Re: [Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/06/05/
> 1008093/0/en/Thunder-Energies-Receives-Down-Payment-on-
> Equipment-Producing-a-Directional-Neutron-Flux-and-
> Predicts-Profitability-for-its-Construction.html
>

'Directional neutron flux'..? Sounds like someone wants a ray gun weapon.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Che  wrote:
>
>
>> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold
>> fusion' as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up
>> in a dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?
>>
>
> The results are not a bit dead end. By the standards of experimental
> science, cold fusion results were superb. Practically unprecedented in the
> history of science. It was a totally unexpected phenomenon and it is still
> not understood, yet within a few years there were hundreds of irrefutable
> papers confirming it. If it were not for academic politics, every scientist
> on earth would be convinced by the results from people such as Fritz Will.
> See:
>


If Jed Rothwell didn't have his OWN agenda, instead of this knee-jerk
response, he would have glossed instead that I am speaking really ONLY of
the '*practical*' engineering outcomes of this basic scientific research --
you know: the shit MOST people are actually INTERESTED in. Like buying a
dirt-cheap water-heater/electricity source/eternal battery/yadda.

Jed Rothwell, scientific researcher extraordinaire, has misunderstood the
easily-grasped (admittedly 'loaded') context of the term 'dead-end' above.

Tsk, tsk.

Re: [Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

[Jones Beene]

There are many reasons to be skeptical of Santilli. He does use a 
variety of neutron detection devices, however. Whatever he is making 
looks like neutrons.


This press release makes one think that he could have something valid 
this time.


http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/06/05/1008093/0/en/Thunder-Energies-Receives-Down-Payment-on-Equipment-Producing-a-Directional-Neutron-Flux-and-Predicts-Profitability-for-its-Construction.html

... but it just a press release for a device not yet in service, but it 
seems closer to reality than anything he has done before.



Bob Higgins wrote:
The trouble with these type of experiments is that it is extremely 
difficult to prove that electronic measurement of neutrons is valid in 
the presence of the "mini-EMP" arc pulses.  A much better test for 
neutrons would be to use the BubbleTech (non-electronic) neutron 
detectors and show bubbles being produced at a significant rate 
compared to control periods with the same detectors.


 Jones Beene wrote:

Of interest:

A video which purports to show neutrons being created from arcing
through hydrogen gas

This seems to fit into the concept of dense hydrogen masquerading
as a virtual neutron...


https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=p5l_Ag1pSky4LmG9KpKRbX3ayWu0Cnp9SmLl7BlillCm_qJcvnonV1XYOS-S_NGOkH73UUat9mh69JyoXUXvFk1rTLypqP_zKJl8zQwi3BohM6RimKFx8m8CPU97XW4RpbZ4Bg1oJVNzoQVA9aOnkkpGOoFNRB1A7SXNnr_lHP0=

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about
> proton decay.
>

I *totally* disagree. 'Cold Fusion' is clearly a term with mucho
popularizing potential... and most importantly: **it is NOT all that
inaccurate a term, considering its subject-matter**. But it is *precisely*
because of this popularizing potential -- and thus its immediate threat to
certain vested interests -- which is AFAIC the root cause behind all the
attempts to marginalize the term, and make it synonymous with crank
quackery and 'fringe fyzix', etc.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Che  wrote:


> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion'
> as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a
> dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?
>

The results are not a bit dead end. By the standards of experimental
science, cold fusion results were superb. Practically unprecedented in the
history of science. It was a totally unexpected phenomenon and it is still
not understood, yet within a few years there were hundreds of irrefutable
papers confirming it. If it were not for academic politics, every scientist
on earth would be convinced by the results from people such as Fritz Will.
See:

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

People such as Che mistakenly believe it is a dead end because he reads
mass media lies instead of scientific papers, and because frauds such as
Defkalion and Rossi have lately dominated the field with fake claims. That
never happened from 1989 until Rossi came along. He has almost
single-handedly destroyed the field.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Axil Axil]

We shoud not be talking about 'cold fusion'. We should be talking about
proton decay.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
> evidence.  There is none.
> >
> > Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing
> in a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
> >
> > The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
> excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.
>
>
> This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion'
> as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a
> dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

That's the sort of thing they muddle up; they say that then go on to start 
talking about warp spacetime, empty space having the properties of a medium and 
faster than light (FTL) et al. 
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 23:27, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv0243928094 #yiv0243928094 -- _filtered #yiv0243928094 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0243928094 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;}#yiv0243928094 #yiv0243928094 p.yiv0243928094MsoNormal, #yiv0243928094 
li.yiv0243928094MsoNormal, #yiv0243928094 div.yiv0243928094MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0243928094 a:link, 
#yiv0243928094 span.yiv0243928094MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0243928094 a:visited, #yiv0243928094 
span.yiv0243928094MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0243928094 
.yiv0243928094MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0243928094 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv0243928094 div.yiv0243928094WordSection1 {}#yiv0243928094 
Kevin—   C is a constant and is the speed of light in empty space.  Light  also 
propagates in various media at a speed always below C.  Particles may move at a 
higher velocity than light in a medium, but not in empty space—all this is 
standard physics today.   Bob Cook   From: Kevin O'Malley
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled   On 7/17/17, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?   I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.    

   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Che]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>
> Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
evidence.  There is none.
>
> Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing
in a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
>
> The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.


This is what I am not getting. Why are we even talking about 'cold fusion'
as a reality, when initial (wild?) success always seems to end up in a
dead-end -- where people can get away with SAYING this sort of thing..?

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Kevin—

C is a constant and is the speed of light in empty space.  Light  also 
propagates in various media at a speed always below C.  Particles may move at a 
higher velocity than light in a medium, but not in empty space—all this is 
standard physics today.

Bob Cook

From: Kevin O'Malley
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?   I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I mean by the mainstream relativists, "they" have got it wrong when "they" 
teach it
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:58, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:
 

 all based on misunderstanding relativity due to translation errors as I shall 
point out in my next physics talks. 
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:55, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
 

 On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?  I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.



   

   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[ROGER ANDERTON]

all based on misunderstanding relativity due to translation errors as I shall 
point out in my next physics talks. 
 

On Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:55, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
 

 On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?  I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.



   

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/17/17, bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
  Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged
> particle which enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of
> light in the medium.
Velocity greater than C?   I thought there was nothing that could move
faster than C?  Except perhaps INFORMATION, i.e. tachyons and spooky
actions at a distance.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Kevin O'Malley]

On 7/17/17, Brian Ahern  wrote:

>
> The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
> excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.
>
 ***What about the NANOR?   And also, what about those 153 peer
reviewed replications of Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event that
Jed cites?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

I agree with your assessment. I failed to exceed 200 milliwatts. That was my 
hero result from the EPRI Study in 2012



From: Russ George 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled


Brian’s words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found here 
is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy, aka 
bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some basis 
in observational experimental results they work from, rather what Brian calls 
‘witch doctoring’ is far more akin to the selling of snake oil.



Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil in 
spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to show an 
excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There he’s 
showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold fusion far 
in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades. The folks who 
have succeeded at doing so just haven’t been willing to share their hard won 
know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching for free.



From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled





Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.  
There is none.



Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.



The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess 
energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.



From: Axil Axil >
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled



When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.



On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:

Axil—



With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.



Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled



Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

My MS thesis showed the SC in PdD and PdH in 1975. It works every time at 11K 
and 9K respectively.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:25 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian Ahern > wrote:

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

Martin Fleischmann and others suggested that the hydrogen in a highly loaded 
palladium hydride might be superconducting. Cryogenic metalic hydrogen is a 
superconductor.

I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because it 
would be difficult to test for. I wouldn't rule it out.

- Jed

[Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

[Bob Higgins]

The trouble with these type of experiments is that it is extremely
difficult to prove that electronic measurement of neutrons is valid in the
presence of the "mini-EMP" arc pulses.  A much better test for neutrons
would be to use the BubbleTech (non-electronic) neutron detectors and show
bubbles being produced at a significant rate compared to control periods
with the same detectors.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Of interest:
>
> A video which purports to show neutrons being created from arcing through
> hydrogen gas
>
> This seems to fit into the concept of dense hydrogen masquerading as a
> virtual neutron...
>
> https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=p5l_Ag1pSky4LmG9K
> pKRbX3ayWu0Cnp9SmLl7BlillCm_qJcvnonV1XYOS-S_NGOkH73UUat9mh
> 69JyoXUXvFk1rTLypqP_zKJl8zQwi3BohM6RimKFx8m8CPU97XW4RpbZ4Bg1
> oJVNzoQVA9aOnkkpGOoFNRB1A7SXNnr_lHP0=
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because
> it would be difficult to test for.
>

Difficult because, presumably, in the cathode only microscopic domains of
nuclear-active spots superconduct. Not the whole cathode. I think that
finding a tiny amount of superconducting material in a sample that is 99%
not superconducting would be difficult.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Russ—

I agree.

But, on the other hand the 5 folks who did the Lugano testing may be FOS as 
Brian suggests.  

FRC

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Russ George
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 6:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Brian’s words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found here 
is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy, aka 
bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some basis 
in observational experimental results they work from, rather what Brian calls 
‘witch doctoring’ is far more akin to the selling of snake oil.

Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil in 
spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to show an 
excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There he’s 
showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold fusion far 
in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades. The folks who 
have succeeded at doing so just haven’t been willing to share their hard won 
know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching for free.

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled



Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.  
There is none.

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess 
energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.

From: Axil Axil >
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:
Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I do not consider it is proper to classifyl Bremsstrahlung radiation  as  gamma 
radiation.  Gammas are associated with nuclear transitions as a result of a 
change of potential energy of ta  nucleus to kinetic energy of a photon IMHO.

You may be right about EM radiation  being given off during hole elimination.  
Bremsstrahlung is associated with the slowing of  a charged particle which 
enters a substance at a velocity greater than the speed of light in the medium. 
 I doubt that the electrons that might move to fill a hole reach a velocity 
greater than C.  A calculation is warranted or an experimental reference may 
help clarify.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 6:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:
Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
>> > in
>> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
>> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >
>> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
>> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
>> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in
> a witch doctor to lead the discussion.
>

Martin Fleischmann and others suggested that the hydrogen in a highly
loaded palladium hydride might be superconducting. Cryogenic metalic
hydrogen is a superconductor.

I do not think there is experimental evidence for this, I suppose because
it would be difficult to test for. I wouldn't rule it out.

- Jed

[Vo]:Santilli "neutrons"

[Jones Beene]

Of interest:

A video which purports to show neutrons being created from arcing 
through hydrogen gas


This seems to fit into the concept of dense hydrogen masquerading as a 
virtual neutron...


https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=p5l_Ag1pSky4LmG9KpKRbX3ayWu0Cnp9SmLl7BlillCm_qJcvnonV1XYOS-S_NGOkH73UUat9mh69JyoXUXvFk1rTLypqP_zKJl8zQwi3BohM6RimKFx8m8CPU97XW4RpbZ4Bg1oJVNzoQVA9aOnkkpGOoFNRB1A7SXNnr_lHP0=

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Brian's words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found
here is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy,
aka bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some
basis in observational experimental results they work from, rather what
Brian calls 'witch doctoring' is far more akin to the selling of snake oil. 

 

Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil
in spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to
show an excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There
he's showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold
fusion far in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades.
The folks who have succeeded at doing so just haven't been willing to share
their hard won know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching
for free. 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

 

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
evidence.  There is none.  

 

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

 

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.

  _  

From: Axil Axil  >
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled 

 

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR
reaction deactivates. 

 

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
   > wrote:

Axil-

 

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing
coupling of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however,
with the transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established
that allow nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react
with production of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the
reaction of a electron and a positron.  

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.


On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  >
wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley  >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  >
wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Brian Ahern]

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental evidence.  
There is none.

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a 
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of excess 
energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away 
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed 
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This 
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR reaction 
deactivates.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
> wrote:
Axil—

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing coupling 
of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however, with the 
transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established that allow 
nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react with production 
of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the reaction of a 
electron and a positron.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.

On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil > wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this
>> > reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type
>> > LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and
>> has
>> > in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as
>> > noncompetitive.
>> >
>> > The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high
>> > temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise
>> > in
>> > material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this
>> > material under extreme stress over time.
>> >
>> > The plasma based LENR reaction is centered on the production of
>> > nanoparticles produced by the condinsation of metal vapor. Polaritons
>> > naturally form on those nanoparticles that convert the spin of infrared
>> > photons into powerful magnetic fields.
>> >
>> > By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR
>> > reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and
>> > is
>> > attempting to bring it to market.
>> >
>> > I am saying