RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

[Frank roarty]

Mark, I think Puthoff fell short in suggesting ZPE keeps the electron and
nucleus spatially separated.. Jan Naudts 2005 paper on relativistic hydrogen
suggests f/h is relativistic based on Casimir suppression.. that tells me
the larger virtual particles are still present in a cavity but appear
contracted from our inertial frame. Rhueda and Haisch make the analogy for
Lorentzian contraction of a spacecraft approaching C as a car driving thru a
rainstorm.. the faster the cars forward speed the denser the rain becomes in
a Pythagorean relationship with the downward speed of the rain. We know time
dilation is undetectable except by relative measure and the virtual
particles measured in a lab near C, a stationary lab floating in free space
or a nano sized lab in a Casimir cavity would all see virtual particles of
normal size and be unaware of any time dilation. It is this Pythagorean
relationship that makes me posit a relativistic explanation for Casimir
effect and that the nucleus and electron are temporally displaced, The
electron is electrically tethered but is opposed from temporal displacement
by a stream of virtual particles passing through our physical plane on the
temporal axis... it is this orientation that is responsible for relativistic
measure as it establishes our time metric individually for our inertial
frame like the little zip toys that kids would pull the gear tape and then
let fly We don't know how fast the ether [gear tape] is spinning us up
locally since it represents our clock it always seems like C from our local
measure. 
I jumped on Jones post because I am always on the look out for a self
assembling Maxwellian demon like process that will prove the HUP can be
exploited. The concept of changing the Casimir force thru migration while an
IRH/heavy electron is locked into a p orbital of Ni is intriguing.. a self
assembled rectifying agent? Where random motion of gas is supposed to cancel
out spatially this scenario doesn't have to become directionalized as long
as it moves between areas with different values of Casimir force it will
stress the heavy electron because the f/h will be translating to different
values but the electron is unable to leave the p orbital You need this
asymmetry where  the f/h value can oppose random motion and discount the
thermal energy required for chemical reaction..in this case I think it may
ionize the Ni, immediately reform to the appropriate fractional value for
it's local geometry and reform in the p shell as a heavy electron again in
an endless reaction based on changes in Casimir force. This may even be
close to the Mills animations... nice hypothesis by Jones!
Fran
_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 1:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides


Jones/Fran,
Wish I had time to read more; my vortex folder has 560 unread msgs!  This
may have been suggested before, but I'll throw it out there into the
collective to see if it strikes accord with anyone...

In thinking (heretically, of course!) about f/H states, and how the
mainstream thinks sub-ground-state states are figments of our imaginations,
I may have an explanation.

I think it was Puthoff who suggested that a continual interaction (xchng of
E?) between the ZPF and electrons is what maintains them at some distance
from the nucleus.  Well, when atoms find themselves in a Casimir cavity, and
some of the larger wavelength ZPF is EXCLUDED, then there is LESS ZPE (E not
F) to maintain what we know as the ground state of electrons of those atoms.
Thus, the electrons fall to a lower level which balances with whatever level
of ZPE is present in the Casimir cavity...  am I behind the 8-ball on this?
Has this been proposed yet?

-Mark Iverson

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides


_
From: Frank roarty 

...just staying with Ni and f/h would this hypothesis be
consistent with the anomalous spectrum emitted? Would this f/h acting as a
heavy electron give off photons when changing state..and again how would it
change state if it is locked into the p orbital..could the fractional value
change states while still acting as a heavy electron?

Fran

I see where you are going with this suggestion, which is provocative - but
the answer is unknown. It looks like you are trying to move beyond the
Mills' theory into a zero point explanation. We have discussed before that
there is a known connection between ZPE and phase-change, but most of the
evidence for this is in other fields.
http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-e
nergy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html

Actually there i

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[David Roberson]

It seems possible for the spark to proceed between the center pins provided 
that the distances involved add up.  Electric fields fall of rapidly with 
distance and so close by grounds or other potentials have a major advantage 
over those further removed.


I cling to the concept that free protons from the hydrogen molecules are being 
fed to the metal surface where they can be absorbed easily.  Molecules must 
first obtain the energy required to break apart the individual atoms before 
they can slip in.  I believe this is in the ballpark of 4.5 eV which would be a 
simple task for the spark gap to deliver.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni





On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:


I think that people are mistaken about the spark plugs.  Most people think 
about them as sparking like an auto plug (they are but ..) across some gap.  I 
think they are using them just as HV feed throughs.  Notice they have 2 of them 
on each end.  I think they are not sparking on each end but through the sample. 
 



I agree with this observation, Dennis. 

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[DJ Cravens]

yes, that is one result of Les Case sphere type system (the one people point to 
for He4 numbers).  He needed a gradient across the sphere.  ... or later he use 
a little mixer inside his dewer and then later deuterium flow through the 
sample.
 
D2

 
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 15:00:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
From: franco.tal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Terry, Dennis, 
 This makes a lot of sense.  Especially since I believe that DGT had stated 
that a temperature gradient across the reactor is needed, presumably to 
establish hydrogen flow through the active material.  



On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:



On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:





I think that people are mistaken about the spark plugs.  Most people think 
about them as sparking like an auto plug (they are but ..) across some gap.  I 
think they are using them just as HV feed throughs.  Notice they have 2 of them 
on each end.  I think they are not sparking on each end but through the sample. 
 


I agree with this observation, Dennis. 


  

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Franco Talari]

Terry, Dennis,
 This makes a lot of sense.  Especially since I believe that DGT had
stated that a temperature gradient across the reactor is needed, presumably
to establish hydrogen flow through the active material.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:
>
>> I think that people are mistaken about the spark plugs.  Most people
>> think about them as sparking like an auto plug (they are but ..) across
>> some gap.  I think they are using them just as HV feed throughs.  Notice
>> they have 2 of them on each end.  I think they are not sparking on each end
>> but through the sample.
>>
>
> I agree with this observation, Dennis.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:55 PM, DJ Cravens  wrote:

> I think that people are mistaken about the spark plugs.  Most people think
> about them as sparking like an auto plug (they are but ..) across some
> gap.  I think they are using them just as HV feed throughs.  Notice they
> have 2 of them on each end.  I think they are not sparking on each end but
> through the sample.
>

I agree with this observation, Dennis.

Re: [Vo]:NiH NAE Synopsis?

[James Bowery]

One should expect two different curves from the different hypothetical
mechanisms:

The nanomagnetism-scale hypothesis would predict a non-linear increase of
power output with the increase in surface area as the size of the particles
reaches the nanomagnetism-scale.

The surface-area hypothesis would predict a linear increase of power output
with the increase in surface area, even as the size of the particles
reaches the nanomagnetism-scale.

Have there been any experiments that would provide us with these curves?


On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM, David Roberson  wrote:
>
> I agree that a resonant condition occurs at the size and temperatures that
>> you point out, but it is less clear that any exact dimension will be
>> important to the operation of the reactors.
>
>
> I wonder whether particle size is a red herring.  The parameters that are
> interesting to me right now are surface area and temperature -- edging
> towards the point of sintering but not close enough to cause the structure
> to collapse on itself.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

All the isotopes that work have 0 spin(high PNC) and the ones that don't
> have non zero spin(low PNC).
>
> Look up parody non conservation(PNC) in nuclear theory to understand why
> this is important in the LENR reaction.
>
> PS- and important clue that you don't want to believe in.
>

I am open to entertaining the thought that this is an important clue.  I
only ask you to justify this assertion with reasoned argument.  A suitable
justification would refer to premises that we can all agree on.  Walk me
through your reasoning to help me to agree with you on the premises.  I am
willing to learn as I go.

A start might be for you to explain how parity conservation relates to
Defkalion's device.  You would give an answer, and I would query the
details.  It would be a little boring, and you would have to spell things
out in great detail, because I am a beginner and have little knowledge of
these things.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM,  wrote:

> I can not download this PDF.
>
> How das I do?
>

When you open the page, there is an arrow pointing downward in the top left
corner of the page.  Click on that to download.

Re: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


>
> I think it was Puthoff who suggested that a continual interaction (xchng of
> E?) between the ZPF and electrons is what maintains them at some distance
> from the nucleus.  Well, when atoms find themselves in a Casimir cavity,
> and
> some of the larger wavelength ZPF is EXCLUDED, then there is LESS ZPE (E
> not
> F) to maintain what we know as the ground state of electrons of those
> atoms.
> Thus, the electrons fall to a lower level which balances with whatever
> level
> of ZPE is present in the Casimir cavity...  am I behind the 8-ball on this?
> Has this been proposed yet?
>

Sorry Mark, yes.  What Puthoff actually says is that there is a harmonic
exchange with the accelerating electron which prevents it from radiating
(and falling below the ground state).  I proposed that a H atom in a high
Rydberg state draws additional energy from the ZPF as it approaches the
lattice electrons in the Ni crack.  Upon exiting the crack and returning to
the normal orbital state, the electron radiates that energy.  If done in a
resonate manner, one could certainly imagine a significant electron spin
alignment propagating in the Ni due to the ionization pulse in the DGT
reactor and a subsequent strong magnetic field.

Or not.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:27 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

>
>
Any bolts, or other steel pieces nearby would be drawn to the box and I
> find it difficult to believe that this would not be detected.
>

Nearby has to be very nearby.  I have worked with many N45 NeFeB magnets
(1.25 T), some of significant size, and we rarely saw things jump off the
table.  You have to be pretty close to attract even another magnet.  The
force falls off rapidly.  Here's a calculator:

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp?calcType=block

Convince yourself.

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

"Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first
hand evidence that they are."

This is my opinion. It is your choice to take it or leave it; it is your
call.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> "What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
> report of your first hand experience? "
>
> The spark or very high temperature primary heater produces nanoparticles
> which should be evenly distributed around and within the micro power.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> " I noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I
>> don't believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2
>> cracking. It was just noted."
>>
>> The NAE is located between the nanowires.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> " I think this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the
>>> temperatures we are talking about and particularly with the local heating
>>> at the NAE."
>>>
>>> Bose Einstein condensation protects the nanowires
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is
 causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits.

 They know an have stated it publically; it is Rydberg matter which are
 nanoclusters- see superatoms in wiki.


 On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The spark plugs produce potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles.
>
> A picture of the DGT micro particles can be found in Kim's
> presentation will show the nanowires.
>
> The nanowires will crack the H2 into H.
>
> See
>
>
> Hot Electrons Do the Impossible -  Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2
>
>
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/carter/EAC-267.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know for sure, but your Curie temperature might be way to
> high. You should check.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
>> Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.
>>
>> The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's
>> original eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF 
>> excitation.
>> Reports suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not 
>> believe
>> DGT's sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder.
>> The mean free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. 
>> DGT
>> does not appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize
>> the H2 contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF
>> cavity, but it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be
>> operating as an acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in 
>> DGT's
>> reactor. It will be important for DGT to determine what about their 
>> sparks
>> is causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If 
>> it
>> is RF cavity resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive
>> with RF at the right frequency matched into the cavity.
>>
>> Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I
>> think this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the
>> temperatures we are talking about and particularly with the local heating
>> at the NAE. I noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder,
>> but I don't believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2
>> cracking. It was just noted.
>>
>> What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
>> report of your first hand experience?
>>
>> Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have
>> first hand evidence that they are.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
>>> particles.
>>>
>>> I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose
>>> all the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark
>>> plug(s).
>>>
>>> The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2
>>> microns of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5
>>> microns total including the nanowire covering.
>>>
>>> The particles should be surrounded by spark production.
>>>
>>> Can these changes be made?
>>>
>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

"What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
report of your first hand experience? "

The spark or very high temperature primary heater produces nanoparticles
which should be evenly distributed around and within the micro power.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> " I noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I
> don't believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2
> cracking. It was just noted."
>
> The NAE is located between the nanowires.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> " I think this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the
>> temperatures we are talking about and particularly with the local heating
>> at the NAE."
>>
>> Bose Einstein condensation protects the nanowires
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is
>>> causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits.
>>>
>>> They know an have stated it publically; it is Rydberg matter which are
>>> nanoclusters- see superatoms in wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 The spark plugs produce potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles.

 A picture of the DGT micro particles can be found in Kim's presentation
 will show the nanowires.

 The nanowires will crack the H2 into H.

 See


 Hot Electrons Do the Impossible -  Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2



 http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/carter/EAC-267.pdf





 I don't know for sure, but your Curie temperature might be way to high.
 You should check.


 On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Bob Higgins 
 wrote:

> Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
> Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.
>
> The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's
> original eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation.
> Reports suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not 
> believe
> DGT's sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder.
> The mean free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT
> does not appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize
> the H2 contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF
> cavity, but it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be
> operating as an acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in DGT's
> reactor. It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks
> is causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If it
> is RF cavity resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive
> with RF at the right frequency matched into the cavity.
>
> Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I
> think this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the
> temperatures we are talking about and particularly with the local heating
> at the NAE. I noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder,
> but I don't believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2
> cracking. It was just noted.
>
> What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
> report of your first hand experience?
>
> Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first
> hand evidence that they are.
>
> Bob
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
>> particles.
>>
>> I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose
>> all the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark
>> plug(s).
>>
>> The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2
>> microns of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5
>> microns total including the nanowire covering.
>>
>> The particles should be surrounded by spark production.
>>
>> Can these changes be made?
>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

" I noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't
believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It
was just noted."

The NAE is located between the nanowires.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> " I think this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the
> temperatures we are talking about and particularly with the local heating
> at the NAE."
>
> Bose Einstein condensation protects the nanowires
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is
>> causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits.
>>
>> They know an have stated it publically; it is Rydberg matter which are
>> nanoclusters- see superatoms in wiki.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The spark plugs produce potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles.
>>>
>>> A picture of the DGT micro particles can be found in Kim's presentation
>>> will show the nanowires.
>>>
>>> The nanowires will crack the H2 into H.
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>>>
>>> Hot Electrons Do the Impossible -  Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/carter/EAC-267.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know for sure, but your Curie temperature might be way to high.
>>> You should check.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>>
 Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
 Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.

 The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's
 original eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation.
 Reports suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not believe
 DGT's sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder.
 The mean free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT
 does not appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize
 the H2 contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF
 cavity, but it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be
 operating as an acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in DGT's
 reactor. It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks
 is causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If it
 is RF cavity resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive
 with RF at the right frequency matched into the cavity.

 Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I think
 this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the temperatures
 we are talking about and particularly with the local heating at the NAE. I
 noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't
 believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It
 was just noted.

 What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
 report of your first hand experience?

 Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first
 hand evidence that they are.

 Bob

 On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
> particles.
>
> I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose all
> the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).
>
> The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2
> microns of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5
> microns total including the nanowire covering.
>
> The particles should be surrounded by spark production.
>
> Can these changes be made?
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

" I think this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the
temperatures we are talking about and particularly with the local heating
at the NAE."

Bose Einstein condensation protects the nanowires


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is
> causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits.
>
> They know an have stated it publically; it is Rydberg matter which are
> nanoclusters- see superatoms in wiki.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The spark plugs produce potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles.
>>
>> A picture of the DGT micro particles can be found in Kim's presentation
>> will show the nanowires.
>>
>> The nanowires will crack the H2 into H.
>>
>> See
>>
>>
>> Hot Electrons Do the Impossible -  Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/carter/EAC-267.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know for sure, but your Curie temperature might be way to high.
>> You should check.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
>>> Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.
>>>
>>> The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's
>>> original eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation.
>>> Reports suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not believe
>>> DGT's sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder.
>>> The mean free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT
>>> does not appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize
>>> the H2 contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF
>>> cavity, but it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be
>>> operating as an acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in DGT's
>>> reactor. It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks
>>> is causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If it
>>> is RF cavity resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive
>>> with RF at the right frequency matched into the cavity.
>>>
>>> Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I think
>>> this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the temperatures
>>> we are talking about and particularly with the local heating at the NAE. I
>>> noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't
>>> believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It
>>> was just noted.
>>>
>>> What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
>>> report of your first hand experience?
>>>
>>> Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first
>>> hand evidence that they are.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
 particles.

 I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose all
 the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).

 The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2
 microns of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5
 microns total including the nanowire covering.

 The particles should be surrounded by spark production.

 Can these changes be made?


>>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[DJ Cravens]

I think that people are mistaken about the spark plugs.  Most people think 
about them as sparking like an auto plug (they are but ..) across some gap.  I 
think they are using them just as HV feed throughs.  Notice they have 2 of them 
on each end.  I think they are not sparking on each end but through the sample. 
 
 

 
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 13:34:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
From: rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does 
Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.
The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's original eCat 
nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation. Reports suggest 
that they are not required for the effect. I do not believe DGT's sparkplugs 
are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder. The mean free path of 
monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT does not appear to apply 
enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize the H2 contents. There could 
be excitation of their reactor as an RF cavity, but it is not strongly excited. 
The sparkplug could also be operating as an acoustic transducer driving an 
acoustic resonance in DGT's reactor. It will be important for DGT to determine 
what about their sparks is causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize 
the benefits. If it is RF cavity resonance, then there is no need for the spark 
- just drive with RF at the right frequency matched into the cavity.

Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I think this is 
bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the temperatures we are 
talking about and particularly with the local heating at the NAE. I noted in my 
paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't believe they are 
the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It was just noted.

What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a report of 
your first hand experience? 
Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first hand 
evidence that they are.


Bob
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the 
>particles. I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose 
>all the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).

 The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2 microns of 
nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5 microns total 
including the nanowire covering. 

The particles should be surrounded by spark production. Can these changes be 
made?


  

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is
causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits.

They know an have stated it publically; it is Rydberg matter which are
nanoclusters- see superatoms in wiki.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The spark plugs produce potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles.
>
> A picture of the DGT micro particles can be found in Kim's presentation
> will show the nanowires.
>
> The nanowires will crack the H2 into H.
>
> See
>
>
> Hot Electrons Do the Impossible -  Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2
>
>
>
> http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/carter/EAC-267.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know for sure, but your Curie temperature might be way to high.
> You should check.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
>> Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
>> Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.
>>
>> The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's
>> original eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation.
>> Reports suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not believe
>> DGT's sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder.
>> The mean free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT
>> does not appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize
>> the H2 contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF
>> cavity, but it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be
>> operating as an acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in DGT's
>> reactor. It will be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks
>> is causing the enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If it
>> is RF cavity resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive
>> with RF at the right frequency matched into the cavity.
>>
>> Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I think
>> this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the temperatures
>> we are talking about and particularly with the local heating at the NAE. I
>> noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't
>> believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It
>> was just noted.
>>
>> What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
>> report of your first hand experience?
>>
>> Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first
>> hand evidence that they are.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
>>> particles.
>>>
>>> I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose all
>>> the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).
>>>
>>> The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2 microns
>>> of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5 microns
>>> total including the nanowire covering.
>>>
>>> The particles should be surrounded by spark production.
>>>
>>> Can these changes be made?
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

The spark plugs produce potassium and hydrogen nanoparticles.

A picture of the DGT micro particles can be found in Kim's presentation
will show the nanowires.

The nanowires will crack the H2 into H.

See


Hot Electrons Do the Impossible -  Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2



http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/carter/EAC-267.pdf





I don't know for sure, but your Curie temperature might be way to high. You
should check.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
> Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.
>
> The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's original
> eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation. Reports
> suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not believe DGT's
> sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder. The mean
> free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT does not
> appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize the H2
> contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF cavity, but
> it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be operating as an
> acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in DGT's reactor. It will
> be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is causing the
> enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If it is RF cavity
> resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive with RF at the
> right frequency matched into the cavity.
>
> Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I think
> this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the temperatures
> we are talking about and particularly with the local heating at the NAE. I
> noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't
> believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It
> was just noted.
>
> What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a
> report of your first hand experience?
>
> Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first
> hand evidence that they are.
>
> Bob
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
>> particles.
>>
>> I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose all
>> the particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).
>>
>> The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2 microns
>> of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5 microns
>> total including the nanowire covering.
>>
>> The particles should be surrounded by spark production.
>>
>> Can these changes be made?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Bob Higgins]

Sorry Axil, I don't suspend my particles in a separate matrix as does
Defkalion. My technique is more like that of Rossi.

The spark plugs are not required to see the LENR. Neither Rossi's original
eCat nor his latest HotCats have any sparkplugs or RF excitation. Reports
suggest that they are not required for the effect. I do not believe DGT's
sparkplugs are causing plasma effects that extend into the powder. The mean
free path of monatomic H in high pressure H2 is only microns. DGT does not
appear to apply enough power to the sparkplugs to totally ionize the H2
contents. There could be excitation of their reactor as an RF cavity, but
it is not strongly excited. The sparkplug could also be operating as an
acoustic transducer driving an acoustic resonance in DGT's reactor. It will
be important for DGT to determine what about their sparks is causing the
enhanced LENR so that they can maximize the benefits. If it is RF cavity
resonance, then there is no need for the spark - just drive with RF at the
right frequency matched into the cavity.

Do you know this about the nanowires from your own experiments? I think
this is bunk. The nanowires would melt pretty quickly at the temperatures
we are talking about and particularly with the local heating at the NAE. I
noted in my paper that there are Ni dendrites on my powder, but I don't
believe they are the NAEs. At best, they may be useful for H2 cracking. It
was just noted.

What do you mean, "surrounded by spark production"? Again, is this a report
of your first hand experience?

Please stop saying things as if they are certain unless you have first hand
evidence that they are.

Bob

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
> particles.
>
> I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose all the
> particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).
>
> The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2 microns
> of nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5 microns
> total including the nanowire covering.
>
> The particles should be surrounded by spark production.
>
> Can these changes be made?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Bob Higgins]

I am not sure this would apply equally to the powders I am making (but it
might). If you look at the SEM of the thermochemically modified powder, you
see that even though the powder is held together at touch points, it is
still highly porous down to near nanoscale. This powder still has oxide
that is keeping it from sintering into a dense solid.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Jones wrote:
>
> “Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between
> pulverization time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been
> tumbled for over 100 hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler).”
>
> ** **
>
> Jones, I assume this would be that the more pulverization (smaller
> powder-grains) the better the thermal gain.
>
> This would also tie-in with my response to Jones and Fran in a posting I
> just made in this thread:
>
>  RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides
>
> ** **
>
> So, the smaller the Casimir cavities, the greater the ‘shrinkage’ of the
> f/H state… and the greater potential for E release.
>
> ** **
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:15 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
>
> ** **
>
> Nicely done Bob!
>
> ** **
>
> Easy to download (google link) and worth further study.
>
> ** **
>
> I hope you will test other materials against this one. Specifically
> zirconia and nickel instead of iron oxide and nickel. Something about the
> combination has been successful in dozens of experiments.
>
> ** **
>
> Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between pulverization
> time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been tumbled for over 100
> hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler).
>
> **
>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Axil Axil]

>From a very quick look, I do not see nanowires on the surface of the
particles.

I do not see the suspension of the particles on a matrix to expose all the
particle surface areas to the clusters produced by the spark plug(s).

The particles should be maximum of  5 microns in diameter with 2 microns of
nanowire covering. The majority of the particles should be 5 microns total
including the nanowire covering.

The particles should be surrounded by spark production.

Can these changes be made?


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

> I would love to expand the test matrix, and plan to do so. My biggest
> problem at the moment is my system is completely manual. I have to build
> it, and operate it with close attention. I need to automate the system so
> that I can multiply my time. I am also transitioning from doing the
> experimentation at work (partly) to doing it totally from home (I retired
> in June).
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles Francis wrote:
>
>> On the off-chance, you might try adding potassium carbonate to your mix,
>> given the info mentioned here:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84258.html
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Potassium carbonate (and sodium bicarb?) also seem to behave
>> energetically in the video shown here:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84774.html
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 03 August 2013 02:11
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Greetings fellow Vorts,
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling
>> patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open
>> speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally,
>> without a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any
>> claims are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the
>> valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do
>> the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling
>> prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H
>> materials.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many
>> people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while
>> traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer
>> reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The paper is on my Google drive at:
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>>
>>
>> Please let me know if this doesn't work. 
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
>> the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Regards, Bob Higgins
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Bob Higgins
>

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jones wrote:

"Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between pulverization
time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been tumbled for over 100
hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler)."

 

Jones, I assume this would be that the more pulverization (smaller
powder-grains) the better the thermal gain.

This would also tie-in with my response to Jones and Fran in a posting I
just made in this thread:

 RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

 

So, the smaller the Casimir cavities, the greater the 'shrinkage' of the f/H
state. and the greater potential for E release.

 

-Mark

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

 

Nicely done Bob!

 

Easy to download (google link) and worth further study.

 

I hope you will test other materials against this one. Specifically zirconia
and nickel instead of iron oxide and nickel. Something about the combination
has been successful in dozens of experiments.

 

Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between pulverization
time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been tumbled for over 100
hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler).

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Some have been successful, and others unsuccessful. I don't know why. When I
click on the link below, it brings up the paper. David Nygren indicated that
he added the paper to his "LENR News" blog: http://www.lenrnews.eu/?p=1370
 &preview=true .  Perhaps that
is another way to get it. I can't post it to Vortex-L, it is too big.  I can
send it to you directly, but it doesn't solve the problems for the other
Vorts.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM,  wrote:

I can not download this PDF.

How das I do?

 

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Greetings fellow Vorts,

While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling
patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open
speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally, without
a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any claims
are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the valuable
patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do the work
and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling prophesy, I
decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H materials.

At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many
people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while
traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer
reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 

The paper is on my Google drive at:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing



Please let me know if this doesn't work. 

I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.

Regards, Bob Higgins





 

-- 

 

Regards,

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Jones/Fran,
Wish I had time to read more; my vortex folder has 560 unread msgs!  This
may have been suggested before, but I'll throw it out there into the
collective to see if it strikes accord with anyone...

In thinking (heretically, of course!) about f/H states, and how the
mainstream thinks sub-ground-state states are figments of our imaginations,
I may have an explanation.

I think it was Puthoff who suggested that a continual interaction (xchng of
E?) between the ZPF and electrons is what maintains them at some distance
from the nucleus.  Well, when atoms find themselves in a Casimir cavity, and
some of the larger wavelength ZPF is EXCLUDED, then there is LESS ZPE (E not
F) to maintain what we know as the ground state of electrons of those atoms.
Thus, the electrons fall to a lower level which balances with whatever level
of ZPE is present in the Casimir cavity...  am I behind the 8-ball on this?
Has this been proposed yet?

-Mark Iverson

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 7:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides


_
From: Frank roarty 

...just staying with Ni and f/h would this hypothesis be
consistent with the anomalous spectrum emitted? Would this f/h acting as a
heavy electron give off photons when changing state..and again how would it
change state if it is locked into the p orbital..could the fractional value
change states while still acting as a heavy electron?

Fran

I see where you are going with this suggestion, which is provocative - but
the answer is unknown. It looks like you are trying to move beyond the
Mills' theory into a zero point explanation. We have discussed before that
there is a known connection between ZPE and phase-change, but most of the
evidence for this is in other fields.
http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-e
nergy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html

Actually there is a niche of science concerned with materials which are
tailored to exhibit large phase changes. Below the authors demonstrate that
phase change materials (PCMs) which are
known to switch reproducibly between an amorphous and a crystalline phase,
are very
promising candidates to achieve a significant oscillation force without a
change of composition.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4065.pdf

Of course we know that phase change can happen with large thermal
consequences. In short, we have to ask: is nickel hydride a kind of
inadvertent PCM, and does it's thermal activity depend on a precise loading
of hydrogen, and then cycling around the phase-change parameter; or indeed
does this depend on a loading with an isomer of hydrogen instead of plain
hydrogen (such as the reduced ground state) ?

Since we know that in many NiH reactions there are no gammas, but there is a
rather distinct connection between the thermal anomaly and nickel
phase-change, then a ZPE hypothesis would be strengthened by showing how
higher energy photons can be emitted continuously and anomalously -
especially in the IR range of 10-20 microns.

Since we know that nickel alone will not do this other than in a Mills
scenario - we have to ask if an inclusion of below ground state hydrogen
will act as the "antenna for ZPE", so to speak. This seems to me to be a
satisfactory way to move away from a nuclear basis for LENR to a zero point
basis. A magnetic anomaly seems to fit into a ZPE explanation better than it
fits into a nuclear explanation.

What is needed is falsifiability.






<>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Bob Higgins]

I would love to expand the test matrix, and plan to do so. My biggest
problem at the moment is my system is completely manual. I have to build
it, and operate it with close attention. I need to automate the system so
that I can multiply my time. I am also transitioning from doing the
experimentation at work (partly) to doing it totally from home (I retired
in June).

Thank you for the suggestion.

Bob

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Charles Francis wrote:

> On the off-chance, you might try adding potassium carbonate to your mix,
> given the info mentioned here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84258.html
>
> ** **
>
> Potassium carbonate (and sodium bicarb?) also seem to behave energetically
> in the video shown here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84774.html
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 03 August 2013 02:11
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
>
> ** **
>
> Greetings fellow Vorts,
>
> ** **
>
> While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling
> patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open
> speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally,
> without a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any
> claims are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the
> valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do
> the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling
> prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H
> materials.
>
> ** **
>
> At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many
> people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while
> traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer
> reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 
>
> ** **
>
> The paper is on my Google drive at:
>
> ** **
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing
>  
>
>
> Please let me know if this doesn't work. 
>
> ** **
>
> I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
> the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.
>
> ** **
>
> Regards, Bob Higgins
>



-- 

Regards,
Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Charles Francis]

On the off-chance, you might try adding potassium carbonate to your mix,
given the info mentioned here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84258.html

 

Potassium carbonate (and sodium bicarb?) also seem to behave energetically
in the video shown here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg84774.html

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 August 2013 02:11
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

 

Greetings fellow Vorts,

 

While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling
patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open
speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally, without
a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any claims
are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the valuable
patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do the work
and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling prophesy, I
decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H materials.

 

At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many
people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while
traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer
reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 

 

The paper is on my Google drive at:

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing



Please let me know if this doesn't work. 

 

I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.

 

Regards, Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Teslaalset]

You probably need a google account to allow downloading...


Op zaterdag 3 augustus 2013 schreef (torulf.gr...@bredband.net):

> I can not download this PDF.
>
> How das I do?
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins 
>  'rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> Greetings fellow Vorts,
>  While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no
> controlling patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so
> much open speculation that has now all become part of prior art.
> Additionally, without a theory, you will not be able to identify the
> workarounds and any claims are likely to be easily worked around in the
> end. I expect the valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows -
> the devices that do the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a
> self-fulfilling prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I am
> doing in Ni-H materials.
>  At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to
> many people. A common request was for something written about my work. So
> while traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not
> peer reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back.
>  The paper is on my Google drive at:
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Please let me know if this doesn't work.
> I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
> the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.
>  Regards, Bob Higgins
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[DJ Cravens]

Zirc oxide is a proton conductor.
(especially with a little Y in it and with some H2O vapor in the system)
Fe oxide is useful in H dissociation - as well as Ti oxides.
 
 
 

 
From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:15:24 -0700














Nicely done Bob!

 

Easy to download (google
link) and worth further study.

 

I hope you will test other
materials against this one. Specifically zirconia and nickel instead of iron
oxide and nickel. Something about the combination has been successful in dozens
of experiments.

 

Ahern in his EPRI paper
noticed a strong correlation between pulverization time and thermal gain. IIRC
his best material had been tumbled for over 100 hours in a ball mill (converted
rock tumbler).

 

 

From:
Bob Higgins 

 

Some have been successful, and others unsuccessful. I
don't know why. When I click on the link below, it brings up the paper. David
Nygren indicated that he added the paper to his "LENR News"
blog: http://www.lenrnews.eu/?p=1370&preview=true . 
Perhaps that is another way to get it. I can't post it to Vortex-L, it is too
big.  I can send it to you directly, but it doesn't solve the problems for
the other Vorts.



On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM, 
wrote:

I can not download this PDF.


How das I do?


 


On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins 
wrote:






Greetings fellow Vorts,





While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there
would be no controlling patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has
been so much open speculation that has now all become part of prior art.
Additionally, without a theory, you will not be able to identify the
workarounds and any claims are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I
expect the valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices
that do the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling
prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H
materials.





At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my
Ni-H LENR work to many people. A common request was for something written about
my work. So while traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It
is not peer reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 





The paper is on my Google drive at:





https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing 





Please let me know if this doesn't work. 



I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am
currently working on the next pass of improvements to my test system in
particular.





Regards, Bob Higgins














 



-- 



 





Regards,





Bob Higgins



  

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Jones Beene]

Nicely done Bob!

 

Easy to download (google link) and worth further study.

 

I hope you will test other materials against this one. Specifically zirconia
and nickel instead of iron oxide and nickel. Something about the combination
has been successful in dozens of experiments.

 

Ahern in his EPRI paper noticed a strong correlation between pulverization
time and thermal gain. IIRC his best material had been tumbled for over 100
hours in a ball mill (converted rock tumbler).

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Some have been successful, and others unsuccessful. I don't know why. When I
click on the link below, it brings up the paper. David Nygren indicated that
he added the paper to his "LENR News" blog: http://www.lenrnews.eu/?p=1370
 &preview=true .  Perhaps that
is another way to get it. I can't post it to Vortex-L, it is too big.  I can
send it to you directly, but it doesn't solve the problems for the other
Vorts.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM,  wrote:

I can not download this PDF.

How das I do?

 

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Greetings fellow Vorts,

While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling
patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open
speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally, without
a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any claims
are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the valuable
patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do the work
and meet peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling prophesy, I
decided some time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H materials.

At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many
people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while
traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer
reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 

The paper is on my Google drive at:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing



Please let me know if this doesn't work. 

I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.

Regards, Bob Higgins





 

-- 

 

Regards,

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[DJ Cravens]

got it- thanks, looks very good at first pass.
I would however caution you about the health issues of carbonyl.  It can sneak 
up on you.
 
And yes, I think most all of the enabling issues are already out in the public. 
 Perhaps that is why we see no DGT patents floating around.  
 
D2

 
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:02:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni
From: rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Some have been successful, and others unsuccessful. I don't know why. When I 
click on the link below, it brings up the paper. David Nygren indicated that he 
added the paper to his "LENR News" blog: 
http://www.lenrnews.eu/?p=1370&preview=true .  Perhaps that is another way to 
get it. I can't post it to Vortex-L, it is too big.  I can send it to you 
directly, but it doesn't solve the problems for the other Vorts.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM,   wrote:

I can not download this PDF.

How das I do?

 

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins  wrote:


Greetings fellow Vorts,

While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling 
patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open 
speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally, without a 
theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and any claims are 
likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect the valuable patents to 
be on the apparatus that follows - the devices that do the work and meet 
peoples needs. To help make that a self-fulfilling prophesy, I decided some 
time ago to openly share what I am doing in Ni-H materials.


At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many 
people. A common request was for something written about my work. So while 
traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not peer 
reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back. 


The paper is on my Google drive at:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing 

Please let me know if this doesn't work.

I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on the 
next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.

Regards, Bob Higgins


-- 
 
Regards,
Bob Higgins   

RE: [Vo]:ICCF18 Kim Slides

[Jones Beene]

_
From: Frank roarty 

...just staying with Ni and f/h would this hypothesis be
consistent with the anomalous spectrum emitted? Would this f/h acting as a
heavy electron give off photons when changing state..and again how would it
change state if it is locked into the p orbital..could the fractional value
change states while still acting as a heavy electron?

Fran

I see where you are going with this suggestion, which is provocative - but
the answer is unknown. It looks like you are trying to move beyond the
Mills' theory into a zero point explanation. We have discussed before that
there is a known connection between ZPE and phase-change, but most of the
evidence for this is in other fields.
http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/bioscience/changes-in-proton-zero-point-e
nergy-responsible-for-dna-phase-change11125.html

Actually there is a niche of science concerned with materials which are
tailored to exhibit large phase changes. Below the authors demonstrate that
phase change materials (PCMs) which are
known to switch reproducibly between an amorphous and a crystalline phase,
are very
promising candidates to achieve a significant oscillation force without a
change of composition.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4065.pdf

Of course we know that phase change can happen with large thermal
consequences. In short, we have to ask: is nickel hydride a kind of
inadvertent PCM, and does it's thermal activity depend on a precise loading
of hydrogen, and then cycling around the phase-change parameter; or indeed
does this depend on a loading with an isomer of hydrogen instead of plain
hydrogen (such as the reduced ground state) ?

Since we know that in many NiH reactions there are no gammas, but there is a
rather distinct connection between the thermal anomaly and nickel
phase-change, then a ZPE hypothesis would be strengthened by showing how
higher energy photons can be emitted continuously and anomalously -
especially in the IR range of 10-20 microns.

Since we know that nickel alone will not do this other than in a Mills
scenario - we have to ask if an inclusion of below ground state hydrogen
will act as the "antenna for ZPE", so to speak. This seems to me to be a
satisfactory way to move away from a nuclear basis for LENR to a zero point
basis. A magnetic anomaly seems to fit into a ZPE explanation better than it
fits into a nuclear explanation.

What is needed is falsifiability.






<>

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[Bob Higgins]

Some have been successful, and others unsuccessful. I don't know why. When
I click on the link below, it brings up the paper. David Nygren indicated
that he added the paper to his "LENR News" blog:
http://www.lenrnews.eu/?p=1370&preview=true .  Perhaps that is another way
to get it. I can't post it to Vortex-L, it is too big.  I can send it to
you directly, but it doesn't solve the problems for the other Vorts.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:55 AM,  wrote:

> I can not download this PDF.
>
> How das I do?
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> Greetings fellow Vorts,
>  While at ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no
> controlling patent on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so
> much open speculation that has now all become part of prior art.
> Additionally, without a theory, you will not be able to identify the
> workarounds and any claims are likely to be easily worked around in the
> end. I expect the valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows -
> the devices that do the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a
> self-fulfilling prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I am
> doing in Ni-H materials.
>  At ICCF I had the opportunity to show slides of my Ni-H LENR work to
> many people. A common request was for something written about my work. So
> while traveling home I put together a paper describing my work. It is not
> peer reviewed and I would be happy to get comments back.
>  The paper is on my Google drive at:
>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Please let me know if this doesn't work.
> I learned a number of lessons in this phase and I am currently working on
> the next pass of improvements to my test system in particular.
>  Regards, Bob Higgins
>
>


-- 

Regards,
Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:A paper about my LENR work with carbonyl Ni

[torulf.greek]

I can not download this PDF. 

How das I do? 

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013
20:10:31 -0400, Bob Higgins  wrote:  
Greetings fellow Vorts, 

While at
ICCF, I expressed my feelings that there would be no controlling patent
on the material that makes LENR work. There has been so much open
speculation that has now all become part of prior art. Additionally,
without a theory, you will not be able to identify the workarounds and
any claims are likely to be easily worked around in the end. I expect
the valuable patents to be on the apparatus that follows - the devices
that do the work and meet peoples needs. To help make that a
self-fulfilling prophesy, I decided some time ago to openly share what I
am doing in Ni-H materials. 

At ICCF I had the opportunity to show
slides of my Ni-H LENR work to many people. A common request was for
something written about my work. So while traveling home I put together
a paper describing my work. It is not peer reviewed and I would be happy
to get comments back.  

The paper is on my Google drive at:


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing
[1]  
Please let me know if this doesn't work. 

I learned a number of
lessons in this phase and I am currently working on the next pass of
improvements to my test system in particular. 

Regards, Bob Higgins


Links:
--
[1]
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Qzl0WC1ldW1MMUU/edit?usp=sharing

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Daniel Rocha]

You cannot say what they have and neither that they are not concerned with
peoples lives. You cannot even say that Defkalions product would soon save
peoples lives with desalination methods, since their lack of potable water
are also related to completely different political reasons.


2013/8/3 blaze spinnaker 

> The fact is, they didn't invest zillions of dollars here doing R&D.  Nor
> was it exactly John Hadjichristo's life's work.They could go to market
> with what they have (if they have anything) and still get rich.
>

 --
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Daniel Rocha]

Peter,

While I agree that this is not a finished product, there are dangerous
obstacles that are of political nature, even putting aside all monetary
issues related to Defkalion. This is a product that will mess up with many
powerful entities and an unfinished product will not help anyone.

And, please, be sure to notice there are many strategic, non trivial,
reasons behind the companies decisions and, concerning Defkalion's
personnel,  it doesn't specially reflect anyone's specific political view
on society.


2013/8/3 Peter Gluck 

> This is not the Salk vaccine it is not a finished product, R & D needs
> great money. Welfare does not work, socialism does not work, this is the
> standard capitalism method, the unique effective and efficient one.
> What do you think about Google, Apple, or any other successful company?
> We live in a moneytheistic society.
> Peter
>
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:George Mileys slides from ICCF18

[David ledin]

George Mileys slides from ICCF18

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36784/DistributedPowerSourceLENRs.pdf?sequence=1

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Alain Sepeda]

All that thread seems based on misconception, misunderstanding, as it is
often when reasonable people argue for long and cannot reconcile their
position...

First of all I disagree with you position of "belief", I'm french, not
american, so it is a bit cultural... I suspect that you trust , like I'm
convinced, based on rational intuition .
My experience in corporate life and science controversies, is that
intuition is often better than rationalization when the problem is complex.

rationalization often is the best way to forget half of the equation,
especially the humans/social/political factors. That is also how
nay-believers works to build their delusion... left-brain anosognosia and
unilateral negligence.

First from my research about that tragedy, it became clear that the
scientific method is a myth,
If you follow the ideas of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, of Thomas Kuhn, of
Norbert Alter, and that thesis
http://fr.slideshare.net/hervelegenvre/thesis-history-of-inventors?from_search=4
(french
english)

you see that innovation does not work a rational way, and not according to
the official way. Human factor is dominant, and theory have to be ignored.

I agree with Jed that DGT bring no scientific evidence against fraud.
anyway when you see how science treated the strong scientific evidence
before you can dump that concept in the toilet of history. no less, and
without any pity, like a broken appliance that cannot be repaired. there is
no hope, no excuse.We have given too many chance to that myth.

The way Defkalion behave annoyed me, but unless Jed i'm not surprised.
DGT was under siege by skeptics, probably by authorities, by partners, by
big organizations doing test. When corp panic, they get silent.

DGT anyway was surprisingly transparent, compared to what my corp
experience see usually, but with a delay... they admitted endurance
problems, told their version of stremmenos/rossi story, described their
technology.


When I say I'm confident about Defkalion, it is not that I'm sure of all
they say.
First reason is that they can make mistake, but I expect that they have
checked many time before talking... so if they made errors, it is a
persistent artifact, not an online-science artifact (no critic, rules are
different with online-science, 1=0 as says peter)...

Among their extraordinary claims, like Ni isotopes, and magnetic fields, I
don't see the rationality in throwing red-herring... this is hugely
dangerous, and bring no advantage compared to classic red-herring (we have
small result, we have huge result...)...
Error are improbable since it can be easily tested (you can buy Ni
isotopes, and magnetic probes are common).

I suspect rather that like Rossi, they understate they performance, and/or
their problems...
Hyperion seems to have a potential of COP>100, and the modest COP of US
test seemed designed to show less that the maximum.
They have admitted some endurance problems, claimed  it is solved, but
since their test are short I cannot rule out there are still
endurance/leaking problems, for sparc plug, for the fuel, the bottle, the
reactor...



Jed is right isn saying that they might have an impolite strategy of
communication... sending hope, getting silent, avoiding definitive
evidences...
All seems incoherent and it is probably so.
This is typical of a, executive board which is under influence of power
battle and environment constraints (partners, clients, authorities, who
impose their will)...

About some claims that concern external parties (greek government,
companies, testers), you can suspect that NDA agreements (where Defkalion
is the victim, because smaller), and assymetry of power (without NDA, a big
corp can menace a company to death uless it's will is repected)...
Another problem is that some claims are chatting claims, and more the
symptom of enthusisat and uncontrolled communicatioon... in in that cas
when the executive board moan agains such leaks, they simply asl for
silence.

The only coherent hypothesis I've heard here is that they are preparing a
complex D-Day debarkation plan, to avoid a big communication mistake like
F&P tragedy, leasding to a fast closing of the story with decades to escape
from the public ban.
Not sure it is so rational, but i would advice to Defkalion to consider
that scenario, and prepare a serious debarkation plan, not an incoherent
serie of action consequence of external influence, and internal battles...


finally, as you can read, unlike many people, unlike the scientific method
rules, I don't talk of scientific evidences... Best way to be fooled as
experience shows.

The rule of the game is corporate rule, it is psychiatry, it is market, it
is politics, it is business...

so to summarize my position...
I rule-out fraud.
I suspect some undersetimation of performance, and to a lesser way
underestimation of industrialization problems.
Scientific errors are still possible, but improbable.
Red-herring are hard to believes...
Their messy communication is proba

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Axil Axil]

I am sure that if your advice is the best policy for them, they will take
your advice.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:09 AM, blaze spinnaker wrote:

> Hey, I like Sci Fi.   Why do you think that's making fun of them?
>
> My point is, if they're real and 'Noble', they'd patent their work and
> disclose it.   They'd still be very right.
>
> The fact is, they didn't invest zillions of dollars here doing R&D.  Nor
> was it exactly John Hadjichristo's life's work.They could go to market
> with what they have (if they have anything) and still get rich.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> You implore a company to give their product away and in the next breath,
>> you make fun of them. That is not a effective way to advance your request.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM, blaze spinnaker > > wrote:
>>
>>> I will say one thing about John though, he writes Sci Fi.  That's cool
>>> and I could see the possibility that he's secretly been thinking about all
>>> of this in his spare time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:16 PM, blaze spinnaker <
>>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 "More than 768 million people are currently without access 
 to safe,
 clean, drinking water, and 2.5 billion people live without proper
 sanitation. This kills nearly 4,000 children each day, according to 
 UNICEF."

 Something which can generate cheap, excess thermal energy could be an
 incredible bonanza for desalination.

 If Rossi or Defkalion have any sort of knowledge about this, they
 should patent their process, and disclose it to the world.

 They should then go public, they'd make millions from their equity
 alone.   They'd all be rich beyond their wildest dreams.

 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Where does this thinking come from. Surely it must be your imagination
> or is it a gambit to lay some more disrespect onto John H and Defkalion.
> You know nothing about the issues you misrepresent. So there must be some
> nefarious motive festering behind your words.
>
>
>
> Your words betray your own values and tendencies so keep them close
> and quite to advance your best interests.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:43 AM, blaze spinnaker <
> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Millions of people are dying every year because of poor access to
>> clean water.   Tech like this could change everything, but Defkalion is
>> playing games because they want to make a few more $$$ and not just try 
>> to
>> patent the thing and make money from that.
>>
>> You call that Noble?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>>> To some men, their word is their bond. Honor is all. There was a
>>> time not long ago that when a man’s word was questioned, he would invite
>>>  the offender into the street and put a bullet in his brain for the 
>>> sake of
>>> his honor. When you question a man’s honor, you question his code of
>>> conduct, his ethics, his values,  and his worth as a person. Think
>>> carefully upon calling a good and noble man a liar.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
 I know that it is absolutely true because John Hadjichristos has
 stated it in public and without reservation.


 On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Eric Walker >>> > wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> There is a pernicious tendency on the forums to ignore or even
>> replace facts that are inconvenient to the interests of the poster.
>>
>> Specifically and unfortunately here, the 1.6 T magnetic field.
>>
> Thank you.  Now to the next question -- how do you know this is a
> fact?
>
> Eric
>
>

>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[blaze spinnaker]

Hey, I like Sci Fi.   Why do you think that's making fun of them?

My point is, if they're real and 'Noble', they'd patent their work and
disclose it.   They'd still be very right.

The fact is, they didn't invest zillions of dollars here doing R&D.  Nor
was it exactly John Hadjichristo's life's work.They could go to market
with what they have (if they have anything) and still get rich.

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> You implore a company to give their product away and in the next breath,
> you make fun of them. That is not a effective way to advance your request.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:23 AM, blaze spinnaker 
> wrote:
>
>> I will say one thing about John though, he writes Sci Fi.  That's cool
>> and I could see the possibility that he's secretly been thinking about all
>> of this in his spare time.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:16 PM, blaze spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "More than 768 million people are currently without access 
>>> to safe,
>>> clean, drinking water, and 2.5 billion people live without proper
>>> sanitation. This kills nearly 4,000 children each day, according to UNICEF."
>>>
>>> Something which can generate cheap, excess thermal energy could be an
>>> incredible bonanza for desalination.
>>>
>>> If Rossi or Defkalion have any sort of knowledge about this, they should
>>> patent their process, and disclose it to the world.
>>>
>>> They should then go public, they'd make millions from their equity
>>> alone.   They'd all be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 Where does this thinking come from. Surely it must be your imagination
 or is it a gambit to lay some more disrespect onto John H and Defkalion.
 You know nothing about the issues you misrepresent. So there must be some
 nefarious motive festering behind your words.



 Your words betray your own values and tendencies so keep them close and
 quite to advance your best interests.




 On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:43 AM, blaze spinnaker <
 blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Millions of people are dying every year because of poor access to
> clean water.   Tech like this could change everything, but Defkalion is
> playing games because they want to make a few more $$$ and not just try to
> patent the thing and make money from that.
>
> You call that Noble?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> To some men, their word is their bond. Honor is all. There was a time
>> not long ago that when a man’s word was questioned, he would invite  the
>> offender into the street and put a bullet in his brain for the sake of 
>> his
>> honor. When you question a man’s honor, you question his code of conduct,
>> his ethics, his values,  and his worth as a person. Think carefully
>> upon calling a good and noble man a liar.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> I know that it is absolutely true because John Hadjichristos has
>>> stated it in public and without reservation.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Eric Walker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

> There is a pernicious tendency on the forums to ignore or even
> replace facts that are inconvenient to the interests of the poster.
>
> Specifically and unfortunately here, the 1.6 T magnetic field.
>
 Thank you.  Now to the next question -- how do you know this is a
 fact?

 Eric


>>>
>>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Some comments by me at Mats Lewan blog

[Axil Axil]

All the isotopes that work have 0 spin(high PNC) and the ones that don't
have non zero spin(low PNC).

Look up parody non conservation(PNC) in nuclear theory to understand why
this is important in the LENR reaction.

PS- and important clue that you don't want to believe in.


On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>  There must be an underlying psychological reason for thinking this way
>> because it is not based on logic or experience; a prejudice in judgment or
>> a unfounded distaste may be at play. Both Rossi and Defkalion have released
>> this isotopic dependency in their technical papers and patents.
>>
>>
>>
>> What basic can support as judgment of "red herring." Clearly it is not a
>> scientific or logical one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you explain the reasoning behind this surprising pronouncement?
>>
>>
> I think this is a valid request.  I will try my best.  Hopefully you will
> do the same for my questions.
>
> The reason I suspect that it is a red herring (which is different than
> pronouncing it a red herring) is that to the best of my knowledge different
> isotopes of nickel have the same charge and electron densities.  I suspect
> that electron screening may be at play in increasing the rate of p+d
> tunneling.  Different numbers of neutrons would have no effect in this
> instance, to my knowledge.
>
> This huch may well be incorrect.  But it is logical, in the sense that it
> uses logical reasoning to connect the topic of "isotopes of nickel" back to
> other things that have been discussed, by saying that the the topic may be
> irrelevant to what we're looking at here for reasons A an B.  That there
> were details about isotopes mentioned in patents doesn't mean much to me,
> because I've seen some weird patents, and people seem to be willing to drop
> all kinds of details into them.
>
> On the other hand, the question of nickel isotopes may be relevant.  The
> reason I say I doubt there is an isotope effect is because I don't know for
> sure and don't have a strong opinion.
>
> Eric
>
>