Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

My criticism allows for such a possibility.  Harry


On Wed., Jul. 17, 2019, 4:06 p.m. ,  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:49:22 -0400:
> Hi Harry,
>
> You are making the assumption that it actually has something to do with
> nuclear
> structure. However it is by no means certain as of yet, that such is the
> case.
> That's precisely why the energy release per atom would be useful, to
> narrow down
> the possibilities.
>
> >If mass energy conversion is treated as a cause of nuclear structure then
> >you are correct.   I am looking at it as an effect of nuclear structure so
> >the energy produced per atom would only tell us that nuclear forces are
> >involved.
> >Harry
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

I am interested in the vagaries of human physiology, when faced with
releasing long held bedrock foundational concepts. Transmutation does not
produce energy in the LENR reaction. Fusion is a non factor in energy
production in LENR. LENR is a process that elevates the weirdness of
quantum mechanics to the macro level. Under the purview of the LENR
reaction, processes that occur only in sub nuclear particles can happen in
the formation of  327.25 tons of  "anomalous" ferrosilicon output.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:06 PM  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:49:22 -0400:
> Hi Harry,
>
> You are making the assumption that it actually has something to do with
> nuclear
> structure. However it is by no means certain as of yet, that such is the
> case.
> That's precisely why the energy release per atom would be useful, to
> narrow down
> the possibilities.
>
> >If mass energy conversion is treated as a cause of nuclear structure then
> >you are correct.   I am looking at it as an effect of nuclear structure so
> >the energy produced per atom would only tell us that nuclear forces are
> >involved.
> >Harry
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:53:04 -0400:
Hi,

All the anecdotal stories I have heard to date report the engine running "cold",
sometimes "hand cold".

>One of the formats that energy production in the LENR reaction can assume
>is shock wave generation. The Papp engine produced a huge amount of energy
>inside the combustion chambers of its paired cylinders but no heat. The
>first Papp engine was based on the production of a fuel cycle based on
>water. Only later in the mid 80's did Papp come up with a new reaction
>based on the explosion of noble gases. By the way, this method of LENR
>energy generation does not require hydrogen to operate.
>
>The same heatless expansion through shock wave generation might be true for
>the combustion of all LENR reaction based gases: Ohmasa, brown's gas, etc.
>in the cylinder of a car engine. If you would be kind enough to ask your
>contacts familiar with LENR gas fueled cars if any appreciable heat output
>is produced, I would be interested to know.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:49:22 -0400:
Hi Harry,

You are making the assumption that it actually has something to do with nuclear
structure. However it is by no means certain as of yet, that such is the case.
That's precisely why the energy release per atom would be useful, to narrow down
the possibilities.

>If mass energy conversion is treated as a cause of nuclear structure then
>you are correct.   I am looking at it as an effect of nuclear structure so
>the energy produced per atom would only tell us that nuclear forces are
>involved.
>Harry
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

In my view, there are two independent processes at play in the LENR
reaction such as happens in the Mizumo mesh: transmutation and vacuum
energy extraction. This leads to confusion about what nuclear reactions are
producing energy because we don't see any energy produced by transmutation
but we do see energy produced by vacuum energy extraction. False
equivalences are naturally drawn which are invalid. The energy produced by
fusion is not visible to us but the energy produced by vacuum energy
extraction is visible. Relating this vacuum energy to the fusion reaction
is misleading and invalid.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:49 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> If mass energy conversion is treated as a cause of nuclear structure then
> you are correct.   I am looking at it as an effect of nuclear structure so
> the energy produced per atom would only tell us that nuclear forces are
> involved.
> Harry
>
> On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 6:23 p.m. ,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:44:27 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >IMO the focus on mass-energy equivalence at the present time is not
>> helpful
>> >in this field. It should be set aside until there is a rough explanation
>> of
>> >the nuclear dynamics without it. Harry
>> [snip]
>> Calculation of the energy yield / atom would actually tell us a lot,
>> because
>> there is a considerable difference in yield between the various theories.
>> I.e.
>>
>> Electron shrinkage (e.g. Mills):ev-keV
>> Fusion: MeV
>> Complete conversion of matter to energy:GeV
>>
>> There is roughly a factor of 1000 between each theory, so the energy /
>> atom
>> could be a good indicator. Even if the measured value lies somewhere in
>> between,
>> it would likely be an indication that the energy is coming from a
>> combination of
>> the above, and even indicate which combination is most likely.
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

If mass energy conversion is treated as a cause of nuclear structure then
you are correct.   I am looking at it as an effect of nuclear structure so
the energy produced per atom would only tell us that nuclear forces are
involved.
Harry

On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 6:23 p.m. ,  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:44:27 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >IMO the focus on mass-energy equivalence at the present time is not
> helpful
> >in this field. It should be set aside until there is a rough explanation
> of
> >the nuclear dynamics without it. Harry
> [snip]
> Calculation of the energy yield / atom would actually tell us a lot,
> because
> there is a considerable difference in yield between the various theories.
> I.e.
>
> Electron shrinkage (e.g. Mills):ev-keV
> Fusion: MeV
> Complete conversion of matter to energy:GeV
>
> There is roughly a factor of 1000 between each theory, so the energy / atom
> could be a good indicator. Even if the measured value lies somewhere in
> between,
> it would likely be an indication that the energy is coming from a
> combination of
> the above, and even indicate which combination is most likely.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

One of the formats that energy production in the LENR reaction can assume
is shock wave generation. The Papp engine produced a huge amount of energy
inside the combustion chambers of its paired cylinders but no heat. The
first Papp engine was based on the production of a fuel cycle based on
water. Only later in the mid 80's did Papp come up with a new reaction
based on the explosion of noble gases. By the way, this method of LENR
energy generation does not require hydrogen to operate.

The same heatless expansion through shock wave generation might be true for
the combustion of all LENR reaction based gases: Ohmasa, brown's gas, etc.
in the cylinder of a car engine. If you would be kind enough to ask your
contacts familiar with LENR gas fueled cars if any appreciable heat output
is produced, I would be interested to know.

How the details of the LENR shock wave energy production format occurs is
still unknown.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:27 AM Axil Axil  wrote:

> Regarding:
>
>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite
>different.
>
>
> Living things can transmute elements. This ability is very hard to
> understand in terms of theory.  How can a bacterium produce enough power to
> circumvent the normal functioning of the strong force. How can a bacterium
> live through the transmutation process without being effected by the
> byproducts of fusion and fission. The LENR reaction must have some tricks
> up its sleeves to surpass the processes that occur inside an exploding
>  supernova, the most violent explosion to occur in space. Shock-wave
> nucleosynthesis and hydrostatic-burning processes create most of the
> isotopes of the elements carbon (Z = 6), oxygen (Z = 8), and elements with
> Z = 10–28  How do those bugs do what they do???
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:46 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>> *From: *Jed Rothwell 
>>
>>
>>
>>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts 
>> quite
>>different.
>>
>>
>>
>> This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an
>> assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to
>> look beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact
>> in the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an
>> older thread here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in
>> different comparative runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better
>> results (more excess heat) from  protium than with deuterium. You cannot
>> deny this result.
>>
>>
>>
>> To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than
>> “one fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other
>> being very different; and thus all future devices must recognize that
>> nuclear fusion is not required for excess heat. This is actually highly
>>  desirable as "fusion” alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of
>> unnecessary government intrusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat
>> exist.  Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where
>> typically lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause is a
>> non-fusion reaction with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable,
>> and no lithium is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms)
>> is sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV.
>> That third one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two.
>>
>>
>>
>> The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to
>> confuse things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind -
>> (mass converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”
>>
>>
>>
>> It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are
>> valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and
>> no one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently
>> from his earlier papers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:44:27 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>IMO the focus on mass-energy equivalence at the present time is not helpful
>in this field. It should be set aside until there is a rough explanation of
>the nuclear dynamics without it. Harry
[snip]
Calculation of the energy yield / atom would actually tell us a lot, because
there is a considerable difference in yield between the various theories. I.e.

Electron shrinkage (e.g. Mills):ev-keV
Fusion: MeV
Complete conversion of matter to energy:GeV

There is roughly a factor of 1000 between each theory, so the energy / atom
could be a good indicator. Even if the measured value lies somewhere in between,
it would likely be an indication that the energy is coming from a combination of
the above, and even indicate which combination is most likely.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

Bob,

also if the force on the spring is removed then the extra mass will be
re-converted back into energy in addition to the transformation of
potential energy into the kinetic energy of the spring's motion as it
returns to equilibrium. However, the reconversion of the extra mass back
into energy doesn't explain how the force was removed. The conversion (of
mass into energy) is an effect of removing the force, rather than a cause
of the removal. A possible cause might consist of scissors cutting a string
which connects the weight to the end of the spring.

Although the energy produced by conversion can be used to cause other
things (which is the point of energy production) the energy produced does
not tell us how it came to be stored as mass and how it was then released
as energy again. What is required are explanatory physical models which
make use of the appropriate forces to store energy (P.E.) and then release
it. These models can then be further refined by applying the rules of mass
energy conversion.
Harry

On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 5:19 p.m. bobcook39...@hotmail.com, <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Harry—
>
>
>
> Good questions.
>
>
>
> I would say pulling on the spring adds potential energy to the spring and
> the entity creating the tension. The entiity may be a closed system which
> entails the weak “gracity” EM field forces as Jurg suggests.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
> --
> *From:* H LV 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:29:16 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to
> betheprecursor to all future devices
>
>
>
> On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 1:12 p.m. Jürg Wyttenbach, 
> wrote:
>
>> My model shows that all mass is EM mass and in fact gravitation is the
>> weakest EM force.
>>
>> EM mass behaves exactly as Einstein and others before Einstein already
>> found. A spring under tension has more mass than a relaxed spring etc.,
>> chemical reactions produce heat --> reduces mass.
>>
>
> The extra mass doesn't keep the spring under tension. It is an applied
> force which does that. The extra mass doesn't tell us about the nature of
> this force. (Is it a weight hanging from the spring? Is the spring being
> pulled by a person? etc..) Harry
>
>
>>

RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Harry—

Good questions.

I would say pulling on the spring adds potential energy to the spring and the 
entity creating the tension. The entiity may be a closed system which entails 
the weak “gracity” EM field forces as Jurg suggests.


Bob Cook

From: H LV 
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:29:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor 
to all future devices



On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 1:12 p.m. Jürg Wyttenbach, 
mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote:
My model shows that all mass is EM mass and in fact gravitation is the weakest 
EM force.

EM mass behaves exactly as Einstein and others before Einstein already found. A 
spring under tension has more mass than a relaxed spring etc., chemical 
reactions produce heat --> reduces mass.

The extra mass doesn't keep the spring under tension. It is an applied force 
which does that. The extra mass doesn't tell us about the nature of this force. 
(Is it a weight hanging from the spring? Is the spring being pulled by a 
person? etc..) Harry

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 1:12 p.m. Jürg Wyttenbach, 
wrote:

> My model shows that all mass is EM mass and in fact gravitation is the
> weakest EM force.
>
> EM mass behaves exactly as Einstein and others before Einstein already
> found. A spring under tension has more mass than a relaxed spring etc.,
> chemical reactions produce heat --> reduces mass.
>

The extra mass doesn't keep the spring under tension. It is an applied
force which does that. The extra mass doesn't tell us about the nature of
this force. (Is it a weight hanging from the spring? Is the spring being
pulled by a person? etc..) Harry


>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

My model shows that all mass is EM mass and in fact gravitation is the 
weakest EM force.


EM mass behaves exactly as Einstein and others before Einstein already 
found. A spring under tension has more mass than a relaxed spring etc., 
chemical reactions produce heat --> reduces mass.
The only cosmetic "error" in the Einstein formula E=mc^2 is, that in 
fact you should write it as dE =dmc^2 as you never can convert all mass 
to "free" photon energy.
But in terms of EM mass, E=mc^2 shows how gravitating mass at rest is 
converted into non gravitating photon like mass.


Unluckily we yet don't exactly know which parts of dense EM mass do 
really gravitate (not all parts do!). Thus the formula E=mc^2 is nice to 
have and mostly works for the first 6 digits what is the precision of 
the classic gravitation constant. But tabulated particle weight data is 
mostly gained by EM measurements and the mass relation between known 
particles is more exact than the gravitation constant (that, as defined 
most likely is not a global constant) !

Hence also E=mc^2 is more reliable if you interpret E as EM equivalent mass.

The only people that must worry are the cosmologists as things will get 
slightly more complicated.


Jürg

Am 16.07.19 um 17:56 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


I consider it likely possible to measure mass loss or gain in small 
systems—nano or micro scale in size—where temperatures change and 
entropy increases or decreases.   However, Jurg”s theory regarding the 
parameter of mass may indicate a different ratio between mass and 
energy, depending  upon their precise definitions.


Originally energy was defined as the ability to do work—pretty vague 
from a physical model point of view.  It evolved with the 
thermodynamic laws and further evolved with atomic and nuclear theory 
 and cosmic observations involving gravitational attractions between 
many “massive” items within a finite small  space, expanding space, 
zero point energy, etc.


Heisenberg added more vagueness with kinetic energy of mass and its 
momentum in very small spaces related to h, Planck’s constant, raising 
the question about the physical THEORY that entails a model described 
by a continuum of space and time parameters to ZERO—NOT IN QUANTUM STEPS.


And so it goes.

Bob Cook

___


*From:* Jed Rothwell 
*Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:50:54 AM
*To:* Vortex
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to 
betheprecursor to all future devices

H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to
mass change?  A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change
but the change is so small that it can be ignored so that
essentially all the energy is due to EM forces performing work.


All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount. 
Mechanical, chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to 
Einstein. It is impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical 
system because the total energy is so small, but the mass loss per 
joule is exactly the same as with a nuclear reaction.




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

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 9:51 a.m. Jed Rothwell, 
wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass
>> change?  A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change but the change
>> is so small that it can be ignored so that essentially all the energy is
>> due to EM forces performing work.
>>
>
> All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount. Mechanical,
> chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to Einstein. It is
> impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical system because the
> total energy is so small, but the mass loss per joule is exactly the same
> as with a nuclear reaction.
>


As far a I know including the change of mass would teach us nothing useful
about matter at chemical levels of energy. To put it another way did the
mass energy equivalence  result in a major revision of the laws of
chemistry? (Maybe it should...who knows?)

IMO the focus on mass-energy equivalence at the present time is not helpful
in this field. It should be set aside until there is a rough explanation of
the nuclear dynamics without it. Harry

>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

Energy is still the ability to do work. That hasn't changed, although some
new concepts and math has been introduced. Harry

On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 11:56 a.m. bobcook39...@hotmail.com, <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I consider it likely possible to measure mass loss or gain in small
> systems—nano or micro scale in size—where temperatures change and entropy
> increases or decreases.   However, Jurg”s theory regarding the parameter of
> mass may indicate a different ratio between mass and energy, depending
>  upon their precise definitions.
>
>
>
> Originally energy was defined as the ability to do work—pretty vague from
> a physical model point of view.  It evolved with the thermodynamic laws and
> further evolved with atomic and nuclear theory  and cosmic observations
> involving gravitational attractions between many “massive” items within a
> finite small  space, expanding space, zero point energy, etc.
>
>
>
> Heisenberg added more vagueness with kinetic energy of mass and its
> momentum in very small spaces related to h, Planck’s constant, raising the
> question about the physical THEORY that entails a model described by a
> continuum of space and time parameters to ZERO—NOT IN QUANTUM STEPS.
>
>
>
> And so it goes.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> ___
>
>
> --
> *From:* Jed Rothwell 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:50:54 AM
> *To:* Vortex
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to
> betheprecursor to all future devices
>
> H LV  wrote:
>
> How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass
>> change?  A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change but the change
>> is so small that it can be ignored so that essentially all the energy is
>> due to EM forces performing work.
>>
>
> All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount. Mechanical,
> chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to Einstein. It is
> impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical system because the
> total energy is so small, but the mass loss per joule is exactly the same
> as with a nuclear reaction.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I consider it likely possible to measure mass loss or gain in small 
systems—nano or micro scale in size—where temperatures change and entropy 
increases or decreases.   However, Jurg”s theory regarding the parameter of 
mass may indicate a different ratio between mass and energy, depending  upon 
their precise definitions.

Originally energy was defined as the ability to do work—pretty vague from a 
physical model point of view.  It evolved with the thermodynamic laws and 
further evolved with atomic and nuclear theory  and cosmic observations 
involving gravitational attractions between many “massive” items within a 
finite small  space, expanding space, zero point energy, etc.

Heisenberg added more vagueness with kinetic energy of mass and its momentum in 
very small spaces related to h, Planck’s constant, raising the question about 
the physical THEORY that entails a model described by a continuum of space and 
time parameters to ZERO—NOT IN QUANTUM STEPS.

And so it goes.

Bob Cook
___


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:50:54 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor 
to all future devices

H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass change?  A 
chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change but the change is so small that 
it can be ignored so that essentially all the energy is due to EM forces 
performing work.

All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount. Mechanical, 
chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to Einstein. It is 
impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical system because the total 
energy is so small, but the mass loss per joule is exactly the same as with a 
nuclear reaction.

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass
> change?  A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change but the change
> is so small that it can be ignored so that essentially all the energy is
> due to EM forces performing work.
>

All forms of energy convert mass to energy in the same amount. Mechanical,
chemical or nuclear, it is always exactly according to Einstein. It is
impossible to measure the loss of mass with a chemical system because the
total energy is so small, but the mass loss per joule is exactly the same
as with a nuclear reaction.

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[H LV]

How much of the energy in a nuclear reaction is actually due to mass
change?  A chemical reaction is accompanied by mass change but the change
is so small that it can be ignored so that essentially all the energy is
due to EM forces performing work. Even if there were no mass change in a
nuclear reaction, since nuclear forces are much larger than EM forces the
energy absorbed or released would still be much larger than in a chemical
reaction. Also  "reactions" may not be the key feature of LENReactions.
What happens in LENR might be more like the nuclear analogue of a chemical
phase change or restructuring. Harry

On Tue., Jul. 16, 2019, 3:27 a.m. Axil Axil,  wrote:

> Regarding:
>
>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite
>different.
>
>
> Living things can transmute elements. This ability is very hard to
> understand in terms of theory.  How can a bacterium produce enough power to
> circumvent the normal functioning of the strong force. How can a bacterium
> live through the transmutation process without being effected by the
> byproducts of fusion and fission. The LENR reaction must have some tricks
> up its sleeves to surpass the processes that occur inside an exploding
>  supernova, the most violent explosion to occur in space. Shock-wave
> nucleosynthesis and hydrostatic-burning processes create most of the
> isotopes of the elements carbon (Z = 6), oxygen (Z = 8), and elements with
> Z = 10–28  How do those bugs do what they do???
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:46 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>> *From: *Jed Rothwell 
>>
>>
>>
>>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts 
>> quite
>>different.
>>
>>
>>
>> This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an
>> assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to
>> look beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact
>> in the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an
>> older thread here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in
>> different comparative runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better
>> results (more excess heat) from  protium than with deuterium. You cannot
>> deny this result.
>>
>>
>>
>> To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than
>> “one fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other
>> being very different; and thus all future devices must recognize that
>> nuclear fusion is not required for excess heat. This is actually highly
>>  desirable as "fusion” alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of
>> unnecessary government intrusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat
>> exist.  Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where
>> typically lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause is a
>> non-fusion reaction with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable,
>> and no lithium is needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms)
>> is sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV.
>> That third one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two.
>>
>>
>>
>> The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to
>> confuse things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind -
>> (mass converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”
>>
>>
>>
>> It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are
>> valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and
>> no one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently
>> from his earlier papers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Am 16.07.19 um 09:27 schrieb Axil Axil:
Living things can transmute elements. This ability is very hard to 
understand in terms of theory. 



May be you should start to learn a better theory... SM is fringe science 
in regard to nuclear physics.


LENR is no mystery as there usually is no radiation and the halve live 
of decaying states is very long.



Jürg

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

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

Regarding:

   - I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all systems.
   It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that fission
   is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite
   different.


Living things can transmute elements. This ability is very hard to
understand in terms of theory.  How can a bacterium produce enough power to
circumvent the normal functioning of the strong force. How can a bacterium
live through the transmutation process without being effected by the
byproducts of fusion and fission. The LENR reaction must have some tricks
up its sleeves to surpass the processes that occur inside an exploding
 supernova, the most violent explosion to occur in space. Shock-wave
nucleosynthesis and hydrostatic-burning processes create most of the
isotopes of the elements carbon (Z = 6), oxygen (Z = 8), and elements with
Z = 10–28  How do those bugs do what they do???

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:46 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *Jed Rothwell 
>
>
>
>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite
>different.
>
>
>
> This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an
> assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.
>
>
>
> Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to look
> beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact in
> the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an older
> thread here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in different
> comparative runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better results
> (more excess heat) from  protium than with deuterium. You cannot deny this
> result.
>
>
>
> To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than
> “one fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other
> being very different; and thus all future devices must recognize that
> nuclear fusion is not required for excess heat. This is actually highly
>  desirable as "fusion” alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of
> unnecessary government intrusion.
>
>
>
> Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat exist.
> Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where typically
> lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause is a non-fusion
> reaction with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable, and no
> lithium is needed.
>
>
>
> A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms)
> is sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV.
> That third one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two.
>
>
>
> The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to confuse
> things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind - (mass
> converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”
>
>
>
> It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are
> valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and
> no one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently
> from his earlier papers.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Axil:

SM people never could measure a strong force ( all forces are EM 
forces..) and a unification with gravity of something inexistent - to 
enable LENR - is nonsense (gravity is a very tiny residual EM force see 
NPP 2.1.7) . Please stop producing childish noise by mixing everything 
you hear/read and claiming it could/would be a solution.


Because loss free atomic=magnetic orbits are involved in LENR this of 
course looks like SC. Also a BEC like situation inside a cavity can 
easily be shown and explained.
On nuclear level there is no continuous space time. In the best case you 
can say that time has a period of 2pi. Further: The relativistic proton 
radius given by the NPP2.0 SO(4) model is the time horizon of dense 
mass. It allows to calculate all forces and their dependencies.


If you once would sit down and do a real study may be you too could be 
able to develop a "real" theory.


Bob:

Building up a nucleus from other particles than n,p,e makes no sense as 
we never see the others upon decay. The so called neutrino given in 
decay formulas simply is an excuse (never measured!!) as nobody 
understands how else the energy can be transported and of course the SM 
fails.


The proton can be modeled by a 3x3 wave structure but this only works 
for the external 3D coupling but not for the internal forces and mass 
build-up. The newest modeling is confirming that the internal charge of 
the proton is doing 5 rotations and the relativistic mass does 4 and the 
perturbative mass 3 on top of the 2x2 core structure.


Thus it is easily to predict that all SM like approaches will fail to 
give an adequate picture of any particle.


But one thing is correct: The muon mass can be given as a resonance of 
the proton.


Jürg

Am 14.07.19 um 23:01 schrieb Axil Axil:


/The unification of the /electromagnetic 
, weak 
, and strong 
 interactions 
 could explain 
where the process of transmutation of elements is coming from in LENR. 
The environment in and around  the EMF singularity could be where the 
strong force unification reverts the evolution of matter formation 
back to the conditions that were prevalent at the earliest epochs in 
the evolution of infant universe. //



On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:42 PM Axil Axil > wrote:


It is generally recognized in grand unification theories that the
electroweak force (EMF) and the force of gravity were combined
when the universe was just starting out. This is why science
believes that the unification of gravity and EMF can occur at high
energies.

If there is enough gravity concentrated at one point in
space-time, then an event horizon will form. The same event
horizon formation process must be true for the concentration of
EMF at a point is Space-time since gravity and EMF are basically
the same force.

LENR is a result of the condensation of EMF into a state of
extreme condensation at a singular point in space-time. All the
theory and experimental observations that apply to horizon
formation in gravity also apply to the condensation of EMF at a
singular point in space-time.

Since this EMF concentration is mostly related to the
concentration of light, the resulting EMF horizon also takes on
the complicating quantum mechanical properties of superposition.
This quantum mechanical complicating property is not present for
gravity.

Time dilation is a critical property that makes the LENR virtually
impervious to human understanding. We humans do not experience
time dilation in the world we live in. Adding in superposition
into our everyday world puts the complicated interactions between
time dilation and superposition that occurs in the LENR reaction
outside of the understanding of just about everybody. It is going
to take a lot of time and effort to educate people about what the
LENR reaction is all about.



On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:33 PM Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dewey
July 13, 2019 at 1:13 PM
Dr Rossi,
I return to the comment of Neri Accornero: can you give a
hint, not superficial, but not too difficult, about what can
happen if your effect is not fusion, not fission, not chemical
reaction?

Andrea Rossi
July 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM
Dewey:
Please go to
http://www.researchgate.net...


All the references cited here are the same reported in the
above mentioned paper.
In [13] a fundamental connection between 

RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[russ.george]

Mizuno has what is needed to measure 4He in his cold fusion reactions. He 
merely needs to employ a good carbon cold trap to reduce the level of deuterium 
in the gas aliquot going into his RGA. Without the cold trap the D2 signal will 
swamp the 4He signal and it won’t be observable. With the cold trap the D2 mass 
4 signal will be so dramatically reduced that the 4He shoulder on the D2 mass 4 
peak will become clearly resolvable and quantitatively measurable. I have built 
and tested such cold traps on my own RGA helium instruments and confirmed their 
reliable signal with samples presented to large magnetic sector mass specs 
where the 4He and D2 peaks are well separated on the baseline. I’d be happy to 
build such a cold trap for Mizuno if he simply asks for the favour, or coach 
him on its construction, a few hours work at most.  The measure of 4He in cold 
fusion is ‘childs play’ for any serious researcher. Of course the ‘toys’ needed 
cost a pretty penny and one has to have unchildlike patience. 

 

 

From: Jürg Wyttenbach  
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 9:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor 
to all future devices

 

All past experiments doing deuterium LENR I know always directly produced 4-He.

 

If somebody believes that no fusion would happen at all, then he should visit a 
priest.

 

The key feature of LENR is that fusion happens without any hard radiation that 
is significantly above background. We, in our lab, can produce LENR reactions 
with significantly above background gamma radiation. But that is intention to 
study the LENR mechanism.

 

In the H-H case the SO(4) bond structure of dense hydrogen does not allow 
direct fusion. Here we see only 500eV going out what is a kind of no go for H-H 
LENR. H(-H) LENR only works with Lithium  and other elements  that allow the 
add-on of H* that of reacts like a neutron.

 

But there were also experiments like 56Fe + H* --> pseudo 57-Co, that behaves 
halve like 57-Co and finally halve like 57-Fe.

finally a very strange state.. similar to halo nuclei.

 

In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part > that 106 of 
the 3-He part.

 

Jürg

 

Am 14.07.19 um 20:45 schrieb JonesBeene:

From: Jed Rothwell  

 

*   I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all systems. 
It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that fission is 
the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite different.

 

This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an 
assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.

 

Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to look 
beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact in the 
earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an older thread 
here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in different comparative 
runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better results (more excess heat) 
from  protium than with deuterium. You cannot deny this result.

 

To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than “one 
fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other being very 
different; and thus all future devices must recognize that nuclear fusion is 
not required for excess heat. This is actually highly  desirable as "fusion” 
alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of unnecessary government 
intrusion.

 

Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat exist.  
Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where typically 
lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause is a non-fusion reaction 
with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable, and no lithium is needed.

 

A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms) is 
sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV. That third 
one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two.

 

The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to confuse 
things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind - (mass 
converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”

 

It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are valid 
over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and no one 
knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently from his 
earlier papers.

 

Jones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

*The unification of the *electromagnetic
, weak
, and strong
 interactions
 could explain where
the process of transmutation of elements is coming from in LENR. The
environment in and around  the EMF singularity could be where the strong
force unification reverts the evolution of matter formation back to the
conditions that were prevalent at the earliest epochs in the evolution of
infant universe.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:42 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is generally recognized in grand unification theories that the
> electroweak force (EMF) and the force of gravity were combined when the
> universe was just starting out. This is why science believes that the
> unification of gravity and EMF can occur at high energies.
>
> If there is enough gravity concentrated at one point in space-time, then
> an event horizon will form. The same event horizon formation process must
> be true for the concentration of EMF at a point is Space-time since gravity
> and EMF are basically the same force.
>
> LENR is a result of the condensation of EMF into a state of extreme
> condensation at a singular point in space-time. All the theory and
> experimental observations that apply to horizon formation in gravity also
> apply to the condensation of EMF at a singular point in space-time.
>
> Since this EMF concentration is mostly related to the concentration of
> light, the resulting EMF horizon also takes on the complicating quantum
> mechanical properties of superposition. This quantum mechanical
> complicating property is not present for gravity.
>
> Time dilation is a critical property that makes the LENR virtually
> impervious to human understanding. We humans do not experience time
> dilation in the world we live in. Adding in superposition into our everyday
> world puts the complicated interactions between time dilation and
> superposition that occurs in the LENR reaction outside of the understanding
> of just about everybody. It is going to take a lot of time and effort to
> educate people about what the LENR reaction is all about.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:33 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Dewey
>> July 13, 2019 at 1:13 PM
>> Dr Rossi,
>> I return to the comment of Neri Accornero: can you give a hint, not
>> superficial, but not too difficult, about what can happen if your effect is
>> not fusion, not fission, not chemical reaction?
>>
>> Andrea Rossi
>> July 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM
>> Dewey:
>> Please go to
>> http://www.researchgate.net...
>> 
>> All the references cited here are the same reported in the above
>> mentioned paper.
>> In [13] a fundamental connection between Aharonov-Bohm equations and an
>> electron model is proposed, starting from a geometric interpretation of the
>> electron wave-function complex phase [6,8,1].
>> This approach suggests the possibility of efficiently creating electron
>> condensates exploiting the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a phenomenon that shows
>> the dependence of electron wave-function phase from electromagnetic
>> potentials [9].
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>> 
>>
>> Aharonov-Bohm effect
>>
>> https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAharonov%25E2%2580%2593Bohm_effect%3ALTnbbRNmquXoFpfvayH973nqFc4=2168707
>>
>> Rossi is looking for a quantum mechanical mechanism that enables an
>> ensemble of electrons to convert from a fermion to a boson so that those
>> electrons can form a Bose condensate(BC). A BC is the means by which
>> electrons can form a meta-stable ensemble that can hold together in a long
>> lived plasmoid configuration which is connected to ultra dense matter: what
>> Rossi calls "Neutral pico-metric aggregates".
>>
>> The intent of this posit is very close to what is really going on in the
>> LENR reaction. Rossi has not yet stumbled upon the correct quantum
>> mechanical mechanism that enables electrons to change their fermionic
>> nature into bosons.
>>
>> The correct mechanism involves the entanglement of phonons, excitons or
>> plasmons polaritons with electrons. There is a ton of nanophotonic theory
>> and experimental evidence that covers this subject.
>>
>> On the theory of three types of polaritons (phonon, exciton and plasmon
>> polaritons)
>> https://iopscience.iop.org/...
>> 
>>
>> The rabbit hole that this subject engenders is as big as all outdoors.
>> This subject matter is currently a very hot subject is optics. In my
>> opinion, optics is a very difficult area of physics to get our heads
>> around. 

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

*For further study as follows:*

*Grand Unified Theory* (*GUT*)

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



A *Grand Unified Theory* (*GUT*) is a model in particle physics
 in which, at high energy
, the three gauge interactions
 of the Standard Model
 that define the
electromagnetic , weak
, and strong
interactions
, or forces, are
merged into a single force. Although this unified force has not been
directly observed, the many GUT models theorize its existence. If
unification of these three interactions is possible, it raises the
possibility that there was a grand unification epoch
 in the very early
universe  in which these
three fundamental interactions
 were not yet
distinct.

*Gravity's effect on the flow of time in General Relativity*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ENkP0h8nAg





On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:42 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is generally recognized in grand unification theories that the
> electroweak force (EMF) and the force of gravity were combined when the
> universe was just starting out. This is why science believes that the
> unification of gravity and EMF can occur at high energies.
>
> If there is enough gravity concentrated at one point in space-time, then
> an event horizon will form. The same event horizon formation process must
> be true for the concentration of EMF at a point is Space-time since gravity
> and EMF are basically the same force.
>
> LENR is a result of the condensation of EMF into a state of extreme
> condensation at a singular point in space-time. All the theory and
> experimental observations that apply to horizon formation in gravity also
> apply to the condensation of EMF at a singular point in space-time.
>
> Since this EMF concentration is mostly related to the concentration of
> light, the resulting EMF horizon also takes on the complicating quantum
> mechanical properties of superposition. This quantum mechanical
> complicating property is not present for gravity.
>
> Time dilation is a critical property that makes the LENR virtually
> impervious to human understanding. We humans do not experience time
> dilation in the world we live in. Adding in superposition into our everyday
> world puts the complicated interactions between time dilation and
> superposition that occurs in the LENR reaction outside of the understanding
> of just about everybody. It is going to take a lot of time and effort to
> educate people about what the LENR reaction is all about.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:33 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Dewey
>> July 13, 2019 at 1:13 PM
>> Dr Rossi,
>> I return to the comment of Neri Accornero: can you give a hint, not
>> superficial, but not too difficult, about what can happen if your effect is
>> not fusion, not fission, not chemical reaction?
>>
>> Andrea Rossi
>> July 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM
>> Dewey:
>> Please go to
>> http://www.researchgate.net...
>> 
>> All the references cited here are the same reported in the above
>> mentioned paper.
>> In [13] a fundamental connection between Aharonov-Bohm equations and an
>> electron model is proposed, starting from a geometric interpretation of the
>> electron wave-function complex phase [6,8,1].
>> This approach suggests the possibility of efficiently creating electron
>> condensates exploiting the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a phenomenon that shows
>> the dependence of electron wave-function phase from electromagnetic
>> potentials [9].
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>> 
>>
>> Aharonov-Bohm effect
>>
>> https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAharonov%25E2%2580%2593Bohm_effect%3ALTnbbRNmquXoFpfvayH973nqFc4=2168707
>>
>> Rossi is looking for a quantum mechanical mechanism that enables an
>> ensemble of electrons to convert from a fermion to a boson so that those
>> electrons can form a Bose condensate(BC). A BC is the means by which
>> electrons can form a meta-stable ensemble that can hold together in a long
>> lived plasmoid configuration which is connected to ultra dense matter: what
>> Rossi calls "Neutral pico-metric aggregates".
>>
>> The intent of this posit is very close to what is really going on in the
>> LENR reaction. Rossi has not yet stumbled upon the correct quantum
>> mechanical mechanism that enables electrons to change their fermionic

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

It is generally recognized in grand unification theories that the
electroweak force (EMF) and the force of gravity were combined when the
universe was just starting out. This is why science believes that the
unification of gravity and EMF can occur at high energies.

If there is enough gravity concentrated at one point in space-time, then an
event horizon will form. The same event horizon formation process must be
true for the concentration of EMF at a point is Space-time since gravity
and EMF are basically the same force.

LENR is a result of the condensation of EMF into a state of extreme
condensation at a singular point in space-time. All the theory and
experimental observations that apply to horizon formation in gravity also
apply to the condensation of EMF at a singular point in space-time.

Since this EMF concentration is mostly related to the concentration of
light, the resulting EMF horizon also takes on the complicating quantum
mechanical properties of superposition. This quantum mechanical
complicating property is not present for gravity.

Time dilation is a critical property that makes the LENR virtually
impervious to human understanding. We humans do not experience time
dilation in the world we live in. Adding in superposition into our everyday
world puts the complicated interactions between time dilation and
superposition that occurs in the LENR reaction outside of the understanding
of just about everybody. It is going to take a lot of time and effort to
educate people about what the LENR reaction is all about.



On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:33 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> Dewey
> July 13, 2019 at 1:13 PM
> Dr Rossi,
> I return to the comment of Neri Accornero: can you give a hint, not
> superficial, but not too difficult, about what can happen if your effect is
> not fusion, not fission, not chemical reaction?
>
> Andrea Rossi
> July 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM
> Dewey:
> Please go to
> http://www.researchgate.net...
> 
> All the references cited here are the same reported in the above mentioned
> paper.
> In [13] a fundamental connection between Aharonov-Bohm equations and an
> electron model is proposed, starting from a geometric interpretation of the
> electron wave-function complex phase [6,8,1].
> This approach suggests the possibility of efficiently creating electron
> condensates exploiting the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a phenomenon that shows
> the dependence of electron wave-function phase from electromagnetic
> potentials [9].
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
> 
>
> Aharonov-Bohm effect
>
> https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAharonov%25E2%2580%2593Bohm_effect%3ALTnbbRNmquXoFpfvayH973nqFc4=2168707
>
> Rossi is looking for a quantum mechanical mechanism that enables an
> ensemble of electrons to convert from a fermion to a boson so that those
> electrons can form a Bose condensate(BC). A BC is the means by which
> electrons can form a meta-stable ensemble that can hold together in a long
> lived plasmoid configuration which is connected to ultra dense matter: what
> Rossi calls "Neutral pico-metric aggregates".
>
> The intent of this posit is very close to what is really going on in the
> LENR reaction. Rossi has not yet stumbled upon the correct quantum
> mechanical mechanism that enables electrons to change their fermionic
> nature into bosons.
>
> The correct mechanism involves the entanglement of phonons, excitons or
> plasmons polaritons with electrons. There is a ton of nanophotonic theory
> and experimental evidence that covers this subject.
>
> On the theory of three types of polaritons (phonon, exciton and plasmon
> polaritons)
> https://iopscience.iop.org/...
> 
>
> The rabbit hole that this subject engenders is as big as all outdoors.
> This subject matter is currently a very hot subject is optics. In my
> opinion, optics is a very difficult area of physics to get our heads
> around. This subject also leads to many other subjects that a truly mind
> boggling and beyond current science to explain.
>
> It is also apparent that Rossi must be getting competent professional help
> in formulating his theory... Rossi is not working alone. It is fair to say
> based on the very advanced state of his theory of LENR that Rossi also must
> have something substantial that is working and close to if not currently
> functional.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:19 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> First, PP fusion is not possible on earth. It can only occur deep inside
>> the cores of stars where the mass of protium reactants is huge.
>>
>> The roll of hydrogen in the LENR reaction is to promote the nanoplasmonic
>> reaction enabled by a irregular micro surface 

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

All past experiments doing deuterium LENR I know always directly 
produced 4-He.


If somebody believes that no fusion would happen at all, then he should 
visit a priest.


The key feature of LENR is that fusion happens without any hard 
radiation that is significantly above background. We, in our lab, can 
produce LENR reactions with significantly above background gamma 
radiation. But that is intention to study the LENR mechanism.


In the H-H case the SO(4) bond structure of dense hydrogen does not 
allow direct fusion. Here we see only 500eV going out what is a kind of 
no go for H-H LENR. H(-H) LENR only works with Lithium  and other 
elements  that allow the add-on of H* that of reacts like a neutron.


But there were also experiments like 56Fe + H* --> pseudo 57-Co, that 
behaves halve like 57-Co and finally halve like 57-Fe.

finally a very strange state.. similar to halo nuclei.

In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part > that 
10^6 of the 3-He part.


Jürg

Am 14.07.19 um 20:45 schrieb JonesBeene:


*From: *Jed Rothwell 

  * I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to
saying that fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it
looks and acts quite different.

This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an 
assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.


Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to 
look beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In 
fact in the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited 
in an older thread here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and 
deuterium in different comparative runs at higher pressure  -  he gets 
actually better results (more excess heat) from  protium than with 
deuterium. You cannot deny this result.


To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more 
than “one fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the 
other being very different; and thus all future devices must recognize 
that nuclear fusion is not required for excess heat. This is actually 
highly  desirable as "fusion” alone opens the regulatory doors for all 
kinds of unnecessary government intrusion.


Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat 
exist.  Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis 
where typically lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause 
is a non-fusion reaction with nickel as the reactant, low loading is 
desirable, and no lithium is needed.


A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed 
Storms) is sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation 
of 630 eV. That third one alone could be used for excess heat without 
the other two.


The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to 
confuse things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some 
kind - (mass converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”


It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain 
are valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each 
other - and no one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands 
out prominently from his earlier papers.


Jones



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

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

Dewey
July 13, 2019 at 1:13 PM
Dr Rossi,
I return to the comment of Neri Accornero: can you give a hint, not
superficial, but not too difficult, about what can happen if your effect is
not fusion, not fission, not chemical reaction?

Andrea Rossi
July 13, 2019 at 1:33 PM
Dewey:
Please go to
http://www.researchgate.net...

All the references cited here are the same reported in the above mentioned
paper.
In [13] a fundamental connection between Aharonov-Bohm equations and an
electron model is proposed, starting from a geometric interpretation of the
electron wave-function complex phase [6,8,1].
This approach suggests the possibility of efficiently creating electron
condensates exploiting the Aharonov-Bohm effect, a phenomenon that shows
the dependence of electron wave-function phase from electromagnetic
potentials [9].
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Aharonov-Bohm effect
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAharonov%25E2%2580%2593Bohm_effect%3ALTnbbRNmquXoFpfvayH973nqFc4=2168707

Rossi is looking for a quantum mechanical mechanism that enables an
ensemble of electrons to convert from a fermion to a boson so that those
electrons can form a Bose condensate(BC). A BC is the means by which
electrons can form a meta-stable ensemble that can hold together in a long
lived plasmoid configuration which is connected to ultra dense matter: what
Rossi calls "Neutral pico-metric aggregates".

The intent of this posit is very close to what is really going on in the
LENR reaction. Rossi has not yet stumbled upon the correct quantum
mechanical mechanism that enables electrons to change their fermionic
nature into bosons.

The correct mechanism involves the entanglement of phonons, excitons or
plasmons polaritons with electrons. There is a ton of nanophotonic theory
and experimental evidence that covers this subject.

On the theory of three types of polaritons (phonon, exciton and plasmon
polaritons)
https://iopscience.iop.org/...


The rabbit hole that this subject engenders is as big as all outdoors. This
subject matter is currently a very hot subject is optics. In my opinion,
optics is a very difficult area of physics to get our heads around. This
subject also leads to many other subjects that a truly mind boggling and
beyond current science to explain.

It is also apparent that Rossi must be getting competent professional help
in formulating his theory... Rossi is not working alone. It is fair to say
based on the very advanced state of his theory of LENR that Rossi also must
have something substantial that is working and close to if not currently
functional.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:19 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> First, PP fusion is not possible on earth. It can only occur deep inside
> the cores of stars where the mass of protium reactants is huge.
>
> The roll of hydrogen in the LENR reaction is to promote the nanoplasmonic
> reaction enabled by a irregular micro surface such as cracks, pits and
> holes.
>
> Fusion and fission of elements does happen in the LENR reaction as
> witnessed by the evidence of transmutation. But any energy that is produced
> by these nuclear reactions is hidden from reality because of time dilation.
>
> https://youtu.be/Bg9MVRQYmBQ
>
> time dilation is a result of general relativity, The flow of time inside
> the LENR reaction almost always produces stable nuclear reactants in ash
> while it is hiding that energy and particle so produced from reality. Only
> when the LENR reaction is terminated is energy released by the LENR
> reaction.
>
> Sometimes rarely, only when a polariton Bose condensate is not formed in a
> very weak LENR reaction when the density of polariton formation is very low
> will gamma, neutrons and other particles emirate from the LENR reaction.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:46 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>> *From: *Jed Rothwell 
>>
>>
>>
>>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts 
>> quite
>>different.
>>
>>
>>
>> This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an
>> assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to
>> look beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact
>> in the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an
>> older thread here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in
>> different comparative runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better
>> 

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

First, PP fusion is not possible on earth. It can only occur deep inside
the cores of stars where the mass of protium reactants is huge.

The roll of hydrogen in the LENR reaction is to promote the nanoplasmonic
reaction enabled by a irregular micro surface such as cracks, pits and
holes.

Fusion and fission of elements does happen in the LENR reaction as
witnessed by the evidence of transmutation. But any energy that is produced
by these nuclear reactions is hidden from reality because of time dilation.

https://youtu.be/Bg9MVRQYmBQ

time dilation is a result of general relativity, The flow of time inside
the LENR reaction almost always produces stable nuclear reactants in ash
while it is hiding that energy and particle so produced from reality. Only
when the LENR reaction is terminated is energy released by the LENR
reaction.

Sometimes rarely, only when a polariton Bose condensate is not formed in a
very weak LENR reaction when the density of polariton formation is very low
will gamma, neutrons and other particles emirate from the LENR reaction.



On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:46 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *Jed Rothwell 
>
>
>
>- I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all
>systems. It is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that
>fission is the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite
>different.
>
>
>
> This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an
> assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.
>
>
>
> Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to look
> beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact in
> the earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an older
> thread here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in different
> comparative runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better results
> (more excess heat) from  protium than with deuterium. You cannot deny this
> result.
>
>
>
> To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than
> “one fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other
> being very different; and thus all future devices must recognize that
> nuclear fusion is not required for excess heat. This is actually highly
>  desirable as "fusion” alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of
> unnecessary government intrusion.
>
>
>
> Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat exist.
> Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where typically
> lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause is a non-fusion
> reaction with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable, and no
> lithium is needed.
>
>
>
> A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms)
> is sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV.
> That third one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two.
>
>
>
> The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to confuse
> things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind - (mass
> converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”
>
>
>
> It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are
> valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and
> no one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently
> from his earlier papers.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to betheprecursor to all future devices

[JonesBeene]

From: Jed Rothwell

➢ I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all systems. It is 
the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that fission is the same 
in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite different.

This “one fundamental cause” could be the problem – you are tied to an 
assumption which is not proved. The fission analogy is not useful.

Of course such a basic logical error would hinder anyone’s ability to look 
beyond the limitations of the P effect – aka “cold fusion”. In fact in the 
earlier Mizuno work with nickel at higher pressure - cited in an older thread 
here -  where Mizuno  uses both protium and deuterium in different comparative 
runs at higher pressure  -  he gets actually better results (more excess heat) 
from  protium than with deuterium. You cannot deny this result.

To me this is solid evidence direct from Mizuno that there is more than “one 
fundamental cause” to excess heat – one being fusion and the other being very 
different; and thus all future devices must recognize that nuclear fusion is 
not required for excess heat. This is actually highly  desirable as "fusion” 
alone opens the regulatory doors for all kinds of unnecessary government 
intrusion.

Bottom line is that at least two fundamental causes of excess heat exist.  
Possibly more. One is nuclear fusion seen in electrolysis where typically 
lithium and high loading play a role.  Another cause is a non-fusion reaction 
with nickel as the reactant, low loading is desirable, and no lithium is needed.

A third possible reaction also acknowledged by Mizuno (and by Ed Storms) is 
sequential cluster formation with its signature radiation of 630 eV. That third 
one alone could be used for excess heat without the other two.

 The nickel reaction works with either hydrogen or deuterium and to confuse 
things it is probably based on a “nuclear coupling” of some kind - (mass 
converted into energy) but it is not “nuclear fusion.”

 It is pretty clear that both or all three fundamental causes for gain are 
valid over a thirty year history, and very different from each other - and no 
one knows this more clearly than Mizuno as it stands out prominently from his 
earlier papers.

Jones