For D, certainly He4 is detected, correlated with heat. For H, it's a
harder issue, so we cannot know if its is fusion which is happening, that
is, with correlation with heat.
2014-03-29 2:47 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com:
You said
Certainly, the only proof for fusion is the
Part I
The recent Mizuno (Yoshino) presentation at the MIT colloquium and the
surprising implication of finding about twice the quantity of hydrogen
appearing as ash from deuterium reactions (as the starting gas) after a
month long run - has been the inspiration for the following early stage
Part II
When a free neutron decays to a proton, substantial energy is released as
well as a neutrino - which carries away about 40% of the net energy
undetected. That is the main problem to overcome in framing a putative
exothermic deuterium reaction in place of the endotherm which would normally
We are assembling a page for all 2014 CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT audio,
video, .pdfs, and links to affiliated institutions:
http://coldfusionnow.org/interviews/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-full-coverage/
New material will be added here as they are available throughout the
week (or two!)
I favor the idea that a strong magnetic field can catalyze pion virtual
particles from the energy borrowed from the vacuum that can disrupt the
nucleus of the atom along the path of that magnetic field.
If a plus pion transmutes a neutron into a proton using borrowed energy
from the vacuum (135
Come to think of it, this pion reaction is a mind bender. This Mizuno
reaction is the exact opposite of the proton-proton chain reaction. That is
the fusion reaction by which stars convert hydrogen to helium. If the
proton-proton chain reaction produces positive energy, then its opposite
fission
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
They say that the data never
lies; but wow, does LENR really get all or most of its energy from the
vacuum.
I have always thought so. But, then, I have been a Puthoff fan-boy
for ages. :-)
Yes - even if plausible way exists in QM for converting deuterium to
hydrogen with gain, that gain obviously does not derive from the mass of the
deuterium, per se.
This leaves these main possibilities, and a few others
1) vacuum energy (ZPE)
2) nickel mass via spin coupling
3) Mills version
Entwined as in a tree with vacuum energy (ZPE) as the tap root, and the
others (if real) as emergent pathways of energy flow.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Yes - even if plausible way exists in QM for converting deuterium to
hydrogen with gain, that
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
There would be a net decrease in gas quantity under any scenario in which
D2 reacts with nickel – never wound an increase be expected, even small -
much less a ~2:1 increase in gas quantity. Amazing.
I think the lead that
I wrote:
- The p+Ni lead appears to align with the thoughts of the
experimenters themselves, who included graphs of the neutron capture cross
sections for nickel in their slides.
I wrote p+Ni, but I meant d+Ni.
Eric
One other exotic possibility comes to mind, thinking about Ni-64. This
nickel isotope appears to be unique in the periodic table, being the highest
ratio of excess neutrons in a stable isotope, compared to the most common
isotope of that element (36/30 = 12%) in nature. (hydrogen-deuterium does
From: Eric Walker
The p+Ni lead appears to align with the thoughts of the
experimenters themselves, who included graphs of the neutron capture cross
sections for nickel in their slides.
I wrote p+Ni, but I meant d+Ni.
The d+Ni
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
I wrote p+Ni, but I meant d+Ni.
The d+Ni reaction would have to be the Oppenheimer-Phillips version, to be
statistically relevant. Here is a blip on Passell’s O-P theroy. I have not
found it as a separate
I attended to a funeral two weeks ago. He was a veteran of WW2.
The bugle player was excellent. He played taps. Many cried.
I went to another funeral today. Taps were played again,the bugle
player sneezed and, the bugle kept on playing.
I asked about it, They are now using digital
Just wanted to add one minor thought to the discussion. Could it be that the
breaking up of the D into pieces might actually take energy from the system
that is then added back by a relatively minor amount of more or less standard H
reaction with nickel? The implications of such a process are
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
I just discovered that you wrote concerning the OP angle back in 2010 (and
Abd Lomax replied):
https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com
That second link above, where Jones and Abd Lomax discuss the
A video about what happens in one minute.
Mostly off topic but the amount of garbage produced and CO2 released are
awesome.
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/359066/the-frequency-of-humanity/
I wrote:
The claim I will egregiously ignore for the moment as either being artifact
or something that is different from what we currently understand it to be
is the idea that there were twice as many gas molecules after the
experiment had run than at the time it had started.
I think I found
The decay of the neutron must be instansious because no indications of
neutron absorption into a deuterium nucleus to produce tritium. There is
no indication that any atom larger in mass than deuterium had been
generated.
You must assume instansious completion of the reaction exclusive of any
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no indication that any atom larger in mass than deuterium had been
generated.
See the yellow arrow for species of mass 3 on pp. 38, 39, 41 and 42 of the
slides (according to Chrome):
21 matches
Mail list logo
