dispense with the experimenting and theory, we 
just have to ask you!

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:12 AM Brian Ahern 
mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:
Room temp SC is impossible


From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 11:25 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftechlinkcenter.org%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2019%252F02%252FRTSC.pdf%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257Ca44c3270134043abc10608d69bbe5cd6%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%257C1%257C0%257C636867639237112098%26sdata%3DOX%252Ff%252BDuKg70ZFqL4qOEub7tkjgngbrNXxPIqhbVKNKQ%253D%26reserved%3D0=02%7C01%7C%7Cd569785e98d7465a78c808d69c0b7dc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636867970495575888=lpAgpplWCL3FVRdgVITac7k%2BJrVDqNJlSPzhsMlDmpw%3D=0>

The Navy's patent application has been made public by the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office describing a plasmonic based room-temperature superconductor 
capable of exhibiting superconductivity at temperatures of around 77 degrees 
Fahrenheit.

Read more at: 
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fphys.org%252Fnews%252F2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html%2523jCp%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257Ca44c3270134043abc10608d69bbe5cd6%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%257C1%257C0%257C636867639237122106%26sdata%3D%252B2pCBkSQctc22lySAr3w6GoifbBCngIlD751LdxYtBc%253D%26reserved%3D0=02%7C01%7C%7Cd569785e98d7465a78c808d69c0b7dc7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636867970495585900=R1N3MQt3XVHzBhRVr4M2fyOq6I27mdpu1XxwtKWdSvQ%3D=0>

Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

[Brian Ahern]

He did consider both types. The maximum Tc was 240K.


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 8:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

Brian,

According to Keith Johnson's formalism, what is the highest Tc which is 
possible ?

Did he consider both Type-I and Type-II ?


Brian Ahern wrote:

> Keith Johnson retired from MIT in 1996. His formalism is known to a small 
> number of scientists.


https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fphys.org%252Fnews%252F2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html%2523jCp%26data%3D02%257C01%257C%257Ca44c3270134043abc10608d69bbe5cd6%257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%257C1%257C0%257C636867639237122106%26sdata%3D%252B2pCBkSQctc22lySAr3w6GoifbBCngIlD751LdxYtBc%253D%26reserved%3D0=02%7C01%7C%7C788677f4ca454bfd7af108d69bf16355%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636867858384426052=0vSJ8IX%2B0v185vPSs1dlo79CA%2Br0JZg2ywImLyq1z2I%3D=0>

Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

[Brian Ahern]

I apologize for the bombast.

I was the DoD designated scientist to investigate high Tc in 1987. After 
interviewing many top theoretical physicists I settled on MIT professor, Keith 
Johnson. He had developed a set of programs that evaluated all of the electron 
orbitals in a cluster of atoms. He could predict properties with a cluster of 
lessthan two dozen atoms.

The predictive abilities were astounding and he told the audience at the 1983 
Int. conference on SC in  Zurich that they should examine the Perovskite 
minerals to increase Tc.  Apparently,  Alex Mueller (the conference chairman) 
listened and directed his colleague, Bednors to follow up. He did so.

They won the Nobel Prize in 1987 and they are still clueless as to the 
mechanism.

Keith Johnson retired from MIT in 1996. His formalism is known to a small 
number of scientists.


From: John Berry 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 2:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

Thanks God!  Good job we can dispense with the experimenting and theory, we 
just have to ask you!

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:12 AM Brian Ahern 
mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:
Room temp SC is impossible


From: Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 11:25 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechlinkcenter.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F02%2FRTSC.pdf=02%7C01%7C%7Ca44c3270134043abc10608d69bbe5cd6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636867639237112098=OX%2Ff%2BDuKg70ZFqL4qOEub7tkjgngbrNXxPIqhbVKNKQ%3D=0>

The Navy's patent application has been made public by the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office describing a plasmonic based room-temperature superconductor 
capable of exhibiting superconductivity at temperatures of around 77 degrees 
Fahrenheit.

Read more at: 
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews%2F2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html%23jCp=02%7C01%7C%7Ca44c3270134043abc10608d69bbe5cd6%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636867639237122106=%2B2pCBkSQctc22lySAr3w6GoifbBCngIlD751LdxYtBc%3D=0>

Re: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

[Brian Ahern]

Room temp SC is impossible


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 11:25 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit

https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf

The Navy's patent application has been made public by the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office describing a plasmonic based room-temperature superconductor 
capable of exhibiting superconductivity at temperatures of around 77 degrees 
Fahrenheit.

Read more at: 
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp

Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[Brian Ahern]

John Wallace may have the mechanism correct. His 2009 article is important.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?


Magnetic coupling in the Tesla power device and the Manelas device is the key.

The question IMHO is which physical system in the respective devices provide 
the potential energy assuming the vacuum is not involved.



It seems the vacuum is the likely source of energy and the magnetic field taps 
this source of energy, not normally defined as potential energy.



In a more real sense the magnetic  coupling couples physical systems with the 
5th dimension of quantized angular momentum and its respective  real quantized  
potential energy.



As Jones would say: “You heard it first on Vortex-l”.



Bob Cook





From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?



I think the Manelas Device corroborates Tesla.





From: Harvey Norris 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Yahoogroups; Heinz; Yahoogroups; Vortex List; Yahoogroups; Ljubo Vujovic; 
pnor...@ysu.edu
Subject: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?



Once again the eminent Tesla historian Bill Beaty has made good on reporting 
new avenues of exploration on Tesla's ideas of wireless transfer of energy on a 
global scale.

Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - 
Quora<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FWill-we-see-Nikola-Teslas-wireless-power-return-soon=02%7C01%7C%7C8b1baf742f644d057e9508d68d23011f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C63685157881464=fOG5GLbUaKntNnlDIzKtgUlcGDMyiGf%2Fo46j8gARrNY%3D=0>







Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - Quora




I added this comment to his post;

Fantastic work on informing the public here Bill; and I can see immediate 
analogies with my own work where I have extracted portions of delivery from 
teslafy message 3639; Comparisons of Capacitive Energy Movements in the 666 
machine.

  *   In the ferromagnetic transformer case VI (in) = VI (out). This then is a 
transformation of reactive measurements where the gain of voltage by the 
secondary is accompanied a inversely proportional loss of amperage on the 
circuit. When three phase air core transformers are used in proper mutual 
inductance a situation where the reactive output can exceed the reactive input 
not only is possible, but is logical when the true parameters are shown. The 
whole issue becomes a confusion between a linear relationship and that of an 
exponential one. This is illustrated by the deception of the missing energy 
argument. If an energy storage as a capacitor is discharged to an equal 
capacitor, the energy content before and after is cut in half. Where did the 
missing energy go? When the transformation is viewed from the linear side we 
have two changes that of the voltage and the equivalent change in capacity 
where C goes up by two, and V is cut in half. Now view in comparison to what is 
happening on the true power transfer side of things where an exponential 
relationship exists.(.5) C*V squared indicates the energy content. By 
transforming the situation where C is doubled and V squared is cut in half for 
equivalent transformations this means an entirely different thing on the energy 
side of the equation. Now cutting V in half reduces V squared four fold; and to 
compensate C is only doubled; creating the observation that half of the energy 
has been lost in the transformation. Now just imagine if we could manipulate 
this situation in reverse only here the ratios of capacitive change are 272/1.
  *   In the experimentation with resonant 60hz air core energy exchanges 
between large and small coils balanced for resonance this ratio was only ~20/1 
between inductive ratios, yet the same phenomenon revealed itself. In this case 
scenario almost a doubling of energy in transfer was made when sending that 
energy from a large capacity to a smaller one using the magnetic fields of the 
coils as the transfer agent. And reciprocally when the energy transfer was made 
in reverse between the intermediary coils a 50% loss of that energy was shown; 
EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE LINE CONNECTION MODEL FOR REDISTRIBUTING (STORED)ENERGY 
FROM A SMALL CONTAINER TO A TWICE LARGER ONE.







Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Re: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

[Brian Ahern]

I think the Manelas Device corroborates Tesla.


From: Harvey Norris 
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 7:33 PM
To: Yahoogroups; Heinz; Yahoogroups; Vortex List; Yahoogroups; Ljubo Vujovic; 
pnor...@ysu.edu
Subject: [Vo]:Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon?

Once again the eminent Tesla historian Bill Beaty has made good on reporting 
new avenues of exploration on Tesla's ideas of wireless transfer of energy on a 
global scale.
Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - 
Quora







Will we see Nikola Tesla's wireless power return soon? - Quora




I added this comment to his post;
Fantastic work on informing the public here Bill; and I can see immediate 
analogies with my own work where I have extracted portions of delivery from 
teslafy message 3639; Comparisons of Capacitive Energy Movements in the 666 
machine.

  *   In the ferromagnetic transformer case VI (in) = VI (out). This then is a 
transformation of reactive measurements where the gain of voltage by the 
secondary is accompanied a inversely proportional loss of amperage on the 
circuit. When three phase air core transformers are used in proper mutual 
inductance a situation where the reactive output can exceed the reactive input 
not only is possible, but is logical when the true parameters are shown. The 
whole issue becomes a confusion between a linear relationship and that of an 
exponential one. This is illustrated by the deception of the missing energy 
argument. If an energy storage as a capacitor is discharged to an equal 
capacitor, the energy content before and after is cut in half. Where did the 
missing energy go? When the transformation is viewed from the linear side we 
have two changes that of the voltage and the equivalent change in capacity 
where C goes up by two, and V is cut in half. Now view in comparison to what is 
happening on the true power transfer side of things where an exponential 
relationship exists.(.5) C*V squared indicates the energy content. By 
transforming the situation where C is doubled and V squared is cut in half for 
equivalent transformations this means an entirely different thing on the energy 
side of the equation. Now cutting V in half reduces V squared four fold; and to 
compensate C is only doubled; creating the observation that half of the energy 
has been lost in the transformation. Now just imagine if we could manipulate 
this situation in reverse only here the ratios of capacitive change are 272/1.
  *   In the experimentation with resonant 60hz air core energy exchanges 
between large and small coils balanced for resonance this ratio was only ~20/1 
between inductive ratios, yet the same phenomenon revealed itself. In this case 
scenario almost a doubling of energy in transfer was made when sending that 
energy from a large capacity to a smaller one using the magnetic fields of the 
coils as the transfer agent. And reciprocally when the energy transfer was made 
in reverse between the intermediary coils a 50% loss of that energy was shown; 
EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THE LINE CONNECTION MODEL FOR REDISTRIBUTING (STORED)ENERGY 
FROM A SMALL CONTAINER TO A TWICE LARGER ONE.



Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

[Vo]:Fw: CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT 2019 - update Feb 1

[Brian Ahern]

From: Dr. Mitchell Swartz 
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 5:04 PM
To: Brian Ahern
Subject: CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT 2019 - update Feb 1

   -- Vortex Update  February 1, 2019

The 2019 Cold Fusion/LANR Colloquium at MIT
(Cambridge, MA) March 23-24, 2019

“From Hydrogen to Clean Energy Production Systems”

Two Days of Data, Info, and Science of Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions,
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, and Quantum Electronic Energy Production
Come help us celebrate the 30th anniversary of the announcement of
cold fusion [Cold fusion = LANR (Lattice Assisted/Enabled Nuclear Reactions)

The 2019 Cold Fusion/LANR Colloquium at MIT marks  the 30th anniversary
of the initial CF announcement.  This Colloquium is also one of a series
of Scientific and Engineering Colloquia discussing Cold Fusion, its theory,
physics, electrochemistry, material science, metallurgy,
and electrical engineering.  Our goal is to increase
excellence of science and engineering and improved public awareness
of the development of this important field.

 Conference and Poster sessions can share valued experience, findings,
 data, on this important subject. and get great feedback.
 If interested in submitting poster/paper,
 send the subject title, abstract paper or poster to
 poster2019colloqu...@nanortech.com

   When/Where: Sat., March 23, and Sun. Mar. 24, 2019
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

   More information here:  http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

   Map of MIT here: http://whereis.mit.edu/

   Housing will be at the local hotels/motels and B, as in the past.
   suggestions are available after email sent to
   hotels2019colloqu...@nanortech.com

   More updates will follow, including at the Cold Fusion Times website
   http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
   http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[Brian Ahern]

Is MoI Moment of inertia?
You allude to an electrical motor, but you leave details out.
The abrupt changes in the plots are non-physical.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 10:28 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity


Can you  identify  parameters of a  Mol.  What units (mass velocity length  
angular momentum etc ) does a Mol have.



The Link provided would not  allow connection with my computer,   A better 
description of what a Mol is would help.



Bob Cook




From: Vibrator ! 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:34:15 PM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince 
Albert in a can.  Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error.  Some 
kind of resolution!

It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion.  I know there's people here 
with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i 
need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', 
one way or the other.

I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother 
of all absurd claims..


What it is:

 - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. 
 Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys 
rotational KE.

 - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in 
velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically 
accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration.


 - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all 
input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in 
parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU.

There are two different forms of input work applied:

 - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque 
controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot

 - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force 
controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly


So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's 
there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann 
sum via Excel.

Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em.

Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up 
more sims..

The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work 
at all.. yet a 200% KE gain.

With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain 
rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially 
negative..

I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many 
orders over noise.

Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls

NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we 
could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty..

Climbing the walls here..

Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast

[Brian Ahern]

The failure to measure, record and discuss wall power baseline measurements is 
the hallmark f a fraudulent effort.


From: Terry Blanton 
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 3:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast



On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 6:59 PM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Thereforw to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC 
wattmeter from Amazon for 20 bucks to do the job of ascertaining real input 
power from the grid. It is beyond belief to suggest that this was not done.

Most of those puppies measure KW and not KVA.

[Vo]:Re: Brian - Is this article in the current issue of Science releveaant? (A redox road to recovery)

[Brian Ahern]

Perovskites are a great new material system, Nothing surprises me.


From: Lee Hively 
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2019 7:50 AM
To: 'Brian Ahern'
Subject: Brian - Is this article in the current issue of Science releveaant? (A 
redox road to recovery)


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/twis<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscience.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2F363%2F6424%2Ftwis=02%7C01%7C%7C14d4772aca73417091ef08d67ed5d8af%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636835854256564336=SVMhCZlgThuf0ZO6Z7LlBiMO0GcVOvP3ibzPJwxOjm0%3D=0>

Re: [Vo]:New EM propulsion paper

[Brian Ahern]

 I think John Wallace's 2009 article on longitudinal spin  waves mas value here.

John identified an 'entity' with a mass a billion times lighter than an 
electron.

It could act like a reactionless agent.

In April 2012 and July 2013 we observed self charging of large battery packs.
Several Megajoules of energy caused destruction of many batteries.


The July 2013 event was timed within hours  of a Japanese report of a Nova 
explosion in our galaxie.


We do not know what accompanied the photons.


From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 4:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New EM propulsion paper

In reply to  Remi Cornwall's message of Wed, 2 Jan 2019 16:19:58 -:
Hi Remi,
[snip]
>You need something to react against to dump the momentum to and for that
>reason gyroscopes don’t work as a propulsion device.
>
>All this L = r x p stuff and the “strange way” they behave confuses people,
>even Laithwaite.
>
>All the best.

Take into consideration that, at the atomic level, a gyro is a collection of
charged particles, all moving in an electromagnetic sea.
I suspect that if you examine Laithwaite more closely, you may find that, as
Jones suggests, it has commonalities with your work.

>
>>>Jones Beene Wed, 02 Jan 2019 06:49:08 -0800
> Brian,
>
>Here is a download which does not demand access to you contacts list
>https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fvixra.org%2Fabs%2F1812.0484data=02%7C01%7C%7C8aaf5feaf61348612bdf08d670fce1bf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636820628749255145sdata=pPRuymy1LHBuID75IiDvf6RjTrVsGGSc%2FwkJlvtcpWA%3Dreserved=0
>This basic concept - "static electromagnetic momentum", as expounded in the
>“Feynman Disk”   is interesting especially to vortex and should be fertile
>ground for comment.
>Here is a discussion of one part of the paradox - and it reminds me of the
>several Laithwaite videos which are on YouTube
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:New EM propulsion paper

[Brian Ahern]

I cannot open the file unless I adopt Facebook. No thank you.

From: Remi Cornwall 
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 9:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:New EM propulsion paper


Hi Folks,



Wishing you all a Happy New Year, especially Bill Beattie for providing this 
resource since I was virtually a teenager. I’m still sticking it to them (the 
establishment, the Philistines) and I am assembling a good team, business and 
engineering behind me. I wish you all success in your endeavours for 2019.



I’ve completed the triptych of my fundamental physics engineering papers:



http://www.academia.edu/38062548/A_Mechanism_for_Propulsion_without_The_Reactive_Ejection_of_Matter_or_Energy



https://www.academia.edu/29296558/The_misuse_of_the_No-communication_Theorem



https://www.academia.edu/31637706/Heat_engines_of_extraordinary_efficiency_And_the_general_principle_of_their_operation





(available here too: 
http://vixra.org/author/remi_cornwall
 )



http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rocornwall/



Y’all take care now,

Remi Cornwall.

Re: [Vo]:Microwave ignition - From Germany

[Brian Ahern]

I agree with Bob. The Manelas Device development will represent a fundamental 
change in transportation.

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 1:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Microwave ignition - From Germany


Jones—



The ICE is a short-lived feature of transportation technology—with a half -life 
of ½ that of horses when it came on the scene early in the 1900’s replacing the 
horses.  It will only carry on as an antique power source with

minimal-to-no technological improvements.



The modern ICE technology is too hard to maintain and will not catch on in the 
vast majority of the undeveloped societies.  Even in developed western society, 
it will be considered “old fashioned” and without curb appeal.



IMHO direct electrical energy production from non-chemical potential energy 
sources will arrive quickly with the assistance of AI in the engineering.



The normal short term view point of entrepreneurs will not provide productive 
results with AI in the technology circus.



Bob Cook







The





fRom: Jones Beene
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 7:45 AM
To: Vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Microwave ignition - From Germany





German technology claiming 30% improvement in mileage using microwaves instead 
of spark for fuel ignition.



https://mwi-ag.com/technik/?lang=en



Ex-Porsche CEO thinks microwave ignition can save the combustion 
engine






[https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/YvM2J4eFXPt5YISfbrnDYA--~A/Zmk9ZmlsbDt3PTQwMDtoPTIwMDthcHBpZD1pZXh0cmFjdA--/https:/o.aolcdn.com/images/dims3/GLOB/crop/2560x1440+0+0/resize/800x450!/format/jpg/quality/85/https:/s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2018-12/02a53260-fefa-11e8-afff-4152a07343cf.cf.jpg]




[- Description: 
https://s.yimg.com/cv/ae/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV21/1/enhancr_gradient-400x175.png]




Ex-Porsche CEO thinks microwave ignition can save the combustion engine

The tech cuts emissions by up to 80 percent.








For many years on Vortex there has been occasional mention of generating and 
using microwaves to power an ICE with no fuel - just air. There had been a 
claim from an inventor and also mention of this by our moderator - that 
microwaves could be gainful in some unknown way - presumably by oxidizing 
nitrogen to form NOx which of course is not a good thing... not to mention, it 
isn't gainful either (on paper)



... but as always "experiment rules"...



Maybe the Porche CEO knows something we don't... or maybe he is a lurker here 

Re: [Vo]:Yokose et al. report 3 kW peak power from Cu-Ni-Zn composite

[Brian Ahern]

I reported a similar runaway with Nano nickel powder at 10nm in my 2012 EPRI 
report.



From: Arnaud Kodeck 
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Yokose et al. report 3 kW peak power from Cu-Ni-Zn composite


At ICCF21, JBP was also reporting such runaway event with PdNiZr powder. The 
quantity of PdNiZr was about 100g when the runaway occurred. The runaway 
phenomena stopped when temperature reached ~450°C which is the upper limit for 
this kind of powder. The difference is that the runaway started from room 
temperature. No heat had been feed to the reactor.



The colour of the powder(black) was exactly the same as JPB had after the 
runaway. Normally this powder is metallic grey after deoxidation not black.



Arnaud



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2018 16:13
To: Vortex 
Subject: [Vo]:Yokose et al. report 3 kW peak power from Cu-Ni-Zn composite



See:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328547673_Anomalous_Heat_Burst_by_CNZ7_Sample_and_H-Gas

My comment:

The sample is ~1 kg. That is much more material than you were using years ago. 
That's good! I am very pleased to see that people are increasing the mass of 
reactant. I believe that is why the level of heat increased. I believe more 
heat comes from a larger number of active sites.

Okay, that may seem like an odd thing to say. It may seem obvious that heat 
will increase as the mass of reactant increases. But I do not think that has 
been tested -- or demonstrated -- up until now. We just assumed that is how it 
works.

Even what we consider obvious aspects of the phenomenon should be tested. It is 
possible that a giant mass of reactant might have no active sites. Or it might 
sinter and stop working.

I am pleased to see larger samples being tested, but that does not mean small 
scale tests such as Beiting and Staker are useless. They do superb calorimetry 
and their signal to noise ratio is high, so there is much to be learned from 
their tests as well. I am glad to see high s/n small-scale tests AND glad to 
see scaled-up tests. Both are valuable.

Note that Staker also reported run-away heat events. I believe they are roughly 
similar in scale to this, when you adjust for the amount of reactant and 
surface area.



Beiting:



http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeitingEinvestigat.pdf



Staker:



http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ICCF21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Carbon Engineering

[Brian Ahern]

This is a ridiculous concept that would take centuries of earth-wide cooperaton 
and wealth management.



From: H LV 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 4:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Carbon Engineering

I have heard the first synthetic fuel was made in 1925. Germany synthesized 
fuel in WWII.

Harry

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:05 PM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The article on Carbon Engineering I posted in thread called Carbon Capture and 
Renewable Fuels makes it clear that they are not hiding the fact that they need 
an outside energy source.

Of course they do! It is not a perpetual motion machine. As you say, the 
authors make this clear.

If the source of energy were solar, nuclear, wind or cold fusion, this might be 
a viable way to pull significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. 
However, if it were cold fusion, we would not need the carbon for synthetic 
chemical fuel, so the only purpose would be to reduce CO2 and the threat of 
global warming. I think you could accomplish that more readily by planting 
millions of trees and then, when they grow old and start to die, by making 
charcoal out of them and burying it in the ground. That would take decades but 
it could be done on a massive scale, and having all those trees would be a 
great benefit in other ways. I hope that we will not need the land because I 
hope agriculture will be done indoors, and meat grown in vitro.

This might be a good way to make synthetic fuel from wind electricity, but I 
suppose electrolysis and some sort of hydrogen-based fuel would be better. It 
does not take much water. You can even do it in arid places such as North & 
South Dakota, where they have astounding amounts of potential wind energy. I 
have read that if their potential wind energy were used to make synthetic 
liquid fuel, it would produce more fuel than all of the oil coming out of 
Middle East. (The potential energy when built up; not present-day wind energy.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hopping, low-mo, and variable decay neutrons - more than one type

[Brian Ahern]

This seems more plausible than D-D -> He-4 directly without gammas.



From: Andrew Meulenberg 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 6:28 AM
To: VORTEX; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hopping, low-mo, and variable decay neutrons - more than one 
type

Robin,

I'm sorry that I don't have time to monitor this site regularly, so I may have 
missed the earlier references. However, when you mention shrunken molecules, do 
you mean those with deep-orbit electrons, such as modeled in

A. Meulenberg  and J. L. Paillet, “Basis for femto-molecules and -ions created 
from femto-atoms,” ICCF-19, 19th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, 
Padua, Italy, 15/05/2015, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 19, pp. 202 – 209, 
(2016)

or

A. Meulenberg, “Femto-Helium and PdD 
Transmutation,”
 ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia, Missouri, 
25/07/2013, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015), 106-117

or do you have some other entity in mind (e.g., Storms' prefusion model)? If 
the latter, can you point to a ref or two? Either way, I agree with your story 
here.

Thx,

Andrew

_ _

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:20 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> 
wrote:
Hi Jones,

Consider the possibilities resulting from the existence of a shrunken molecule:-

Deuterium molecules that had not shrunk far enough to fuse might easily be
confused with Helium. They are chemically non-reactive, and very close to the
same mass.

Those that have shrunk far enough to fuse, might fuse in their entirety adding 4
amu to the target nucleus, or they may only add a single deuteron to a target
nucleus, or they may contribute only a neutron (or proton). If the whole
molecules fuses the addition of two deuterons concurrently may well provide
sufficient energy to bring about a fission reaction so that the kinetic energy
is shared by the daughter products, again usually creating stable nuclei,
because the original target nucleus wasn't all that neutron rich to begin with.
(Note that science currently really only has experience with fission brought
about by single neutrons, which is why fission reactions are only seen with some
actinide targets - a single neutron only adds about 6-10 MeV to a nucleus, so it
has to be pretty unstable to start with if it is to fission. OTOH, a well
shrunken D molecule could add 20-36 MeV, making fission of much lighter nuclei
possible.)
In each case, heavy particles are left behind which readily share momentum &
kinetic energy, so that the reaction is mostly "clean".

The different sizes, and consequently differing reactions & reaction ratios,
available would provide an explanation as to why the "helium"/energy ratio is
difficult to pin down.

Neutron hopping from a shrunken deuterium molecule should happen very readily,
because the neutron is only bound in the deuterium nucleus by 2.2 MeV, whereas
the binding energy for most other nuclei is about 6-10 MeV. Furthermore the
shrunken deuterium molecule can get very close to other nuclei, possibly
reducing the tunneling distance by orders of magnitude, and thus increasing the
tunneling probability astronomically (it's insanely dependent on separation
distance). Shrunken deuterium *atoms* would also contribute to neutron hopping,
especially if the magnetic field of such an atom binds it to the magnetic field
of the target nucleus, causing it to "stick" long enough for tunneling to occur.

Given that the shrinkage process itself is also exothermic, *no* miracles are
required, only a set of circumstances that provide at least one shrinkage
catalyst. Both Lithium & Potassium can fill this role, and at least one of the
two was often present in early electrolysis based CF experiments.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Hopping, low-mo, and variable decay neutrons - more than one type

[Brian Ahern]

This is far more plausible than fusion producing He-4 with no radiation! LENR 
folks like myself must re-examine the arguments that drew them  in 30 years ago.


It is tough to admit to wasting so much time and effort. Are LENR folks too old 
to adopt a simpler solution?



From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 3:19 PM
To: Jones Beene
Cc: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hopping, low-mo, and variable decay neutrons - more than one 
type

Hi Jones,

Consider the possibilities resulting from the existence of a shrunken molecule:-

Deuterium molecules that had not shrunk far enough to fuse might easily be
confused with Helium. They are chemically non-reactive, and very close to the
same mass.

Those that have shrunk far enough to fuse, might fuse in their entirety adding 4
amu to the target nucleus, or they may only add a single deuteron to a target
nucleus, or they may contribute only a neutron (or proton). If the whole
molecules fuses the addition of two deuterons concurrently may well provide
sufficient energy to bring about a fission reaction so that the kinetic energy
is shared by the daughter products, again usually creating stable nuclei,
because the original target nucleus wasn't all that neutron rich to begin with.
(Note that science currently really only has experience with fission brought
about by single neutrons, which is why fission reactions are only seen with some
actinide targets - a single neutron only adds about 6-10 MeV to a nucleus, so it
has to be pretty unstable to start with if it is to fission. OTOH, a well
shrunken D molecule could add 20-36 MeV, making fission of much lighter nuclei
possible.)
In each case, heavy particles are left behind which readily share momentum &
kinetic energy, so that the reaction is mostly "clean".

The different sizes, and consequently differing reactions & reaction ratios,
available would provide an explanation as to why the "helium"/energy ratio is
difficult to pin down.

Neutron hopping from a shrunken deuterium molecule should happen very readily,
because the neutron is only bound in the deuterium nucleus by 2.2 MeV, whereas
the binding energy for most other nuclei is about 6-10 MeV. Furthermore the
shrunken deuterium molecule can get very close to other nuclei, possibly
reducing the tunneling distance by orders of magnitude, and thus increasing the
tunneling probability astronomically (it's insanely dependent on separation
distance). Shrunken deuterium *atoms* would also contribute to neutron hopping,
especially if the magnetic field of such an atom binds it to the magnetic field
of the target nucleus, causing it to "stick" long enough for tunneling to occur.

Given that the shrinkage process itself is also exothermic, *no* miracles are
required, only a set of circumstances that provide at least one shrinkage
catalyst. Both Lithium & Potassium can fill this role, and at least one of the
two was often present in early electrolysis based CF experiments.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:The technology and economics of Carbon Capture

[Brian Ahern]

Amazingly bad video!



From: H LV 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:The technology and economics of Carbon Capture

A discussion about the technology and economics of carbon capture. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY_lzonfE3I

Re: [Vo]:Carbon Engineering

[Brian Ahern]

Attention Vortex!


Anybody who falls for the Carbon Engineering scam needs adult supervision.

Where does the energy come from to run the process?


They snuck in:

Wind, solar, nuclear and Natural gas

We should have a contest for who can list the most outrageous aspects of this 
technological scheme.

They are praying on investors who are unfamiliar with thermodynamics.


From: H LV 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Carbon Engineering

More about the company Carbon Engineering.
Their philosophical outlook is different.

"A non-disruptive disruptive tehnology"
"Instead of changing everything else why don't we just make a fuel which is 
carbon neutral?"
"Fuel made from atmospheric C02"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6TZdstpmGo

[Vo]:Fw: [New post] A Bakers Dozen

[Brian Ahern]

Where is the data to support the claims?



From: Atom Ecology 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:52 PM
To: ahern_br...@msn.com
Subject: [New post] A Bakers Dozen

russ george posted: "Today Marks A High Point In Cold Fusion Research & 
Development Now online in my lab are 13 cold fusion experiments, a baker's 
dozen All 13 are now running and performing Heat, helium and just ever so few 
gamma rays to transform the world of energy "

New post on Atom Ecology

[https://i0.wp.com/atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cropped-atom_icon2.png?resize=32%2C32]
[http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/bcd406c695926fc7697af77452ebd746?s=50=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif=G]
A Bakers 
Dozen
by russ 
george
Today Marks A High Point In Cold Fusion Research & Development
Now online in my lab are 13 cold fusion experiments, a baker's dozen
All 13 are now running and performing
Heat, helium and just ever so few gamma rays to transform the world of energy 
forever

The Atom-Ecology reliable cold fusion meta-fuels compositions are being studied 
with a state of the art data capture system. Every second scores of data point 
are logged focusing on utilization of anomalous cold fusion heat of tens to 
hundreds of joules/sec along with correlated gamma radiation. This most 
intensive cold fusion experimental array in unsurpassed in the history of the 
field for sheer numbers of simultaneous experiments. But best of all this is 
truly functioning cold fusion that so far works every time.

[atom-ecology fuel 
pellets]My
 tiny 'atom-ecology' cold fusion fuel pellets about 1/10th of a cm2.

The intent is to study and refine the functioning technology that comes in the 
form of fusion fuel pellets the size of a few grains of rice. If you wonder 
abput the utility of this cold fusion just count the number of grains of rice 
in a small bag of rice and multiply each grain by tens of watts of fusion power.

Thanks to the generous friendship of my mates Alan Smith in and Martin Moore 
who have provided me with bench space in their Ecalox laboratory and their 
incredible efforts this baker's dosze in running. Without their assistance in 
building, programming, and breaking in our new cold fusion/lenr along with 
generous financial support from several donors to this work I am able to test 
ideas in cold fusion that I have been pursuing since cold fusion was announced 
in 1989. Principally these 'hot dry' cold fusion experiments follow upon work 
in which I had successfully observed cold fusion forms. (My work is well 
described on this blog.)

The argument against cold fusion being real and thus immensely controversial 
has always been 'if one has nuclear fire, one must have nuclear smoke', the 
'smoke demanded, has been gamma radiation. In this work here in our simple lab 
in an old farm building in the fields of Essex on the outskirts of London the 
gammas are reliably produced in sufficient abundance to be undeniable but in 
such tiny amounts as to be innocuous to health.

Cold fusion as a form of Atom-Ecology is not just one reaction but a plethora 
of reactions. It always had to be as standard physics if allowed any one 'cold 
fusion' reaction to be produced would surely allow for a great variety of 
different cold fusions to occur. Forrtunately the principal reaction produces 
no gamma radiation but rather simple helium. That's always been the simple 
fusion, fuse two hydrogen atoms together and make one helium, effectively a 
double hydrogen. In this case the form of helium produced is 4He. For the lay 
person single gram/cc of water, as in H2O, contains sufficient hydrogen to make 
more than 10 trillion trillion atoms of helium. Along with that amount of 
helium comes a trillion watts of energy.

Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions Inside Compact 

Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann critique of N.H.E. Paper by Saito et al.

[Brian Ahern]

 This response is tedious and irrelevant.


The surprising reality is that they were quibbling about milliwatt excess power 
levels.


I welcome any data with 5 watts excess in a repeatable process.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 4:48 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: [Vo]:Fleischmann critique of N.H.E. Paper by Saito et al.

In which Fleischmann eviscerates the N.H.E.:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancritiqueof.pdf

Re: [Vo]:“Golden Sandwich” Photoelectrode Harvests 85% Of Sunlight

[Brian Ahern]

Solar electrolysis is a bad idea compounded. In the real world impurities 
degrade the performance to negligible levels.  Water  is a great host for 
living organisms.



From: H LV 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 3:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:“Golden Sandwich” Photoelectrode Harvests 85% Of Sunlight

"Scientists at the Research Institute for Electronic Science at Hokkaido 
University have created what they call a “golden sandwich,” a photoelectrode 
that captures 85% of sunlight and uses it to split water and thus create 
hydrogen. Yes, this is experimental stuff, and no, it has not yet reached 
commercial production. But stop and think for a minute what that could mean to 
the renewable energy revolution..."

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/13/golden-sandwich-solar-cell-converts-85-of-sunlight-to-electricity/

Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

[Brian Ahern]

The 1993 SRI explosion was likely due to RECALESCENCE. The PdD had the energy 
density of a plastic explosive of the same dimensions.


There was no nuclear incident.



From: Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 2:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

I seem to remember something about a quarter inch cube of  palladium blowing a 
hole in a
lab bench. What would a one inch cube have done!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 at 05:15, Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There have been at least two deaths which could be attributed to CF 
experiments, one at SRI in 1992 and one in Japan.




On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 12:01 AM Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If an explosion in a LENR system were possible, it would have happen in the 30 
some years that LENR experiments have been going on all over the world. No 
explosions of note have occurred in all that time and in all those places.

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

We need to analyze the LENR reaction against the various types of explosive 
reactions to determine what could possibly occur. I suppose a LENR water based 
system can be confined in a boiler were pressure is allowed to build to an 
explosive level.


--
quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens
pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata

Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

[Brian Ahern]

I replicated Urutskoev's work. It was all a mistake. He adds nothing credible 
to the field!


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 12:38 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The potential weaponization of LENR

One the other hand,  in experiments with uranium, Leonid Urutskoev has shown 
that in may be possible for the LENR reaction to produce a fission explosion in 
fissile material. This line of experiments he undertook were designed to show 
that the Chernobyl reactor explosion was produced by a large electrical 
discharge that produced LENR byproducts that enriched the nuclear fuel in the 
chernobyl reactor's core. I speculate that that the byproduct was an intense 
muon flux. Muons have been known to produce fission in fissile material and can 
act to enrich the concentration of U235 in the U238 fuel mix through selective 
transmutation of even atomic number elements. Specially U238 over U235.

See

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/p86-123#.W3ZPcOjFhPY

ABSTRACT

Muon-induced prompt and delayed fission yields in 235U and 238U have been 
measured. A coincidence with the muonic uranium Kα X-rays was used to identify 
the muon stop in the target. The experimental absolute fission yields per muon 
stop were 0.142 ± 0.023 for 235U and 0.068 ± 0.013 for 238U. The disappearance 
rate of muons from the 1s state of muonic uranium has also been measured in the 
fission mode. Muon-induced fission lifetimes were 71.6 ± 0.6 ns for 235U and 
77.2 ± 0.4 ns for 238U. No evidence for a short-lifetime fission – isomer 
component was found. Comparison of lifetime results with previously measured 
values in the electron, gamma, and neutron decay modes indicated that the 
systematic discrepancies could be explained by muon capture on fission 
fragments produced from prompt fission.

I suppose that a uranium fission bomb could be designed using the LENR reaction 
as an enrichment and trigger mechanism using uranium.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There have been at least two deaths which could be attributed to CF 
experiments, one at SRI in 1992 and one in Japan.




On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 12:01 AM Axil Axil 
mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If an explosion in a LENR system were possible, it would have happen in the 30 
some years that LENR experiments have been going on all over the world. No 
explosions of note have occurred in all that time and in all those places.

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

We need to analyze the LENR reaction against the various types of explosive 
reactions to determine what could possibly occur. I suppose a LENR water based 
system can be confined in a boiler were pressure is allowed to build to an 
explosive level.

Re: [Vo]:This could be the start of something big

[Brian Ahern]

Robert Dynes was  at the center of SC before he moved to USCD. His published 
analysis closed down the superconducting supercomputer research in 1983.  SC 
materials are not good, fast switchers and cannot compete with Si/SiO2.

Sperry Rand went out of business as a result.


He did not contribute to the theory of SC chemistry.



From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 11:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:This could be the start of something big

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:15:34 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robert Dynes of UCSD found that the transition temperature of lead (Pb) 
>increased when it was in contact with silver. This was unexpected. 
>Unfortunately for further aspects of this argument, Dynes became the head of 
>the UC system and exited this research niche. He had attributed the reverse 
>proximity effect to “the strong links that exist between electrons in silver” 
>which is somewhat lame – and it is possible that instead, silver grains at the 
>interface were developing local superconductivity which more than compensated 
>for what was lost with the lead.

If the transition temperature increases, I think that makes it a better
superconductor, not worse.
As to why it increased, I suspect it's because the two metals have different
work functions, resulting in electron migration, and a matching change in the
lattice constants of the Pb, which in turn would alter the Tc.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:This could be the start of something big

[Brian Ahern]

No superconductivity.

There is something better .

Energy localization enables all enzyme catalytic activities.


From: H LV 
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 2:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:This could be the start of something big


I wonder if superconductivity occurs in the human  body.

On Aug 5, 2018 4:06 AM, "Roarty, Francis X" 
mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote:

Calcium is a transition metal… found in limestone and coral and several 
levitation legends.



From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2018 2:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:This could be the start of something big



https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08572



“Evidence for Superconductivity at Ambient Temperature and Pressure in 
Nanostructures”



Dev Kumar Thapa, Anshu Pandey  (Submitted on 23 Jul 2018) India Institute of 
Science.



Specifically the authors who appear to be relatively unknown, found the HTSC 
and Meissner effect in silver nanoparticles embedded in a gold matrix.



However, it seems clear that  they expect more depth to the discovery than only 
gold and silver - and hopefully other less expensive combinations may turn up.



They started with a view towards discovering “non-phonon based electron pairing 
mechanisms” – IOW plasmonic.



Au and Ag are of course expensive precious metals with excellent normal 
conductivity, both thermal and electric, and notably both have low 
electron-phonon coupling and are not known to exhibit a superconducting state 
independently. Is that basic set of parameters the start of a formula which 
leads to other pairs such as zinc and cadmium or nickel and palladium?



If there is broader applicability to other related  pairs of transition metals, 
and of course if this finding is easily and quickly replicated – then it likely 
could be the start of an international race… which is reminiscent of the 
discovery of HTSC in copper oxides in 1986 by IBM researchers Bednorz and 
Muller, who were awarded the 1987 Nobel… and which scenario could happen again 
here if this is real.



Of course, the IBM discovery failed to live up to the early hype.



Jones

[Vo]:Fw: CMNS: Input power is not noise!

[Brian Ahern]

FYI



From: Brian Ahern
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:29 PM
To: c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Input power is not noise!


>From Brian Ahern:


I have found D+D -> He-4 to be problematic. My own EPRI work, however found a 
repeatable excess with no radiation


LENR is real but not yet understood.


My year long experience with the device made by Arthur Manelas (deceased 2015) 
suggests that new magnetic interactions are in play.



From: billcol...@iscmns.org 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:35 AM
To: c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Input power is not noise!



Jed, I agree nobody said explicitly that only one reaction was occurring. In 
contrast, this is an implicit and overlooked assumption implied by the phrase 
"expected".  How many times must this be repeated?

If you have evidence of that D+D to He is occurring, why not tell us what it 
is, in a way that does not assume the very conclusion you want to make?  Do you 
have evidence of comensurate consumption of deuterium?  Do you have any theory 
which predicts d+d as opposed to d+p?  Can you explain how heat is trasmitted 
without radiatrions? For the reasons I have explained many times, the Q/He4 
ratio is not remotely persuasive as it is based on erroneous assumption of 1 
(overall) reaction.  If you would like to address these issues that would be 
constructive. :)

Bill

On 2018-06-26 08:35, Jed Rothwell wrote:

mailto:billcol...@iscmns.org>> wrote:

No Jed, my point is that there are many different ways to produce helium (and 
heat) and therefore it is wrong, without further evidence, to assume that only 
one reaction is occurring.

Ed and I did not say that only one reaction is occurring. With other host 
metals there may be other products altogether. There is definitely tritium in 
some cases.

We said this particular reaction, D+D to He is occurring. I said the path may 
not be as simple as D+D, but those are starting inputs and final outputs. It 
might resemble the complex path of the Krebs cycle, with intermediate reactions 
along the way. However, in any chemical or nuclear reaction, the total energy 
release depends only on the starting and ending products.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
c...@googlegroups.com<mailto:c...@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at 
https://groups.google.com/group/cmns<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fcmns=02%7C01%7C%7C65004da2c6cc4f7e088b08d5db722a4f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636656205730850408=vjWcz0f4kmDB2ZorFdZEsAaiP5Mr6RX6%2FKX4HQQcXiY%3D=0>.
For more options, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout=02%7C01%7C%7C65004da2c6cc4f7e088b08d5db722a4f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636656205730850408=sB5QP%2FiuNnZJbUrIF4P%2Buq9U5vzCgykXUDa6z6V89oU%3D=0>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
c...@googlegroups.com<mailto:c...@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at 
https://groups.google.com/group/cmns<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fcmns=02%7C01%7C%7C65004da2c6cc4f7e088b08d5db722a4f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636656205730850408=vjWcz0f4kmDB2ZorFdZEsAaiP5Mr6RX6%2FKX4HQQcXiY%3D=0>.
For more options, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/optout<https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout=02%7C01%7C%7C65004da2c6cc4f7e088b08d5db722a4f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636656205730850408=sB5QP%2FiuNnZJbUrIF4P%2Buq9U5vzCgykXUDa6z6V89oU%3D=0>.

Re: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document

[Brian Ahern]

I had this private conversation with Martin Fleischmann on december 23 1993 a 
week before the tragic explosion at SRI.

Martin said they stopped using bulk cathodes to avoid explosions.   The cathode 
he gave to Biberian was 20cm long and 2mm OD.



From: Brian Ahern 
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document


Martin told me that Pd-20% Ag was the best performer.


This tracks with the highest transition temperature near 17K. The deuterons 
have their largest amplitude of oscillations, so PdAg alloys are already active 
and the proof will have to be the ratio of Pd105/Pd109.



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document






Bob,



I was waiting for you to concur, and we both can hope that Biberian will 
further pursue the spin coupling angle.



He seems to be silent on taking this finding to the limit – despite it possibly 
being the best evidence yet for what is happening in Pd-D. (best ever)



One wonders if the cathode was one from the “hero effort” French experiments 
from the days of “La Fusion dans Tous ses États” as it certainly appears to be. 
In fact, it could be the hero cathode of all time (~50 watts for 6 months or 
thereabouts). That would be a huge story.



At any rate here is another possibility for those who want to keep helium in 
the equation:



105Pd + 6Li -> 107Ag + 4He



The alpha particle shows up without the strong gamma – since it and the 
transmuted silver would carry away enough spin energy to eliminate the extreme 
photon, and everything seems to add up to what Is seen in the isotope analysis 
…  other than overcoming the Coulomb barrier using spin and magnetism. The 
curious thing here is that deuterium does not enter into the picture ! Wjich 
may mean that there are two distinct and separate reactions going on, not one.



BTW 6Li does have a nuclear magnetic moment. The alpha of course has none.



Don’t give up on spin coupling – especially now that there is solid evidence 
emerging.



"Vive la France!"







From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>


Sounds like spin and magnetic fields are important.  Eureka.



I talked with Biberian at ICCF-21 and asked about spin and magnetic fields and 
about how magnetic fields change

nuclear resonances and spin energy states.   I think Biberian agrees with the 
importance of spin coupling—nuclear to lattice electrons, potentially via a 
connecting oscillating magnetic field.



I hope to visit Biberian’s lab in the Fall per invitation.



Bob Cook







From: Jones Beene



There is a most interesting paper by Biberian on page 10 which begins with this 
background info:



“In 2001, Stanley Pons gave me a palladium cathode that had produced a lot of 
excess heat. The

electrode was 10cm long and 2mm in diameter. It was pure palladium and was used 
in an ICARUS 9

calorimeter. The electrode stayed in my drawer for years, until I found a 
laboratory that could do

dynamic SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy). The equipment was a Cameca 4f 
machine that

can detect masses of elements with high sensitivity.”



http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ICCFabstracts.pdf<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FICCFabstracts.pdf=02%7C01%7C%7C003e54e182da4c63fba808d5d38a8a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636647514332376078=C8pp5E%2B3FjDQSqon99lFce5MsGVl3KoyB7HYndNaEM0%3D=0>



The curious thing is that active areas of the cathode labeled as “hot spots” 
contained silver isotopes and furthermore, the silver must have transmuted from 
palladium over the course of the gainful runs since the cathode was pure 
palladium before “lots of excess heat” was seen.



Most of the transmuted silver was the isotope 107 by a very large margin. The 
ratio between Ag-107/Ag-109 was close to 10, whereas in natural silver this 
ratio is 1.06.



This could mean with fairly high certainty that the single isotope of 
palladium, 105Pd (which is over 22 percent of natural palladium) absorbed or 
fused with deuterons to become 107Ag but without subsequent beta decay.



Therefore if we assume for the moment that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold 
fusion (there are other possible conclusions but let’s start with this one) 
then several things stand out.



First, this is a high spin isotope. Second it has a nuclear magnetic moment. In 
fact, this isotope is the ONLY palladium isotope to have a nuclear magnetic 
moment and the only high spin isotope and the Larmor frequency seems to be 
similar to D. Thus the excess heat and the fusion could have been a product of 
spin coupling without subsequent beta decay (so no x-ray signature or residual 
radioactivity would be seen).



This is interesting information which - had 

Re: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document

[Brian Ahern]

I favor magnetic field interactions that support both LENR and Manelas.

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 4:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document


Sounds like spin and magnetic fields are important.  Eureka.



I talked with Biberian at ICCF-21 and asked about spin and magnetic fields and 
about how magnetic fields change

nuclear resonances and spin energy states.   I think Biberian agrees with the 
importance of spin coupling—nuclear to lattice electrons, potentially via a 
connecting oscillating magnetic field.



I hope to visit Biberian’s lab in the Fall per invitation.



Bob Cook







From: Jones Beene
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document





From: Jed Rothwell

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ICCFabstracts.pdf





There is a most interesting paper by Biberian on page 10 which begins with this 
background info:



“In 2001, Stanley Pons gave me a palladium cathode that had produced a lot of 
excess heat. The

electrode was 10cm long and 2mm in diameter. It was pure palladium and was used 
in an ICARUS 9

calorimeter. The electrode stayed in my drawer for years, until I found a 
laboratory that could do

dynamic SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy). The equipment was a Cameca 4f 
machine that

can detect masses of elements with high sensitivity.”



The curious thing is that active areas of the cathode labeled as “hot spots” 
contained silver isotopes and furthermore, the silver must have transmuted from 
palladium over the course of the gainful runs since the cathode was pure 
palladium before “lots of excess heat” was seen.



Most of the transmuted silver was the isotope 107 by a very large margin. The 
ratio between Ag-107/Ag-109 was close to 10, whereas in natural silver this 
ratio is 1.06.



This could mean with fairly high certainty that the single isotope of 
palladium, 105Pd (which is over 22 percent of natural palladium) absorbed or 
fused with deuterons to become 107Ag but without subsequent beta decay.



Therefore if we assume for the moment that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold 
fusion (there are other possible conclusions but let’s start with this one) 
then several things stand out.



First, this is a high spin isotope. Second it has a nuclear magnetic moment. In 
fact, this isotope is the ONLY palladium isotope to have a nuclear magnetic 
moment and the only high spin isotope and the Larmor frequency seems to be 
similar to D. Thus the excess heat and the fusion could have been a product of 
spin coupling without subsequent beta decay (so no x-ray signature or residual 
radioactivity would be seen).



This is interesting information which - had it come out in 2001 could have made 
a difference in the way the field matured.

Re: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document

[Brian Ahern]

Martin told me that Pd-20% Ag was the best performer.


This tracks with the highest transition temperature near 17K. The deuterons 
have their largest amplitude of oscillations, so PdAg alloys are already active 
and the proof will have to be the ratio of Pd105/Pd109.



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:All ICCF-21 Abstracts in one document






Bob,



I was waiting for you to concur, and we both can hope that Biberian will 
further pursue the spin coupling angle.



He seems to be silent on taking this finding to the limit – despite it possibly 
being the best evidence yet for what is happening in Pd-D. (best ever)



One wonders if the cathode was one from the “hero effort” French experiments 
from the days of “La Fusion dans Tous ses États” as it certainly appears to be. 
In fact, it could be the hero cathode of all time (~50 watts for 6 months or 
thereabouts). That would be a huge story.



At any rate here is another possibility for those who want to keep helium in 
the equation:



105Pd + 6Li -> 107Ag + 4He



The alpha particle shows up without the strong gamma – since it and the 
transmuted silver would carry away enough spin energy to eliminate the extreme 
photon, and everything seems to add up to what Is seen in the isotope analysis 
…  other than overcoming the Coulomb barrier using spin and magnetism. The 
curious thing here is that deuterium does not enter into the picture ! Wjich 
may mean that there are two distinct and separate reactions going on, not one.



BTW 6Li does have a nuclear magnetic moment. The alpha of course has none.



Don’t give up on spin coupling – especially now that there is solid evidence 
emerging.



"Vive la France!"







From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com


Sounds like spin and magnetic fields are important.  Eureka.



I talked with Biberian at ICCF-21 and asked about spin and magnetic fields and 
about how magnetic fields change

nuclear resonances and spin energy states.   I think Biberian agrees with the 
importance of spin coupling—nuclear to lattice electrons, potentially via a 
connecting oscillating magnetic field.



I hope to visit Biberian’s lab in the Fall per invitation.



Bob Cook







From: Jones Beene



There is a most interesting paper by Biberian on page 10 which begins with this 
background info:



“In 2001, Stanley Pons gave me a palladium cathode that had produced a lot of 
excess heat. The

electrode was 10cm long and 2mm in diameter. It was pure palladium and was used 
in an ICARUS 9

calorimeter. The electrode stayed in my drawer for years, until I found a 
laboratory that could do

dynamic SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy). The equipment was a Cameca 4f 
machine that

can detect masses of elements with high sensitivity.”



http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ICCFabstracts.pdf



The curious thing is that active areas of the cathode labeled as “hot spots” 
contained silver isotopes and furthermore, the silver must have transmuted from 
palladium over the course of the gainful runs since the cathode was pure 
palladium before “lots of excess heat” was seen.



Most of the transmuted silver was the isotope 107 by a very large margin. The 
ratio between Ag-107/Ag-109 was close to 10, whereas in natural silver this 
ratio is 1.06.



This could mean with fairly high certainty that the single isotope of 
palladium, 105Pd (which is over 22 percent of natural palladium) absorbed or 
fused with deuterons to become 107Ag but without subsequent beta decay.



Therefore if we assume for the moment that 105Pd is the active isotope of cold 
fusion (there are other possible conclusions but let’s start with this one) 
then several things stand out.



First, this is a high spin isotope. Second it has a nuclear magnetic moment. In 
fact, this isotope is the ONLY palladium isotope to have a nuclear magnetic 
moment and the only high spin isotope and the Larmor frequency seems to be 
similar to D. Thus the excess heat and the fusion could have been a product of 
spin coupling without subsequent beta decay (so no x-ray signature or residual 
radioactivity would be seen).



This is interesting information which - had it come out in 2001 could have made 
a difference in the way the field matured.

Re: [Vo]:Beiting paper at ICCF-21

[Brian Ahern]

Coincidentally, I presented my EPRI data on ZrONiH to Richard Garwin at my home 
lab in February 2011. He was a paid consultant fr a millionaire, Robert King. 
Robert was advised not to invest even though I had repeatable excess energy.



From: Rich Murray 
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 11:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Beiting paper at ICCF-21

Glad and hopeful...   rmfor...@gmail.com<mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com>
blog 
rmforall.blogspot.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frmforall.blogspot.com=02%7C01%7C%7Ce6f9b09ff9e84ebb469b08d5cb5ce827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636638522240552309=02lmKHput03QjG0LLEIIc1kfMbBtRA5enCJsZJGb6cE%3D=0>



On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 5:01 PM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This was marvelous:

E. Beiting, “Investigation of the nickel-hydrogen anomalous heat effect,” 
Aerospace Report No. ATR-2017-01760, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo CA, 
USA, May 15, 2017.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Beiting-Edward-1.pdf<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoldfusioncommunity.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F05%2FBeiting-Edward-1.pdf=02%7C01%7C%7Ce6f9b09ff9e84ebb469b08d5cb5ce827%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636638522240708579=d6oto3wejrkoKDUjM084MokkMJuk1JxcwyzN4HcEWFM%3D=0>

In my opinion, this is one of the best reports in the history of cold fusion. 
Great calorimetry -- IRREFUTABLE results. I now fully believe the ZrO2NiPd 
material works. Kudos to Brian Ahern.

The response to this from Richard Garwin was hilarious. I shall describe it 
later, when I get a chance.

I can't wait to read the full report listed at the end of the abstract. I hope 
I can upload the full report to LENR-CANR.org soon.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Brian Ahern]

How can anyone validate when there is no data from a five year old system?What 
is claimed for the device?  Where is a video of the unit running?


From: Vibrator ! 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2018 11:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.

It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's are 
responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.

Perhaps you could help refine my template?

"Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my 
free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two masses 
around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots, and the 
nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"

The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp. 
College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...

So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure its 
efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a 3D-printable 
version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not deployed in a 
sensible manner.

I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to 
proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just 
rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's 
long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark 
matter and laser spectroscopy etc.

At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting 
impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I 
seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical physics?  
Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..

Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way?   A 
volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?


On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern 
mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:

Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play book, 
page 1.


  1.
no independent data
  2.
no independent experiments
  3.
claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
  4.




From: Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com<mailto:88.fr...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

No, no, no.

On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Grimes, Damn autocorrect.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Crimes?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 
mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
@Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or 
'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey who am 
i to talk..

Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?



--
quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens
pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Brian Ahern]

Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play book, 
page 1.


  1.
no independent data
  2.
no independent experiments
  3.
claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
  4.




From: Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

No, no, no.

On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Grimes, Damn autocorrect.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Crimes?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 
mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
@Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or 
'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey who am 
i to talk..

Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?



--
quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens
pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Brian Ahern]

It looks like $4M spent over about 18 months with no data at all.  Even if it 
worked, 30 kW is far too small. The payback period would be thousands of years!


How could anyone fall for this scam?  I'll bet the small unit in Brazil was 
rigged to produce an effect sufficient to separate an investor from his money.



From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 3:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at
least that is what they claimed it would do...

https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frarenergia.com.br%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cf510c40212644a5820fa08d5c8c273d7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636635659842957503=PbQ1KYVyJ5LPcY9VREw5GO%2FHaSdCfrYLghj%2BKzLY4C8%3D=0

Nigel


On 31/05/2018 18:27, Vibrator ! wrote:
> I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously
> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
>
> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
>
> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing
> consistency - no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All
> values have also been checked with manual calcs.  The results are
> incontrovertible - this is neither mistake, nor psychosis.
>
>
>
> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that
> time is stare in disbelief at the results.
>
> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from
> first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the
> maths do, confirming the theory.
>
> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the
> CoM violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent
> upon the former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct
> causal relationship.
>
>
> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.
>
>
> But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it
> to the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know
> about it, and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile
> crank-emails to universities and govt. departments etc.?
>
> I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.
>
>
> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with
> making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to
> sit on - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?
>
> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them,
> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...
> it's just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can
> actually be measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.
> Simply no room for error or ambiguity. Unequivocal 'free' energy;
> currently around 190% of unity.  You definitely want to see this, and
> i desperately want to share it.
>
> What should i do though?  How does one proceed, in this kind of situation?

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

[Brian Ahern]

You can remain quiet and have people think you are crazy, or you can open your 
mouth and leave no doubt. Mills is quiet in this video, because he does not 
want to invite closer examination.



From: Russ 
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen


To suggest that Mills has not looked at this ‘magnetic smoke’ sufficiently to 
eliminate it being made of magnetic metal is to suggest that Mills is either a 
fool or a fraud. Given that such wild speculation by armchair pundits is surely 
more of an exercise in ego and not an earnest effort to lend useful comments.



From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen



OK, that might explain why the bulk material didn’t collapse and cling to the 
tool the researcher used to attract it. Mills has always talked about his 
hydrinos being part and parcel with hydrides and I never believed these exotic 
types of hydrogen can persist outside of the cavity environment but you seem to 
be  suggesting that this gaseous smoke still contains a metal matrix like 
aerojels!? The polaritons by definition are on metal surfaces, now marooned in 
an airborne bulk with its buoyancy from the held dense hudrogen? I cant see a 
closed cell effect like aerojels.

Fran



From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:22 PM
To: vortex-l >
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen



IMHO, this smoke is metal hydride nanoparticles that are covered on their 
surface with polaritons. The polaritons are the source of the magnetism that 
binds the nanoparticles togither. The SunCell uses this smoke to form a dusty 
plasma that can produce a self sustaining LENR reaction.



On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, JonesBeene 
> wrote:



This video is (reputedly) what dense hydrogen looks like, in response to a 
strong magnet –



https://youtu.be/Epenv-PPLJM



Somewhat mind boggling, shall we say. If not dense hydrogen, it is unclear what 
else the ghostly filaments could be.



Apparently it is paramagnetic and possibly superfluidic, whereas hydrogen is a 
diamagnetic, invisible gas.



Or more to the point – what else could one do with the material to proved its 
identity/characteristics?



One of the things (phenomena)  which comes to mind  … LOL … “ectoplasm” which 
is somewhat fitting given the circumstances.

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

[Brian Ahern]

The statements by Fabiani are replete with fraudulent statements. One has to be 
childlike to countenance any of his unsubstantiated drivel.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 3:35 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

A polariton Bose condensate may contain many billions of polaritons...actually 
the spins of these polaritons.

These petal condensates have been seen in LENR reactors.

>From the an impossible invention interview with Fabiani discussing his 
>research with Rossi

https://animpossibleinvention.…u-people-wouldnt-believe/

"We have it all filmed, which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of 
creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, 
all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction 
is switched off. It’s impressive."

Also, there are reports that balls of light float around inside the QX reactor. 
These balls of light change color from ref to yellow to blue based on the 
strength of the pumping stimulus.


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:01 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:

Axil—



Note that the larger more energetic palaritons do not exist on surfaces of 
small nano- particles dimensions.  If the “petal grafts” are correct, one would 
not expect too much energy can be stored in nano- sized polaritons.   This may 
be effective in keeping the temperature down and avoiding  melting or sintering 
of the metallic lattice.



This may be something else to consider in designing a robust LENR reactor 
system.



Bob Cook




From: Axil Axil >
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 10:06:45 AM
To: vortex-l

Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR


Polaritons always form on the surface of metal. When there is enough of them, 
they naturally begin to come together into a structure that looks like a petal. 
When a critical density is reached, they form a condensate.


This Polariton Bose condensate can store energy. How does this condensate do 
this? The polariton condensate that does this power storage is called a petal 
condensate.


Coupled counter-rotating polariton condensates in optically defined annular 
potentials

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8770


Stable Switching among High-Order Modes in Polariton Condensates

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03024


[F1.large.jpg]


As power is pumped into the petal condensate the number of petals increases, 
the frequency of the light that the petals are comprised of increases from red 
to blue to XUV and then to X-ray. The diameter of the condensate also increases 
from nano-meters, to millimeters and then to centimeters. At high energy 
storage levels, the Petal condensate becomes visible to the naked eye. The 
petal condensate can move around.


The petal condensate is comprised of two counterattacking rings of polaritons. 
As the energy is pumped into this condensate, the energy is also stored as 
increasing annular momentum of the rotating rings. The petal condensate just 
contains the spins of electrons and photons. The charge and orbits stay in the 
electric dipole part of the polariton.


The electric dipole that the petal condensate is entangled with also increases 
in size.


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


[VFPt_dipole_animation_electric.gif]

The diameter of the dipole increases into the millimeters.


The energy storage potential of a petal condensate can get as high as a few GeV.


In the LION reactor meltdown as well as many other LENR experiments, strange 
radiation is seen. These particle tracks are produced by the energy rich petal 
condensate as it moves around and absorbs energy using self pumping along it 
path of travel.


The basic driver of the LENR reaction is chiral spin polarization. There are a 
number of structures that naturally form in nature that produce this type of 
polarization. The petal condensate is one of them. The petal condensate is make 
up of two counter rotating currents of spin. The two counter rotating rings of 
spin are composed of a right handed spin current and left handed spin current.


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Roarty, Francis X 
> wrote:

Axil, Your paragraph snipped below makes me question a relationship to Casimir 
effect, does your scenario exist even when the pumping of the cavity is just 
virtual particles? Is that enough to form a BEC and a basis for Casimir effect 
rejecting longer 

Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Brian Ahern]

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons


  *
New
  *

  *   
#54[4766-the-test-png]


Regarding Alan glow tube test...


THUNDER ENERGIES,   a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10


Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 
desired neutron CPS;

2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of 
tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and


3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high current 
rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.

As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus creating a 
plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the proton and the 
electron along a magnetic field line with the appropriate spin and other 
couplings; an engineering means called triggers compress the electron inside 
the proton, by supplying the missing energy (which is about one million 
electron Volts, 1 MeV).

Display More


Sometimes a theorist can save an experimenter a lot of work by avoiding 
duplicating existing technology.



Santilli thinks that neutrons can be formed out of a union of protons and 
neutrons. This is nonsense. What Santilli is producing are muons. the same 
particle that Alan is generating. The US government is using cosmic ray 
generated muons to detect nuclear material in shipping containers now.


Cosmic-Ray Muons Reveal Hidden Void in the Great Pyramid
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/n…oid-in-the-great-pyramid/



Muon Thomography are well known as a means to detect nuclear material


Innovations In Nuclear Detection: Muon Tomography

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/khan1/

Re: [Vo]:Lockheed patent for compact fusion reactor

[Brian Ahern]

There claims are amateurish at. Best

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 3, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
> wrote:

Lockheed Martin has quietly obtained a patent associated with its design for a 
potentially revolutionary compact fusion reactor, or CFR. If this project has 
been progressing on schedule, the company could debut a prototype system that 
size of shipping container, but capable of powering a Nimitz-class aircraft 
carrier
 or 80,000 homes, sometime in the next year or so.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19652/lockheed-martin-now-has-a-patent-for-its-potentially-world-changing-fusion-reactor

Re: [Vo]:EPRI study

[Brian Ahern]

Great find Bob!  I will study it closely



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:EPRI study


Brian—



This linkhttps://aca.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4936290

concerning spin crossover in certain Fe substances may help explain the cooling 
associated with the Manelas SrFeO.  It describes how coherent systems can swap 
spin during a phase change or some other type of change of their energy state.



Note that both cooling and heating are addressed.



Bob




From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:55:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:EPRI study


I  was excited about pulsing the nanopowders at a range of frequencies seeking 
a resonance, but my supply burned out and the funding ended.

The appearance of the Manelas device showed a resonance around 130kiloHertz 
with interacting pulses around a strontium ferrite billet.

The SrFeOx billet is a soft ferromagnetic material with very high resistivity 
that limits eddy currents.

I noted a cooling of the billet that was continuous for 6 days in 2012. The 
billet was 5 degrees C below ambient. These measurements were rock solid as was 
the 60 watts excess power production.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission


Brian—



Did the EPRI 2012 experiments include resonant stimulation of any kind once a 
low level heating was observed?  I am thinking about dipole and or quadrupole 
electric and /or magnetic field stimulation over a range of frequencies that 
could resonate with the reactants present.



  I particularly consider  resonant magnetic field coupling of nuclear species 
and  Ni lattice electronic orbital spin energy states of the nano Ni particles 
may be important.  A Ni alloy may offer more varied energy states and enhance  
the coupling and exchange of nuclear potential  for increased lattice thermal 
energy associated with the entire nano particle lattice.  (This would be a 
many-body reaction of a QM coherent system IMHO.)



The following link addresses ultra fast reactions in certain solid state 
systems of many particles, including reactions within and among molecules.



https://aca.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4936290



Bob Cook



____
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 10:24:06 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission


In My 2012 EPRI on gas loading Nickel nanopowders I always saw continuing 
heating, but at levels below 200 milliwatts.  I did not find any accelerant 
property. My attempts at dielectric discharges was terminated when I burned out 
the power  supply and was introduced to Arthur Manelas



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:


FAIL



Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However, as I 
also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP of 
infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!



A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not even 
exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the formation 
of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the reaction 
itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after death or with 
gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the COP) be a critical 
parameter? I suggest you address that question rather than insulting top 
experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and Miles. (They are the ones 
who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Brian Ahern]

I have been calling Rossi a Fraud since January 2009. None of his 'demos' or 
pronouncements have had any value.


He is truly a master of manipulation.


The possibility that he is credible offers hope to the alternative energy 
followers. I hope LENR can be made to work, but It will not come from The 
Impresario.



From: Russ 
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission


At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission



JonesBeene > wrote:



In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.



The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.





Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.



The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.



- Jed

[Vo]:EPRI study

[Brian Ahern]

I  was excited about pulsing the nanopowders at a range of frequencies seeking 
a resonance, but my supply burned out and the funding ended.

The appearance of the Manelas device showed a resonance around 130kiloHertz 
with interacting pulses around a strontium ferrite billet.

The SrFeOx billet is a soft ferromagnetic material with very high resistivity 
that limits eddy currents.

I noted a cooling of the billet that was continuous for 6 days in 2012. The 
billet was 5 degrees C below ambient. These measurements were rock solid as was 
the 60 watts excess power production.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR fission


Brian—



Did the EPRI 2012 experiments include resonant stimulation of any kind once a 
low level heating was observed?  I am thinking about dipole and or quadrupole 
electric and /or magnetic field stimulation over a range of frequencies that 
could resonate with the reactants present.



  I particularly consider  resonant magnetic field coupling of nuclear species 
and  Ni lattice electronic orbital spin energy states of the nano Ni particles 
may be important.  A Ni alloy may offer more varied energy states and enhance  
the coupling and exchange of nuclear potential  for increased lattice thermal 
energy associated with the entire nano particle lattice.  (This would be a 
many-body reaction of a QM coherent system IMHO.)



The following link addresses ultra fast reactions in certain solid state 
systems of many particles, including reactions within and among molecules.



https://aca.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4936290



Bob Cook




From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 10:24:06 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission


In My 2012 EPRI on gas loading Nickel nanopowders I always saw continuing 
heating, but at levels below 200 milliwatts.  I did not find any accelerant 
property. My attempts at dielectric discharges was terminated when I burned out 
the power  supply and was introduced to Arthur Manelas



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:


FAIL



Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However, as I 
also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP of 
infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!



A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not even 
exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the formation 
of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the reaction 
itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after death or with 
gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the COP) be a critical 
parameter? I suggest you address that question rather than insulting top 
experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and Miles. (They are the ones 
who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Brian Ahern]

In My 2012 EPRI on gas loading Nickel nanopowders I always saw continuing 
heating, but at levels below 200 milliwatts.  I did not find any accelerant 
property. My attempts at dielectric discharges was terminated when I burned out 
the power  supply and was introduced to Arthur Manelas



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

JonesBeene > wrote:


FAIL



Apparently this is too an issue which is either not important or too technical 
for you. I looked at the few of these references and none of them mention COP 
wrt thermal feedback.

As I said, that is because the COP is meaningless in cold fusion. However, as I 
also said, a thermal pulse often produces heat after death, with a COP of 
infinity. You can't ask for more enhancement than that!



A lack of comprehension of the value of COP as an intuitive and accurate metric 
in LENR and the silly attempt to change its meaning  is apparently guiding an 
uncharacteristic flood of disinformation…

I do not see what is intuitive or accurate about a parameter that does not even 
exist in many experiments. Input power with electrolysis affects the formation 
of material, but it has nothing to do with the performance of the reaction 
itself. The reaction works with no input power during heat after death or with 
gas loading, so how can the ratio of input to output (the COP) be a critical 
parameter? I suggest you address that question rather than insulting top 
experts in this field such as Fleischmann, Storms and Miles. (They are the ones 
who say this, not me. Or not just me.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Brian Ahern]

There is no factory and less obvious, there is no Santa Claus either.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

I know that you and Brian can't resist bad mouthing Rossi, but there are signs 
that he has a commercial product with the QX.  I have some independent evidence 
that he has indeed started a factory to produce them and he remains optimistic 
production will start in 2018.

If the QX does perform anywhere near what he claims it is truly insulting to 
suggest he "stumbled" upon it.




-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2018 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like


There is plenty of excellent work from other researchers (other than Rossi) on 
this site.

If we accept the reality of LENR we cannot reject Rossi solely because he is a 
dishonest scam artist.

There is even the possibility that Rossi could stumble onto something valid at 
this juncture (2018) despite the crap he has presented before.


From: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Brian Ahern]

Conversely, The muons may just be 1/f noise.



From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like




BTW - Wouldn’t it be a hoot if muons showed up on a particular detector as 
1/f^2 noise  ??









Nigel,



Since you noticed the fit initially, were you looking for it based on phenomena 
from another field ?



I see from Alan’s posting that the context is no mystery – except to someone 
who was not paying attention to every detail of an excellent presentation 

However, I think Nigel is looking for deeper significance. Universal theories 
of pink noise are incomplete. According to Wiki,  the Tweedie hypothesis has 
been proposed to explain the genesis of pink noise on the basis of a 
mathematical convergence theorem related to statistical analysis in many 
systems, yet … this signal  is not pink noise per se. In general the spectrum 
of pink noise is 1/f  for what are said to be one-dimensional signals.

Perhaps two-dimensional signals have a weaker power spectrum which is the 
reciprocal of f^2 ? At any rate, pink noise would be an obvious place to start 
a search for statistical significance.

Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

[Brian Ahern]

The MFMP website is an embarrassment. They still give credence to Andrea Rossi 
! Why would you site this site?


This is an example of cognitive dissonance.



From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1/f squared gamma distribution from Rossi-like

It has the characteristics of bremsstrahlung radiation, likely from stopping of 
beta emission within the reactor.


On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Nigel Dyer 
> wrote:
I have been looking at the graph titled
"After the MASSIVE broad band 'turn on' pulse, the excess heat mode is between 
0 and 100KeV"
 at
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/519-the-cookbook-is-in-the-signal
which shows the steady state gamma radiation from the Parkhomov-like 
experiment, together with a plot of the gamma radiation that is seen right at 
the start.
It appears that the initial gamma radiation obeys a perfect inverse frequency 
squared law.  I feel that this must be telling us something about the 
underlying physics, but it is not clear what.  I cannot find any other examples 
of inverse frequency squared emission of radiation.
Any ideas?
Nigel

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Metallic hydrogen does not exist

[Brian Ahern]

The molecular orbitals of h2 and h liquid/solid do not support metallic 
characteristics.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 24, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

Finally we are describing the same process although in slightly different ways. 
 We agree, a linear structure is required that, thanks to a unique resonance 
process, can gradually dissipate the fusion energy.  Your are in a better 
position than I am to describe the quantum characteristics of this process.

This basic idea does not come from any theory but only from how the process is 
observed to behave.  The behavior requires a process that can gradually release 
the mass-energy in order to avoid the energetic radiation normally produced by 
all other nuclear reactions. As I have proposed, this reaction can be best 
described as slow fusion in contrast to fast fusion normally observed. The 
challenge is to find a mechanism that allows slow release to take place.

Although the release of mass-energy is called slow, the fusion process would be 
fast by chemical standards and independent of temperature.  Therefore, the 
observed amount of power production would require a slow process that is 
influenced by temperature, as is known to be the case. I suggest the rate of 
power production is determined by how fast D can diffuse to the sites where 
fusion can take place. Once D reaches the site, fusion starts immediately but 
with release of mass-energy that is much faster than any chemical or diffusion 
process. In other words, the fusion process is controlled by several 
independent processes having their own rates.  This adds complexity that no 
theory has yet acknowledged.

I  look forwarded to exploring these ideas with you.

Ed


On Feb 24, 2018, at 4:13 AM, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

If we define metals as materials with electrons that are bound to a lattice, 
but not to an individual atoms, then there is another (proposed) option for 
producing metallic H (at least on the sub-lattice level). K.P. Sinha, Ed 
Storms, and I have all proposed linear defects as a potential source for LENR.

A. Meulenberg, “Pictorial description for LENR in linear defects of a lattice,” 
ICCF-18, 18th Int. Conf. on Cond. Matter Nuclear Science, Columbia, Missouri, 
25/07/2013, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015), 117-124
If H atoms are inserted into linear defects of a lattice, the 'random' motion 
of the H2 molecular electrons is constrained. This lateral constraint of the 
electron motion means that, instead of massive pressures needed to bring H 
nuclei close enough together to lower the barrier between atoms, the 
progressive alignment and increasing overlap of the linearized electrons will 
do the same thing at room temperature. Progressive loading of H into the 
lattice defect, may produce a phase change in the H sub-lattice, if conditions 
are right. The proposed conditions are that the lattice structure of the linear 
defect, while strong enough to compress the lateral motion of the H electrons, 
does not strongly impose the lattice spacing onto the sub-lattice. The ability 
of the sub-lattice to alter/reduce its periodic structure means that at some 
point in the loading process the aligned-H2 molecular structure changes to that 
of H(n) and thus the local electrons are now bound to the larger molecule, not 
just to the pairs.

If this alignment happens, and if the sub-lattice spacing can shrink, then a 
feedback mechanism of the electron-reduced Coulomb barrier between protons 
becomes dominant and cold fusion is initiated. A question of the process is the 
nature of the Pauli exclusion principle in this formation of H(n). Spin 
pairing,  both between the individual electrons and between pairs, changes the 
fermi repulsion to bosonic attraction of electron pairs. It is likely that the 
pairing is spatially (and temporally?) periodic and this periodicity will 
introduce resonances between the lattice (fixed) and sub-lattice (variable) 
spacing. These resonances, which depend on lattice, nature of defect, 
temperature, and loading, could be the critical feature of amplitude in 
variations of H(n) nuclear spacing and of rates of cold fusion.

Andrew M.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CMNS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
c...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 
https://groups.google.com/group/cmns.
For more options, visit 

[Vo]:Metallic hydrogen does not exist

[Brian Ahern]

Hydrogen can become more and more dense, but its molecular orbital 
characteristics do not undergo a phase change.



From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com  on behalf of Alain 
Sepeda 
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:32 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

many things governement do are not done because it is good or bad for a supreme 
interest of the Nation, or of a big lobby, but because the worker want to avoid 
troubles, please his boss, get a promotion, or sometime a crazy desire by this 
lone worker to make world better as he imagine it.
the problem is when this lone worker is a boss, he can engage an agency in 
something great or evil, if he succeed in making the interests of his 
subordinates matching his great idea.

There is no NASA/NSA/DoE/USPTO plan, just various people having various 
ambition, fears, and hope.

fear is a great motive for most people...

2018-02-22 0:16 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell 
>:
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:


Oak Ridge has LENR categorized as Battelle confidential or has a dark 
government classified program regarding LENR or cold fusion as it is commonly 
called.  Their action to remove the reference is telling IMHO

How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how did you 
find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?

I have a low regard for the government's ability to keep secrets, and for the 
quality of its secrets, because my late father was in the intelligence business 
during and after WWII. He once told me:

"if you ever get into the most secret room of the State Department, and you 
open the most secret file cabinet and look in the most secret drawer, you will 
find a dried up apple and an old newspaper."

In the movie Dr. Strangelove, toward the end the Americans ask the Soviet 
ambassador where he got all of his sensitive secret information. He says, "our 
source was the New York Times." My mother heard that and said "that sounds 
about right."

As far as I know, when references to cold fusion have disappeared from 
government agencies, news articles and the like, that has been because people 
were embarrassed by the topic, or because the top brass was infuriated by it. 
That happened in some Navy research labs.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Brian Ahern]

The melting results from high temperatures,

The rate of the chemical reactions determine the top temperature in many cases.


Fe + O2 ->  Fe2O3

I a hand warmer several grams last 8 hours with a top temperature of 35 C

In a thermite reaction that may exceed 3000 C!


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 4:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LION experiments


If careful analysis of the melted quartz has not be accomplished, it should be. 
 In addition, the source of the miasma should be identified if possible.  It 
may have come from sulfur in some electrical insulation.  Organic sulfur gases 
cabe very bas smelling—like a miasma.



Bob Cook



From: Russ<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LION experiments



Clearly the stainless steel parts in said tube furnaces have not ‘combusted’ in 
spite of being in air at 1000 C for 48 hours or more. Speaking of oxygen is 
fruitless as noone of the experiments is conducted in other than air.



The kanthal wire that is the heater is well characterized as having aluminium 
that migrates to the surface and forms a protective oxide. When that oxide is 
disturbed, as in scratched off during handling, it leads to oxidation of the 
rest of the kanthal metal and failure. Undisturbed the kanthal seems durable at 
1000 C in air.



There is plenty of utility in examining the witness temperatures of various 
materials melting and oxidation effects.







From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 3:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments



Melting points are irrelevant. Stainless steel combusts at 1,000C in oxygen.  
Tungsten combusts to WOx at 800C

Iron powder slowly oxidizes at room temperature in handwarmers.



The combustion can be extremely rapid and high temperature in the case of 
thermite reactions.



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:47 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments



I wonder if "the  fervent practice of conflation" means that the fusion meme 
that has been the mainstay of LENR theory for so long should now be retooled to 
somehow  fit into an as of yet unfathomable  understanding of the LION reactor 
meltdown. Russ is among those who are clearly confused by the LION reactor 
meltdown. Here is his analysis as follows:



Melting Miasma - The intact Kanthal wire is a witness to the temperature not 
reaching the melting point of kanthal which is listed as being 1500 C. The 
alumina block melts above 2000 C, the quartz melts at just under 1700 C. So if 
the quartz melted likely the kanthal which was in contact with the quartz might 
be expected to melt, not seen. Surely the alumina foam which was outside of the 
quartz melting at 2000 C would not 'melt' without the intervening kanthal 
showing melting which would occur at 1500 C. If during the oxidation of the 
copper that is clearly apparent, that very hot copper oxidation process was 
capable of perhaps breaking the quartz and that copper oxide invaded the 
surrounding materials it might well have bonding with all. Copper oxide melts 
at 1326 C. Copper melts at 1085 C. Nickel melts at 1455 C, don't forget the 
tiny 2.5 mm diameter 10 micron thick nickel pads with the diamonds attached to 
them that are the purported fuel are clearly seen and did NOT melt. Nor did the 
stainless steel bolt that plugged the reactor tube, stainless steels melt 
between 1400-1500 C depending on the alloy.

All theses known materials and melting points bear witness to many temperatures 
that might have been reached in the hot 'reaction' zone. In the 'dummy' test 
runs conducted at Alan's, the maker of the tube furnace test bed, at 1000 C. in 
these dummy runs without any anomalous fuels, aka the nickel diamond discs, the 
aggressive hot chemistry of the copper oxide and is very clearly seen. It has 
fused/bonded itself to the quartz for example. The silver foil that underlaid 
the copper wire winding at the distal end has a melting point 961 C, is 
apparent this temperature was reached as the silver appears to have moved by 
capillary action into the copper/copper oxide material and also appears to have 
been an effective brazing metal on the quartz, something it is known to do in 
common practice when making metal seals on quartz lab wear. All, or almost all, 
the copper was converted to copper oxide at 1000 C, this was not the case in a 
duplicate test at 800 C where considerable of the copper wire remained as metal 
though it was oxidized on the surface. The replication with power and thermal 
data may tell the tale, patience is going to be required before we might make 
sense of this miasma. Hopefully no one reports seeing the 'face of J

Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Brian Ahern]

Melting points are irrelevant. Stainless steel combusts at 1,000C in oxygen.  
Tungsten combusts to WOx at 800C

Iron powder slowly oxidizes at room temperature in handwarmers.

The combustion can be extremely rapid and high temperature in the case of 
thermite reactions.


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:47 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

I wonder if "the  fervent practice of conflation" means that the fusion meme 
that has been the mainstay of LENR theory for so long should now be retooled to 
somehow  fit into an as of yet unfathomable  understanding of the LION reactor 
meltdown. Russ is among those who are clearly confused by the LION reactor 
meltdown. Here is his analysis as follows:


Melting Miasma - The intact Kanthal wire is a witness to the temperature not 
reaching the melting point of kanthal which is listed as being 1500 C. The 
alumina block melts above 2000 C, the quartz melts at just under 1700 C. So if 
the quartz melted likely the kanthal which was in contact with the quartz might 
be expected to melt, not seen. Surely the alumina foam which was outside of the 
quartz melting at 2000 C would not 'melt' without the intervening kanthal 
showing melting which would occur at 1500 C. If during the oxidation of the 
copper that is clearly apparent, that very hot copper oxidation process was 
capable of perhaps breaking the quartz and that copper oxide invaded the 
surrounding materials it might well have bonding with all. Copper oxide melts 
at 1326 C. Copper melts at 1085 C. Nickel melts at 1455 C, don't forget the 
tiny 2.5 mm diameter 10 micron thick nickel pads with the diamonds attached to 
them that are the purported fuel are clearly seen and did NOT melt. Nor did the 
stainless steel bolt that plugged the reactor tube, stainless steels melt 
between 1400-1500 C depending on the alloy.

All theses known materials and melting points bear witness to many temperatures 
that might have been reached in the hot 'reaction' zone. In the 'dummy' test 
runs conducted at Alan's, the maker of the tube furnace test bed, at 1000 C. in 
these dummy runs without any anomalous fuels, aka the nickel diamond discs, the 
aggressive hot chemistry of the copper oxide and is very clearly seen. It has 
fused/bonded itself to the quartz for example. The silver foil that underlaid 
the copper wire winding at the distal end has a melting point 961 C, is 
apparent this temperature was reached as the silver appears to have moved by 
capillary action into the copper/copper oxide material and also appears to have 
been an effective brazing metal on the quartz, something it is known to do in 
common practice when making metal seals on quartz lab wear. All, or almost all, 
the copper was converted to copper oxide at 1000 C, this was not the case in a 
duplicate test at 800 C where considerable of the copper wire remained as metal 
though it was oxidized on the surface. The replication with power and thermal 
data may tell the tale, patience is going to be required before we might make 
sense of this miasma. Hopefully no one reports seeing the 'face of Jesus' in 
the miasma before the replication and more extensive data is in hand, that 
would really confuse matters.


On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Russ 
> wrote:

What’s to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite 
offered by fervent practice of conflation.



From: Alberto De Souza 
[mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments



This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being 
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031

[Vo]:LENR/CF and Pollack's book THE FOURTH HASE OF WATER

[Brian Ahern]

Pollack's description of Exclusion Zones (EZ) near interfaces has many 
application for our community.

For example:  Graneau and Graneau consistently showed excess energy in their 
discharge experiments. I wish we could have illuminated the water before the 
discharges and compared the one done without photonic input.


He also measured the concentration of O2 in water and found it to be 100 times 
greater near the surface than 100 meters down.


In D2O electrolysis EZ water may have influences capable of explaining to 1-000 
- 400 milliwatts excess power outputs claimed over the past 30 years. Clearly, 
the exclusion zones interact with background radiation and this has never been 
accurately detailed and discussed.


I think there are many more opportunities presented by this new understanding 
of water in various environments, that CF/LENR has provided.


From: Russ 
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data and 
is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew the real 
data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a ‘fusing nudge’ 
to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the highly loaded 
metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in which prodigious 
4He is produced by DD fusion, mere nanometers, the QI notion fits very well. In 
that dimensional realm McCulloch’s QI Unrah effects might easily offer the 
nudge to start the cold fusion cascade. Such cold fusion cascades are clearly 
evident in the data that shows vast numbers of 4He producing cold fusion events 
deep inside such nanometric metal domains (not on the surface).



Once the QI Unrah environment becomes established it might also provide the 
means to satisfy the second miracle of cold fusion that being the suppression 
of energetic emissions, that danged missing gamma. The QI Unrah nanometric 
environment (horizons) it would seem captures and moderates those pesky gammas 
leaking them into local materials as phonons thus suppression of the expected 
gammas.



Now the question is whether the QI Unrah environment can also serve to induce 
nanometric masing of those cold fusion powered phonons. That of course leads to 
the obvious technological device, the phaser



This paper just published 4 Jan 2018  speaks of the use of nanometric mirrors 
to produce masing effects. Seems to be clearly in McCulloch’s QI dimensions 
that his maths show are appropriate for said Unrah effects. The atom-ecology 
that is characteristic of active cold fusion materials easily fits here.  Just 
beam over to the Journal Nature to read more….



https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat5065.epdf?shared_access_token=Clp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9BdyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%3D%3D





From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



Jones—



I had the same idea about DH and QI together answering the galactic rotation 
problem.   The Mills spectrum of DH surely warrants a comparative review with 
the observed spectrum from the Milky Way or other near by galaxies.



Maybe Mills has already done this comparison; if not, he should IMHO.



Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive





There is a new study from NASA on dark matter/ dark energy and the 
reinterpretation of the Chandra findings WRT the mystery radiation signature at 
3.5 keV.



https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/a-new-twist-in-the-dark-matter-tale.html



CERN has a new report on DM as well. The informed opinion on dark matter swings 
back 

[Vo]:CF/LENR Data is based on Mel MIles' efforts

[Brian Ahern]

I expect the work was well done. He measured levels at parts/billion against a 
background of parts per million.

The diffusion rates of helium into the container was calculated as being 
negligible even at those very low levels.


What about helium dissolved in the D2O electrolyte? Was there any discussion of 
that issue?



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 1:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


The many-body involvement of LENR makes it likely that energy changes 
associated with kinetic energy in the form of spin and associated angular 
momentum happen in comparison to kinetic energy associated with a change of 
linear momentum and its conservation involving only 2 or 3 particles  during a 
short reaction period.



An important requirement is that any reaction involving spin kinetics must 
happen in integral quanta of the reduced Planck constant and happen very fast 
in a coherent system—maybe with no time delay (or within a given time quanta.)  
The coherent system of particles allows the required  coordination of spin 
quanta consistent with the 2nd law of TD requiring an increase of disorder 
within the coherent system reacting.  The phonic (vibrational) kinetic energy 
(heat energy) is a measure of the disorder.  Thus, the change in disorder 
(entropy) is quantized.  IMHO the 2nd Law needs a little modification of make 
it make its math reflect this discontinuous property.



I consider the  coupling field involved is the local B magnetic field that 
occurs within the reacting coherent system, since it determines the allowed 
nuclear energy states of constituent nucleons. as well as, the allowed energy 
of the orbital electron spin of the constituent lattice electrons.  High energy 
gammas are out of the picture for all practical purposes, since the conditions 
they need to be produced (large nucleon energy changes) do not occur.



The LENR’s are akin to those that occur within NMR machines without the 
energetic gammas associated with two or three- body reactions and  their 
significant changes of nuclear potential energy to kinetic energy with 
instanteous conservation of linear momentum.   Resonant orbital spin conditions 
within a coherent system can be engineered to happen by changing the B magnetic 
field with external applied varying magnetic H fields.



Modifying resonant conditions allows LENR control in practical devices with 
engineered nano parameters.   With this in mind dusty plasmas allow better 
control of individual coherent systems (nano-- particles) than larger condensed 
matter crystalline structures.  IMHO the heat transfer engineering is possible 
without destruction of the nano-particles making up the dusty plasma.  Lithium 
and Hydrogen are good convective heat transfer agents as well as well as being 
in LENR directly as a constituent of a coherent system.



Bob Cook



frm: Brian Ahern<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 4:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



Mitchell Swartz says the gammas are absent because they are spin forbidden.



I do not know the rules and their conditions.





From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



Pray tell as one of the few real cold fusion experimentalists what associations 
might have come to your mind connecting nanoparticles lasing and cold fusion. 
Any ideas on how coherent lasing domains might assist in mediating those pesky 
gammas?



On Feb 6, 2018 12:16 PM, "Brian Ahern" 
<ahern_br...@msn.com<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:

This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II contract. 
I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER PAINT. It 
incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in stimulated 
emission  It is widely used today.





From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data and 
is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew the real 
data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a ‘fusing nudge’ 
to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the highly loaded 
metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in which prodigious 
4He is produced by DD fusion, mer

Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter andexplains the EM drive

[Brian Ahern]

Mitchell Swartz says the gammas are absent because they are spin forbidden.


I do not know the rules and their conditions.



From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 8:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive

Pray tell as one of the few real cold fusion experimentalists what associations 
might have come to your mind connecting nanoparticles lasing and cold fusion. 
Any ideas on how coherent lasing domains might assist in mediating those pesky 
gammas?

On Feb 6, 2018 12:16 PM, "Brian Ahern" 
<ahern_br...@msn.com<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:

This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II contract. 
I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER PAINT. It 
incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in stimulated 
emission  It is widely used today.



From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data and 
is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew the real 
data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a ‘fusing nudge’ 
to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the highly loaded 
metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in which prodigious 
4He is produced by DD fusion, mere nanometers, the QI notion fits very well. In 
that dimensional realm McCulloch’s QI Unrah effects might easily offer the 
nudge to start the cold fusion cascade. Such cold fusion cascades are clearly 
evident in the data that shows vast numbers of 4He producing cold fusion events 
deep inside such nanometric metal domains (not on the surface).



Once the QI Unrah environment becomes established it might also provide the 
means to satisfy the second miracle of cold fusion that being the suppression 
of energetic emissions, that danged missing gamma. The QI Unrah nanometric 
environment (horizons) it would seem captures and moderates those pesky gammas 
leaking them into local materials as phonons thus suppression of the expected 
gammas.



Now the question is whether the QI Unrah environment can also serve to induce 
nanometric masing of those cold fusion powered phonons. That of course leads to 
the obvious technological device, the phaser



This paper just published 4 Jan 2018  speaks of the use of nanometric mirrors 
to produce masing effects. Seems to be clearly in McCulloch’s QI dimensions 
that his maths show are appropriate for said Unrah effects. The atom-ecology 
that is characteristic of active cold fusion materials easily fits here.  Just 
beam over to the Journal Nature to read more….



https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat5065.epdf?shared_access_token=Clp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9BdyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%3D%3D<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnmat5065.epdf%3Fshared_access_token%3DClp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9BdyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%253D%253D=02%7C01%7C%7Cf19c67444e5149a60c0a08d56d5181d1%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636535119197213620=J%2FbRC%2FwYbHc16eKADvMFS0iigbz%2BaJsEj9JNH6kGo90%3D=0>





From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
[mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



Jones—



I had the same idea about DH and QI together answering the galactic rotation 
problem.   The Mills spectrum of DH surely warrants a comparative review with 
the observed spectrum from the Milky Way or other near by galaxies.



Maybe Mills has already done this comparison; if not, he should IMHO.



Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive





There is a new study from NASA on dark matter/ dark energy and the 
reinterpretation of the Chandra findings WRT the mystery radiation signature at 
3.5 keV.



https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/a-new-twist-in-the-dark-matter-tale.html<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[Brian Ahern]

This is an absurd request in light of Heisenberg and the 10*36 difference in 
potentials. I think this topic may have had its origin on April  1.




From: H LV 
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 1:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

Thanks for finding out.
harry

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:16 PM, JonesBeene 
> wrote:

From: H LV



A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever been 
measured?









Experiments to determine the Force of Gravity on Single Electrons and Positrons

  *   FRED C. 
WITTEBORN
  *& WILLIAM M. 
FAIRBANK

  *   Nature volume 220, pages 436–440 (02 November 1968)





My comment.

Behind a paywall -  but the consensus seems to be this: the experiment 
partially but not fully supports the generally held  view that gravity affects 
the electron or positron.



Mills would say it is a poor experiment and  not proof.

Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter andexplains the EM drive

[Brian Ahern]

This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II contract. 
I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER PAINT. It 
incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in stimulated 
emission  It is widely used today.



From: Russ 
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive


McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data and 
is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew the real 
data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a ‘fusing nudge’ 
to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the highly loaded 
metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in which prodigious 
4He is produced by DD fusion, mere nanometers, the QI notion fits very well. In 
that dimensional realm McCulloch’s QI Unrah effects might easily offer the 
nudge to start the cold fusion cascade. Such cold fusion cascades are clearly 
evident in the data that shows vast numbers of 4He producing cold fusion events 
deep inside such nanometric metal domains (not on the surface).



Once the QI Unrah environment becomes established it might also provide the 
means to satisfy the second miracle of cold fusion that being the suppression 
of energetic emissions, that danged missing gamma. The QI Unrah nanometric 
environment (horizons) it would seem captures and moderates those pesky gammas 
leaking them into local materials as phonons thus suppression of the expected 
gammas.



Now the question is whether the QI Unrah environment can also serve to induce 
nanometric masing of those cold fusion powered phonons. That of course leads to 
the obvious technological device, the phaser



This paper just published 4 Jan 2018  speaks of the use of nanometric mirrors 
to produce masing effects. Seems to be clearly in McCulloch’s QI dimensions 
that his maths show are appropriate for said Unrah effects. The atom-ecology 
that is characteristic of active cold fusion materials easily fits here.  Just 
beam over to the Journal Nature to read more….



https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat5065.epdf?shared_access_token=Clp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9BdyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%3D%3D





From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive



Jones—



I had the same idea about DH and QI together answering the galactic rotation 
problem.   The Mills spectrum of DH surely warrants a comparative review with 
the observed spectrum from the Milky Way or other near by galaxies.



Maybe Mills has already done this comparison; if not, he should IMHO.



Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter 
andexplains the EM drive





There is a new study from NASA on dark matter/ dark energy and the 
reinterpretation of the Chandra findings WRT the mystery radiation signature at 
3.5 keV.



https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/a-new-twist-in-the-dark-matter-tale.html



CERN has a new report on DM as well. The informed opinion on dark matter swings 
back and forth but for sure, whatever  it is, is no longer dark and this is 
compatible with a version of quantized inertia.



At best, McCulloch’s hypothesis would not eliminate DM entirely but instead 
reduce the need for it - the percentage of mass in galaxies which needs to be 
explained by something other than the standard model. Causality can be 
reconciled so long as we do not insist on extremes. Most importantly, from the 
perspective of LENR, if there is any connection of UDH (ultra dense hydrogen) 
to dark matter, then of course it becomes very relevant for understanding the 
dynamics of 

Re: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC slides, Jan 27, 2018

[Brian Ahern]

The report paints a rosy picture, but the 30 yearsof effort remain at the watt 
level.


Widom and Larsen are simply cheer leaders.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: [Vo]:Lattice Energy LLC slides, Jan 27, 2018

Lattice Energy LLC - Japanese NEDO LENR project reported good progress in 
excess heat production and device fabrication - Jan 27 2018

Lewis Larson's presentation:

https://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-japanese-nedo-lenr-project-reported-good-progress-in-excess-heat-production-and-device-fabrication-jan-27-2018

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

Good point! Thanks for the clarification of  my mis-calculation.


From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

In reply to  Brian Ahern's message of Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:24:09 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
>difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
>amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background 
>illumination.
>
>
>The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
>Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
>(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.
[snip]
The difference between D2 and He4 is 23.8 MeV. The difference between D2 & D2*
is less than 1 MeV (?). I'm not sure a mass spec would even be able to detect
the difference between the latter two, considering that it takes quite a
sensitive one to detect the difference between the former two.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Brian Ahern]

Pollack is amazing.His work is uncomfortable for the old guard to incorporate 
into their world view. CF/LANR should face his observations since they are both 
looking at effects in liquid water at low electric fields.



From: Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 11:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could 
unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


I tend to think that his ideas on this specific aspect, the formation of 
'exclusion zones' at the surfaces of blood vessels may also be an important 
factor, and that the two effects may well work in tandem.

On 30/01/2018 12:27, Brian Ahern wrote:

see gerald pollack for the flow issue.



From: Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk><mailto:l...@thedyers.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could 
unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are observed on 
the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion that it was 
completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano drumming.  I wondered 
if the surface structure of red blood cells (with its spectrin networks) have 
evolved to make use of this to help them move through blood vessels, but never 
followed it up

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[Brian Ahern]

The forces are different by 10*36, so comparisons are impossible to measure.



From: John Berry 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

>From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not gravitational 
>mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to 
>ordinary matter. "

Really?  Can that really add up?

Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.


John Berry

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene 
> wrote:

Bob,



There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in Mills 
hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later category.



As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice man 
for this)



Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational 
force



The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and the 
Pentagon ignoredthemt?



And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even 
get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse 
gyrotron?



Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit 
and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize 
them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a 
creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas 
into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is 
great fund-raiser but after all these years there is not a satisfactory 
independent replication, nor a real sample of hydrinos to test.



The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If so, 
he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation of why 
it failed.



Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work 
into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have 
been the first …









From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com


For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:



http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory

Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert

[Brian Ahern]

see gerald pollack for the flow issue.



From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Physicists just found a loophole in graphene that could 
unlock clean, limitless energy - ScienceAlert


Some years ago I looked at some data covering the motions that are observed on 
the surface of red blood cells, and cam to the conclusion that it was 
completely thermal, so probably another instance of nano drumming.  I wondered 
if the surface structure of red blood cells (with its spectrin networks) have 
evolved to make use of this to help them move through blood vessels, but never 
followed it up

Nigel

On 26/11/2017 14:58, JonesBeene wrote:





In reply to  Jack Cole's message:



>I found a link to the full paper.  Maybe that will help us understand more.

>

>https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06301.pdf

Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

I did not mean to discredit Mel's work. I am sure it was well done, but it is 
difficult to measure 100mWatts of excess energy when Gerald Pollack says that 
amount of energy can simply be stored in the water from background illumination.


The lack of ionizing radiation is a great hurdle to advancing CF in light of 
Mills.  Mills says that the mass spec data for He-4 could just as well be D2* 
(deep Dirac level )  That would have a reduced mass over D2.

The excess heat could arise as D2* without any gamma rays.  Thermacore Corp got 
50 watts of excess power for H2O electrolysis with nickel in 1996. I was 
involved with Thermacore at that time and I  found their results to be 
credible, but it would not scale up.

How can this be reconciled with CF?


From: melmil...@juno.com <melmil...@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 7:02 PM
To: m...@theworld.com
Cc: ahern_br...@msn.com
Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Mitchell,
Thank-you for defending my C/F work against the false allegations by Brian 
Ahern.  I would like to add the following:

1. Radiation was measured in the 1990 experiments showing the correlation of  
excess heat and helium-4 production. Dental film placed close to the cell 
showed fogging in both experiments, and these results were shown in the 
publication.  Many later experiments not producing any excess heat gave no 
fogging of  such dental films.  Later experiments showed high G-M radiation 
counts for some Pd/D experiments.
2. The 1990 experiments with excess power gave some of the highest values  that 
I observed reaching about 0.38 W of excess power.
3 .Calculations show that  my cell producing 0.100 W of excess power at a cell 
current of 0.525 A will theoretically produce 10.7 ppb He-4 for the D + D = 
He-4  reaction.  The measurement of He-4   for this experiment  reported a 
value of 12.2 ppb.  Subtracting my background gives 7.4 ppb.  These 
measurements  of  He-4 claimed an accuracy of +- 0.1 ppb, thus this result is a 
74 sigma effect in terms of the He-4 measurements. This experiment was the most 
accurate in terms of He-4 measurements.  Other groups measuring He-4 for my 
experiments reported an accuracy of about +-1.0 ppb.  Even for a 5 ppb 
measurement above background, this represents a 5 sigma effect.  The background 
using metal flasks was 4.5 +-0.5 ppb for experiments with no excess power, and 
this background was always subtracted in my reports of He-4 production.
4.  The diffusion of He-4 was later measured for these same glass flasks, and 
the results would not have affected my 1990 results using these  glass  flasks. 
 There was no diffusion of He-4 into the metal flasks that were later used.
5. My 1990 results used Pd/HO as controls.  There was no excess power measured 
and no He'd produced.
6.  This work has been  replicated by several different groups including 
Mackerel at SRI with funding from DAR PA.

Mel Miles

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:12:35 -0500 "Dr. Mitchell Swartz" 
<m...@theworld.com<mailto:m...@theworld.com>> writes:
January 26, 2018

Brian,

 Please, I expect more from you.
 Yet, you continue untruthful and wrongful statements,
now BROADCAST ON BOTH CMNS and VORTEX.

Please re-consider Brian, because yours is a wrongful attack
on Mel Miles who does not deserve this - and my field
which does not deserve this.

Reasons:  

1) penetrating ionizing radiation is FORBIDDEN.
 (see paper for refs). This is not the first time you
  havae ignored this.

2) watts is power, not energy.  This, too, is not the first
  time you did this. And at MIT we now measure MICROWATTS
  in a calibrated fashion.

3-6) Mel, if memory serves, DID account for diffusion
and DID do background calibrations.
 So why do you say otherwise?
 Show me the data/info to back up your claims -- beyond your hearsay.
I would like this for the following reasons:

 First, Mel Miles did more calibration, and data collection,
than you ever did on any Manelis expt or any nanomaterial
expt I saw at your home.

 Second, my aqueous expts got 5-15 watts excess power for
years (from ICCF10 to the Stirling engine expts, for example)
and I have shared privately with you MOAC#3 data showing more than 100 W
of excess power just this month

 So, you should consider stopping attacking those in the
CF/LANR/LENR field for several reasons.

First, there is no reason to attack because YOUR work did not give
excess heat. Why?  If you remember, I took several of your
samples, and added D and then they worked.  They worked
with gas loading (as the next paper at ICCF21 will show)
and they worked with the JET Energy novel loading method
which gave the open demos, and the other papers
(e.g. see 2nd paper)

 You should read THOSE papers, too; since I gave
YOU full acknowledgement.

Second, the field and XSH are REAL, and attacking the
few remaining scientists is wrong as 

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation.

1.No radiation accompanied the He-4

2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours

3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm

4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !

5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.

6. no background calibrations were attempted leaving an open question.

7. the work was done in 1993 and never corroborated


This evidence was well intentioned, but very far from bullet proof.


A simpler explanation is that the excess energy was that described by Gerald 
Pollack in: The fourth phase of water. That avoids the need to explain the lack 
of radiation. Water can store energy absorbed by background infrared radiation.

The LENR community does not recognize that the excess power outputs are at the 
milliwatt level.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Vortex; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

A trusting soul over at 
lenr-forum.com
 wrote that science does not exclude different thinking, meaning it does not 
reject valid ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should.


There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost. 
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone 
who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

Dismissal is to kind a word. Rossi should ave been prosecuted.


 How did that October demo go?


I think my 31st Rossi prediction held.


I am 31 - 0 since 2009.



From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 6:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.

Re: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked in LENR

[Brian Ahern]

What is the role of magnetism in:


LENR

MILLS

MANELAS


Are they connected?



From: Arnaud Kodeck 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR


Like Mizuno but Mu metal instead of Ni.



From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, 12 January 2018 19:35
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR



To clarify:



Variance of good catalysts from the ideal 2Ry = 27.2 eV in ionization potential 
(the catalytic “hole”)



1)  Molybdenum  .07

2)  Potassium   .09

3)  Rubidium.09



BTW - palladium has a fit at 27.77 eV (.57 variance) which is much further from 
an ideal catalytic value than moly. But moly is a poor proton conductor.



This may indicate that hydrogen absorption is more important than catalytic fit.



AFAIK – no one has ever tried the tactic of alloying or electroplating Pd onto 
Mu metal to optimize both goals.



---



… which brings to mind Claytor’s statement that the best alloy he has found for 
LENR was a Mu metal alloy.



The use of Mu Metal as the active matrix for LENR could turn out to be the most 
valuable detail relative to spin and LENR if Claytor is correct … using “ 
Co-Netic” as the matrix alloy. Mu-metal is a nickel-iron alloy, and the 
proprietary alloy  in question, Co-Netic - has high added molybdenum.



http://custommagneticshielding.magneticshield.com/category/co-netic-sheet-and-foil



The high permeability makes mu-metal useful not only for shielding against 
static and low-frequency magnetic fields but also in converting most of the 
energy of an anomalous self-generated field into heat. This is a "soft" 
magnetic material that saturates at low magnetic fields and that is the key to 
the coupling magnons into heat. The high number of inherent Rydberg levels in 
the ionization potential of this alloy could be the key. BTW – it should be 
noted that  Molybdenum is the closest Rydberg ionization fit to Mills theory of 
all metals. That could be another key to understanding. No other metal is as 
close to the precise value.

Re: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked in LENR

[Brian Ahern]

Spin seems to be a focal issue for alternative energy scenarios.  The Manelas 
device operated with two input signals some how amplifying and producing excess 
energy accompanied by significant cooling of the strontium ferrite billet.


The billet has a complicated field profile with multiple changes in polarity 
across the billet.



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR


Axil—



Nice find.



When Maxwell his four differential equations, I doubt he realized the 
importance of the curl operator and how quantized spin  would modify his theory 
of the continuity of EM phenomena.  Maxwell had an inkling, however, given his 
concern about singularities.



Bob Cook



Sent from 
Mail<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgo.microsoft.com%2Ffwlink%2F%3FLinkId%3D550986=02%7C01%7C%7C9352edb8540f4f928b8e08d55d0b41e7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636517225286900802=eDeJyLyOgyjh85pOaiYNj042mZfyg6t4iRuKeG44q20%3D=0>
 for Windows 10




From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 6:58:13 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR


https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.013802<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.aps.org%2Fsynopsis-for%2F10.1103%2FPhysRevA.97.013802=02%7C01%7C%7C9352edb8540f4f928b8e08d55d0b41e7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636517225286900802=rbtMZ%2FSmPWkhk1m%2B7QzPZyVrLbKmB%2BZfC1qCyt443GY%3D=0>


Twisted Cavity Is a One-Way Light Path


The monopole (aka anisotropic) magnetic beam produced by spin polarization is 
the key to the LENR reaction. The spin can be produced by polaritons or atoms 
as in this experiment. Besides producing a monopole magnetic field, spin 
polarization also generates a change of state in time symmetry where light 
energy is forced to flow only in one direction. This one way flow of energy is 
what allows the soliton (AKA EVO) to accumulate gamma energy and down convert 
that energy into light and heat.


For a post discussing time symmetry breaking see


The process by which the proton decays in 
LENR<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Fthread%2F5201-the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr%2F%3FpostID%3D56995%23post56995=02%7C01%7C%7C9352edb8540f4f928b8e08d55d0b41e7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636517225286900802=2qYLTDCKQzgN1PY5W1ptlZ18KP0S%2BjZlCD7%2FKl2vMGE%3D=0>


For a post discussing one way energy flow see


The process by which the proton decays in 
LENR<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Fthread%2F5201-the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr%2F%3FpostID%3D57281%23post57281=02%7C01%7C%7C9352edb8540f4f928b8e08d55d0b41e7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636517225286900802=JOG1vc7ny28SBEtr%2FI73xofLR6PH24U8MilQlMuG1cg%3D=0>

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 8:03 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Brian—



I have been indicating that phonic spin energy in orbital atomic electronic 
structures  are likely coupled via magnetic fields to nuclear spin states with 
appropriate EM resonant conditions.  See about 50% of my comments on Vortex-l 
over the last 3 years.  The coupling allows transfer of nuclear potential 
energy to phonic kinetic energy (lattice heat) consistent with a coherent  
system’s  increase of entropy.



It explains LENR given an absence of real particles with high linear 
momentum/kinetic energy.   LENR is devoid of normal nuclear reactions involving 
two or three particle interactions.)   It depends upon a coherent system of 
many particles including electrons and nucleons and maybe some virtual 
particles as well.



Bob Cook




From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 3:13:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR


Arnaud, What do you fing interesting in the spin energy concept. I want to 
learn more about thisnew concept.



From: Arnaud Kodeck <arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be<mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be>>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR


Like Mizuno but Mu metal instead of Ni.



From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.ne

Re: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked in LENR

[Brian Ahern]

Arnaud, What do you fing interesting in the spin energy concept. I want to 
learn more about thisnew concept.



From: Arnaud Kodeck 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR


Like Mizuno but Mu metal instead of Ni.



From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, 12 January 2018 19:35
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ferrous alloys and spin energy transfer - mostly overlooked 
in LENR



To clarify:



Variance of good catalysts from the ideal 2Ry = 27.2 eV in ionization potential 
(the catalytic “hole”)



1)  Molybdenum  .07

2)  Potassium   .09

3)  Rubidium.09



BTW - palladium has a fit at 27.77 eV (.57 variance) which is much further from 
an ideal catalytic value than moly. But moly is a poor proton conductor.



This may indicate that hydrogen absorption is more important than catalytic fit.



AFAIK – no one has ever tried the tactic of alloying or electroplating Pd onto 
Mu metal to optimize both goals.



---



… which brings to mind Claytor’s statement that the best alloy he has found for 
LENR was a Mu metal alloy.



The use of Mu Metal as the active matrix for LENR could turn out to be the most 
valuable detail relative to spin and LENR if Claytor is correct … using “ 
Co-Netic” as the matrix alloy. Mu-metal is a nickel-iron alloy, and the 
proprietary alloy  in question, Co-Netic - has high added molybdenum.



http://custommagneticshielding.magneticshield.com/category/co-netic-sheet-and-foil



The high permeability makes mu-metal useful not only for shielding against 
static and low-frequency magnetic fields but also in converting most of the 
energy of an anomalous self-generated field into heat. This is a "soft" 
magnetic material that saturates at low magnetic fields and that is the key to 
the coupling magnons into heat. The high number of inherent Rydberg levels in 
the ionization potential of this alloy could be the key. BTW – it should be 
noted that  Molybdenum is the closest Rydberg ionization fit to Mills theory of 
all metals. That could be another key to understanding. No other metal is as 
close to the precise value.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Brian Ahern]

Earlier today Jones referenced my work on energy localization and nanomagnetism 
as a potential explanation for the Manelas device operation,


I never considered that inputing 2 of the three windings around the ferrite 
core could result in a superwave condition.  That makes so much sense. Why 
didn't I think of it.


I wondered how Arthur developed fast rise time pulses with so much inductance.


As usual, I welcome suggestions.



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 12:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio


I agree with the idea of adding a dimension to Holmlid’s laser setup—may be 
expensive however, since lasers with the appropriate frequency may be necessary 
to get good coupling.  Given known quadrupole magnetic moments in various data 
sources for the stable (and unstable} Ni nucleons, picking design parameters 
for the lasers may be easy.



The objective should be to stimulate a target Ni nucleus to a meta stable 
energy spin state, which then is allowed to decay—given the lattice 
coupling---to a new lower potential energy spin state.



This scheme of transmutation of radioactive waste was proposed as an 
alternative in the DOE’s nuclear waste management EIS of the mid 1970’s—1976 as 
I recall.  It was one of several different options considered at that time.   
However, it was dismissed because the necessary technology was not available to 
accomplish the desired stimulation the radioactive waste.  This situation has 
changed with subsequent development of lasers of most any frequency desired.



Two lasers, if in resonance, may provide magnetic quadrupole coupling necessary 
to unlock the potential energy of Ni nucleons of a coherent lattice, just as in 
the Letts-Cravens Pd system.



Conserving linear momentum is not an issue, since the system is not stimulated 
with high linear momentum particles, as is the case in simple two-body nuclear 
interactions.  Thus ionizing radiation is absent, as is the case with LENR.  
Only angular momentum (and total energy) are conserved in an LENR process IMHO.





Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 7:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio





I should have mentioned that another wrinkle on superwaves could employ light 
waves - the so-called Letts-Cravens effect where laser irradiation of two 
lasers impinge on a loaded lattice.



AFAIK – Holmlid has always used only one laser.



Perhaps he should superwave it ?



Another wrinkle would be RF + laser. Or 2xRF + laser? Or 2xRF + 2xlaser?









Why superwaves?



A known mechanism for wave amplification in rigid structures is called  “energy 
localization” which can be a feature of nanoscale packing of hydrogen in a 
lattice. When stimulated with two waveforms at different frequencies, a 
paradigm shift can be engineered on the vibrational modes of bound particles 
(protons in a lattice). Nuclear reactions can happen in rare cases, but even 
without them thermal gain is possible at the nanoscale in blatant violation to 
the Laws or Thermodynamics. This is essentially proved but scaling up to useful 
levels is not proved.



In the Schrödinger equation you can find the term for quantum kinetic energy as 
the second derivative of the wave function for place. The closer the particle 
is confined, the greater the curvature of its wave function and the greater is 
its quantum kinetic energy (the energy localization). It can be a power law 
increase, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation



In simpler terms, Quantum kinetic energy is the kinetic energy with which bound 
protons move through the lattice - and this energy can be nonlinear wrt input. 
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that the closer the particle is 
confined, the smaller its freedom of movement Δx and thus - the more violent it 
wriggles back and forth, and the greater is his  Δp . Intersecting waveforms 
can provide the increased confinement and the resultant gain is the theory 
behind the “superwave”.



RE: GRANTED US patent which cites the Dardik superwave patent



https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US9540960



It is no coincidence 

Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24

[Brian Ahern]

I think Jones was too kind. It was not a demo. It was three hours of dithering. 
 Mats should be embarrassed by the sound control if nothing else.


I wondered what Rossi's trick would be this time. It was acting like a person 
who has no clue what he is trying to accomplish.


I guess this makes me a 'pathoskeptic'.

I think A.R. owes all of us three hours for the amateur hours he presented to 
us.  The Swedish Academy has little to be proud of here.


From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 1:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24

I don't agree.  The measurements of energy out & in were good enough to 
demonstrate the basic characteristics of the QX.  That was the purpose of the 
demo.  I t would be impossible to to do a replicable experiment without giving 
the IP away.

The pathosskeptics make much of the crude power pack with 60 W of cooling But I 
don't believe that power could be magically transferred to heat the water.  
What could Rossi possibly get from such a scam?  It's not to get money from the 
general public but possibly to interest venture capitalists: they would do 
their own due diligence, such as measuring the voltage across the reactor.



-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Nov 25, 2017 10:16 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24


Video of demonstration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkj-7whwpUk

Funny that few comments are coming out on this - other than from Mats, who 
would benefit if this demo meant anything positive.
In fact, it is not a demo in any real sense … it is disappointing theatre to 
all but the Rossi-flock.  In no way does this salvage Rossi’s credibility with 
scientists, nor that of Levi and the Swedes, who still look like dupes who 
should, but will not, retract their egregious errors at Lugano.
There is no useful information being supplied which can lead to verification or 
replication. Voltage appears to have been estimated from resistance… with 
pulsed power, that is a no-no and thus the input could have been hundreds of 
times greater than suggested. Why not measure input power at the plug and 
include the cooling power since it is required?
Given Rossi’s three decade long record of fraud and deceit as a backdrop – 
either independent replication or a commercial product will be the only thing 
that can help.
So far, this is little more than a crude repeat of the past 6 years except now 
there is even less relevant information to use in replication than with the 
past failures. Few will waste their time.

Re: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24

[Brian Ahern]

I will be happy if A.R. has something credible.  The Swedish Academy seems to 
be 'all in'.



From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:05 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Ross E-Cat QX demo Nove 24

Apparently the demo will be taking place at 10am in the Royal Swedish Academy 
of Engineering.
You can see it streamed at ~ noon EST at www.ecat.com or http://ecatworld.org 
from which the following notes were taken.

What is already known about E-Cat QX?
During the last year Andrea Rossi on several occasions has released carefully 
selected information from his R work with the QX heat generator. Below are 
some statements recently compiled from his 
blog
 and his latest scientific 
publication:

  *   QX (earlier named by Rossi “Quark X”) is a very small cylinder shaped 
plasma reactor generating large amounts of excess heat (0-100%), light 
(0-50%)and electricity (0-10%).
  *   QX data- length 10mm-diameter 5mm- default output power 20W
  *   An activated QX contains a plasma between two LiAlH4 charged nickel rods
  *   QX plasma is charge neutral (Van de 
Graaff
 behaviour) , with voltage drop like an electrical conductor made by silver (Ag)
  *   QX plasma default temperature – >2300 Celsius
  *   QX reactor default input power – 0.01W (0.1V DC-0.1A)
  *   QX power default power density – 30W/cm-3
  *   Large output power can be obtained with combining many QX in a stack
  *   1 MW power of QX stack fits within 1 cubic meter (excl. heat exchanger)
  *   QX modules will be reloaded in factory exchange system
  *   Work on QX is now moving towards phase of industrialization with 
assistance of Hydrofusion and unknown partner(s) .
  *   QX will be mass manufactured by ABB robots. First factories will be 
placed in USA and Sweden.
  *   Market introduction only after full economy of scale production is ready
  *   On Nov 11 2017 the one year reliabilty test of QX reached Sigma 
5
 wich according Rossi secures following performance properties:
– COP is higher that 50 (>2 calculated from latest 
experiement)
– Tested QX supplied 20W heat power continuously in a year
– QX functions totally at least one year (8760 hours) on one charge
– QX charge will last 10 years with 10% intermittent use
– QX units are possible to control
– No harmful radiation is present
– No risk for run away or melt down
  *   R is started to adapt QX based heater to Stirling engine within a year
  *   Universal mobile QX engine is in plans

Re: [Vo]:Another opportunity for Rossi to disappoint

[Brian Ahern]

I would much prefer being wrong here. Being right gets the LENR world nothing 
new.



From: Adrian Ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 5:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another opportunity for Rossi to disappoint

I would say you were wrong on all counts.  We should know in a week


-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
To: VORTEX <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Nov 18, 2017 4:16 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Another opportunity for Rossi to disappoint

Andrea will astound us on his upcoming demo.  I predict it will leave no real 
evidence of over unity operation.  I suspect he will demonstrate arcing outputs 
that are impossible to establish the I(t) x V(t) = power output .

I do expect a good show, but he will not allow critics to attend.

Since LENR is now a wasteland, he is the best entertainment and it gives me 
something to make conecutive predictions.

[Vo]:Another opportunity for Rossi to disappoint

[Brian Ahern]

Andrea will astound us on his upcoming demo.  I predict it will leave no real 
evidence of over unity operation.  I suspect he will demonstrate arcing outputs 
that are impossible to establish the I(t) x V(t) = power output .


I do expect a good show, but he will not allow critics to attend.


Since LENR is now a wasteland, he is the best entertainment and it gives me 
something to make conecutive predictions.

Re: [Vo]:Kedron Energy MagMo

[Brian Ahern]

The Kedron Principle is just an area of ferromagnetism that is generally not 
observed.


Arthur Manelas showed a needle suspended under a ferrite magnet. It would also 
levitate the needle above the magnet.


The explanation is that the needle went to the location of the greatest field 
strength, which was 1 inch away from the surface.  Normal magnets have the 
strongest fields at the surface.


Kedron had multiple magnets on each slide that could generate similar fields.


I remain convinced that nanograined ferromagnets can align and randomize in 
response to applied fields in a resonant circuit.


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:03 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kedron Energy MagMo






Sent from 
Mail
 for Windows 10



From: JonesBeene
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:53 PM
To: Dave
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Kedron Energy MagMo



Dave - Even without superconductors, there could a niche for a hybrid 
electric/PM motor which could use the Kedron principle with electromagnets 
added.



Of course we already have the simple version of PM in many electric motors and 
alternators which use PMs, typically as the rotor and have no repel phase; but 
no commercial design to my knowledge incorporates PM magnets as both stator and 
rotor, with the electromagnet being used on only a few degrees of rotation.



IIRC Terry Blanton was involved in a project with large PM magnets on both 
stator and rotor and one version of this had an electromagnet to release the 
rotor from the sticky point which all of these designs are plagued with. 
However, it was not overunity which was the goal. It was too large to be 
commercial in say an electric car.



I think a more appropriate goal to shoot for these days would be a compact 
electric PM motor which is 98-99% efficient at all speeds and it has a repel 
phase as does the Kedron.



The famous CSIRO motor (Australia) claimed to be the most efficient electric 
motor ever designed - and they did win all the Solar car races, but its 98% 
efficiency was only at high speed and efficiency dropped way off at lower RPM 
to the low 80s. The Tesla electric drive motor is not particularly efficient at 
low speeds either.



I think that there would be a large market in automotive for a double-PM motor 
design where electromagnets were used in such a way that they do two tasks 
simultaneously – provide release from the sticky point(s) and at the same time 
prevent demagnetization by proper pulsing in the repel phase - with the goal of 
having 98+ % efficiency at both high and low speeds and no loss of 
magnetization over years of use. That is doable.





From: Dave

Thanks.  Your comment makes me wonder how this device would in fact operate 
with super conducting magnets instead of permanent ones.  Maybe some form of 
model could predict how magnetic energy stored within a superconducting magnet 
set would decrease as mechanical energy is released.  I am not sure that the 
device would run at all in that substitute case, but if it does then maybe the 
model would show the energy conversion as it takes place in real world 
permanent magnets.

Perhaps the modeled superconducting drive current would slowly drop as 
mechanical work is performed?  Maybe someone else has some ideas about how this 
could be modeled which would save a lot of time evaluating future devices.

Dave

JonesBeene wrote:



From: Dave

Jones, did you see evidence that the amount of energy that could be extracted 
would exceed the amount stored within the permanent magnets?  Also, where did 
the inventor think the excess energy originated from?

Dave

No. That has not been proved and it is easy to fool oneself as this Phd is 
doing.



Here is the good doctor explaining and failing to realize his error – which is 
the looming problem of demagnetization



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qYCz0yZYnY



Anytime permanent magnets go into repel mode they become slowly demagnetized 
and there are no exceptions to this. It has doomed all the demos so far.



However, I also think (but have no real proof) the Laws of Thermodynamics are 
not real laws and that this feat could be accomplished using RTSC and magnets 
together.

Re: [Vo]:dark matter update--Mills' hydrinoes are a good bet

[Brian Ahern]

He has done it again!  60 pages with 84 references is enough to wear out even 
enthusiastic audiences.


His data is indisputable, because it takes too much effort to enter into a 
dialog.


Dialog???  He does not allow for dialogue; only ephemeral 'demos'.



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 6:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:dark matter update--Mills' hydrinoes are a good bet


The spectra of hydrinoes match that spectra of cosmic radiation coming from the 
Milky Way and elsewhere per Mills.  See the following:



http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/EUV-Mechanism-051817.pdf



In addition  kIM’s presentation identifying the prediction of WIPMZILLAS at 
10e-24 eV would not be found by CERN.

http://susy10.uni-bonn.de/data/KimJEpreSUSY.pdf



Bob Cook




From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 11:58:57 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:dark matter update

https://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles-1.22970

Dark-matter hunt fails to find the elusive particles

Physicists begin to embrace alternative explanations for the missing material.


http://frankwilczek.com/2017/axion_searches_01.pdf

Frank Wilczek surveys searches for his favorite dark matter alternative


On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:
iF wimps existed, the LHC would have created them my now...sadly no wimps.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 1:34 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:

For in update on dark matter ideas and experiments see:



http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0528v1.pdf



In the Milky  Way it may be that the cosmic EM radiation is the annihilation of 
the particles making up dark matter at the center.  Wimps and anti wimps are 
suggested given the energy of the cosmic rays..



Bob Cook

[Vo]:Fw: New Energy Times News Headlines

[Brian Ahern]

LENR reporting has had similar features. Reporting excess power in watts/cm3 
disguised the fact that very small volumes were

reported so the real excess power almost never exceeded a watt!

After thirty years no repeatable and verifiable power output has exceeded one 
watt. This may surprise other as it has been a surprise for me as well.

From: New Energy Times