Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Che]

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

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


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

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

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


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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[image: 20170119174546739132.jpg]





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

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

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

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

Bob Cook






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

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

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

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

https://goo.gl/rTDz87

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

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


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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Jones Beene]

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


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


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


https://goo.gl/rTDz87

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


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



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

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

Why does it matter that this was NOT electrolysis?

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Che]

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

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


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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

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


Nigel

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

more...

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


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


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


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



ICCF-18 : Keith Fredericks


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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Axil Axil]

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




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


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



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



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


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


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

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


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



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


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



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



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


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

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

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

[Vo]:A forgotten chapter in LENR

[Jones Beene]

In the early days of cold fusion (early 1990s) there were dozens of 
papers on so-called "low energy emissions" which happened merely from 
loading or exposure of hydrogen to both nickel and palladium - and often 
with no other input power being used.


This was NOT electrolysis. Many of the papers originated in India or 
Italy and few from the USA. The testing was done using x-ray film, often 
the kind used by dentists and the result is a foggy film known as an 
"autoradiograph". In fact, the radioactive properties of Uranium were 
first discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel using fogging of film, in a 
very similar way.


Various filters can be used to estimate the energy of the emission - 
which is called "low energy" in many of the papers, but it was in the 
soft x-ray range of 500 eV to 10 keV. These photons are far from low 
energy compared to visible light and are only "low" compared to gammas.


The upper end of this range is where tritium decay occurs, and based on 
that and the estimated half-life of exposed metal - some of the old 
papers conclude that tritium was being produced from light water and 
nickel, which is most unlikely given the lack of a suitable mechanism 
for tritium.


Names of experimenters are Focardi, Piantelli, Srinivasan, 
Sankaranarayanan, Notoya, Rout and others.


BTW - these emissions were seen using either hydrogen or deuterium or 
both and there was no advantage for deuterium, so this was NOT cold 
fusion per se. For instance, "Copious low energy emissions from 
Palladium loaded with hydrogen or deuterium," Indian Journal of 
Technology, 29, 5071, (1991) Rout et al. At least one paper got picked 
up by Fusion Technology.


It is too bad that this niche was not pursued further to determine the 
mechanism of the soft x-rays and to attempt scale-up. In retrospect, the 
implications of this kind of energetic radiation happening from mere 
exposure of metal to hydrogen, and with zero added power should have 
gotten more people excited than it did. For those of us who are 
revisiting this niche in light of what Holmlid has (more recently) 
reported - it is very exciting... since Holmlid has a viable theory and 
identification of the species responsible.


In short, this niche of relatively energetic photons occurring 
spontaneously, with no power applied other than pumping the H2 gas, may 
represent a more commercializable result than actual fusion since the 
radiation is easily shielded, and especially since it was said to be 
100% reproducible at the time. If Holmlid is correct, the ash could be 
the most valuable part of the process.