date:20140618

High voltage is not required. High amperage will compensate for low
voltage. If a few hundred thousand amps of current are rotating is a ring
or vortex, that will produce a huge amount of power.


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:

 any link with Discrete Breather ? (naive idea)

 Storms and the recent DB paper propose that hugely non linear soliton like
 DB allow concentration and breathing...

 Maybe the twist mode of the pocket can be that solitons

 (since I don't understand all, I let expert explain me wrong)

 following Storms idea we are looking for something that can concentrate
 hundred of keV (less if as said in the DB paper there is screening, but I
 did not understand what they mean), and then that can absorb MeV and
 distribute in dozens of distinct keV quanta...

 how? should call a quantum latice zoologist


 2014-06-18 7:39 GMT+02:00 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com:

 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-superconducting-secrets-years.html

 twisted 'pockets' of electrons  cause superconductivity in high-Tc
 copper oxides.

 I contend that twisted 'pockets' of electrons also produce
 LENR reactions.

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

Wow.  Mark and Jones posts are both time stamped at 11:51 pm.  Great minds . . .

Here is the compilation of Hotson's three signature papers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing

And a fourth on harmonics:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBSmpTaUdZLXllT0U/edit?usp=sharing

These are non-public documents shared with list members for their
personal use only.  Some are in the public domain, others might not
be.

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

2014-06-18 Thread Steve High

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds:
decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin
energy come from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted
observations that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to
the general consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow.
(I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right)

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 *From:* Steve High



 How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don
 Hotson's contributions. Thanks


  This is a pretty good summary of his work.



 http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

A rare video of Hotson from December 10, 2009 Friendly Favors/Ions
presentation.  Don explains what is a Bose/Einstein Condensate:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2899121

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

Steve,

You did a fine job of the one-sentence eulogy…

 

For anyone interested, Hotson’s work has been an ongoing topic amongst Vorts 
for a decade or more… if you go to the vortex-l website and do a search for 
‘Hotson’, you’ll get a reading list which will keep you busy for months!

 

-Mark

 

From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

 

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades 
of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come 
from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations 
that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general 
consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow.

(I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right)

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 

From: Steve High 

 

How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's 
contributions. Thanks



This is a pretty good summary of his work.

 

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

From: Steve High 

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does
spin energy come from? [snip]

A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to
explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
nuclear source - is this paragraph.

“It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent
violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring
conservation.”

OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. 

The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. 

This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter
and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source”
since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR.

One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was
that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac
sea – which Brian showed.

Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which
we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report.

That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac
explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper).

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

2014-06-18 Thread Ian Walker

Hi all

In reply to Jones Beene

I cannot find via google search, the quoted text “A new mechanism of LENR
in solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic
lattice vibrations”, other than in the paper I linked, that you attribute
to being something Ahern wrote. While I do not dispute that you have seen
this text, or perhaps more likely something like it, I think it would help
the community if you would quote your source, so that full context can be
given.

I do not dispute that Ahern may follow the same view as the author of the
paper, but we must deal in evidence that we can see and judge ourselves. As
you point out, a person may claim... something about themselves or
others, and the claims may not hold up to inspection.

On another matter Rossi seems to think the “discrete breathers” (DBs) are
worth understanding and that particular paper should be read.

Andrea Rossi
June 17th, 2014 at 6:50 AM
Andreas Moraitis:
The physics of the so called discrete breathers are very interesting. Good
paper, thank you for citing it to our Readers.
Warm Regards,

A.R.

I too think the paper is worth reading.

Kind Regards walker




On 17 June 2014 19:31, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Ian Walker

 Ahern is also not mentioned in the paper. Would you care to
 mention where you think the paper supports Ahern's view?

 OK. Dubinko starts out - the first sentence of his paper with this quote:
 “A
 new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, which is based on the large
 amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations”.

 This is the exact wording from Ahern, who does credit Fermi-Pasta-Ulam and
 goes into great detail in his prior publications on large amplitude
 anharmonic lattice vibrations. Dubinko is either not well-read on the
 relevant literature of LENR, or else he is trying to take credit for the
 work of others.

 So he is not supporting the Hydrino theory that Mills and
 blacklight power espouses.

 Dubinko may claim not to support it, but he bases the energy of his
 hypothetical DB (page 3) on “electrolytic reaction 2D++ 2e = D2+ 31.7 eV
 which can proceed during the course of absorption/desorption at the cathode
 surface”

 …and we must surmise that he knows this large amount of energy is not
 possible without ground state redundancy, i.e. to derive 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV
 from standard chemistry is impossible, and since it is exactly as Mills
 suggests – he is supporting hydrino theory whether he acknowledges it or
 not.

 IOW-  Dubinko seems to be deliberately creating a smoke screen, since he
 cannot have it both ways… and that may be why he seems to be using “31.7
 eV”
 instead of breaking it down as 27.2 eV+ 4.5 eV, which instantly invokes
 Mills’ Rydberg levels.

 The paper does reference Swartz

 Yes, but only minimally. If I am not mistaken, Mitchell should be credited
 with much more than this, but I do not have the inclination to make a point
 by point argument.

 Walker, I suggest writing to Mitchell Swartz directly for his comment … if
 you really insist on defending Dubinko. Where is the novelty?

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

2014-06-18 Thread Alan Fletcher


Ahern has a patent on the subject :

Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys
US 5770036 A
http://www.google.com/patents/US5770036

For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species 
such as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter 
host lattice, the invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital 
degeneracy of the host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the 
dissolved guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement 
amplitude and a correspondingly small distance of closest approach of 
the guest nuclei. The tuned electron molecular orbital topology of 
the host lattice creates an energy state giving rise to degenerate 
sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest neighbors of the 
guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest 
sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the 
orbital topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding 
between sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between 
nuclei of the sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing 
dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species 
dissolved in a condensed matter host lattice is provided. Host 
lattice surfaces are treated to provide surface features on at least 
a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the features have a radius of 
curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon dissolution of the guest 
species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5, the 
guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations.

RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

… check Ahern’s old patent from the nineties - US 5411654 

“Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys”  

 

From: Ian Walker 

 

I cannot find via google search, the quoted text “A new mechanism of LENR in 
solids is proposed, which is based on the large amplitude anharmonic lattice 
vibrations”

RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science


Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :)


-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 

Ahern has a patent on the subject :

Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys
US 5770036 A
http://www.google.com/patents/US5770036

For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species 
such as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter 
host lattice, the invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital 
degeneracy of the host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the 
dissolved guest sublattice to achieve a large anharmonic displacement 
amplitude and a correspondingly small distance of closest approach of 
the guest nuclei. The tuned electron molecular orbital topology of 
the host lattice creates an energy state giving rise to degenerate 
sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest neighbors of the 
guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest 
sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the 
orbital topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding 
between sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between 
nuclei of the sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing 
dynamic anharmonic oscillations of a condensed matter guest species 
dissolved in a condensed matter host lattice is provided. Host 
lattice surfaces are treated to provide surface features on at least 
a portion of the host lattice surfaces; the features have a radius of 
curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon dissolution of the guest 
species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of at least 0.5, the 
guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic oscillations.

RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Yep, in the Dot-com universe it's called Google Search.
;-)

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :)

-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher 

Ahern has a patent on the subject :

Method of maximizing anharmonic oscillations in deuterated alloys US 5770036
A
http://www.google.com/patents/US5770036

For a condensed matter system containing a guest interstitial species such
as hydrogen or its isotopes dissolved in the condensed matter host lattice,
the invention provides tuning of the molecular orbital degeneracy of the
host lattice to enhance the anharmonicity of the dissolved guest sublattice
to achieve a large anharmonic displacement amplitude and a correspondingly
small distance of closest approach of the guest nuclei. The tuned electron
molecular orbital topology of the host lattice creates an energy state
giving rise to degenerate sublattice orbitals related to the second nearest
neighbors of the guest bonding orbitals. Thus, it is the nuclei of the guest
sublattice that are set in anharmonic motion as a result of the orbital
topology. This promotion of second nearest neighbor bonding between
sublattice nuclei leads to enhanced interaction between nuclei of the
sublattice. In the invention, a method for producing dynamic anharmonic
oscillations of a condensed matter guest species dissolved in a condensed
matter host lattice is provided. Host lattice surfaces are treated to
provide surface features on at least a portion of the host lattice surfaces;
the features have a radius of curvature less than 0.5 microns. Upon
dissolution of the guest species in the treated host lattice in a ratio of
at least 0.5, the guest species undergoes the dynamic anharmonic
oscillations.

RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

2014-06-18 Thread Alan Fletcher


At 07:36 AM 6/18/2014, you wrote:


Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :)


In 2011 Ahern Credited Keith Johnson with the idea.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/SwartzColloqPart2.pdf

I found two Johnson papers online :
http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/mchenry/mchenry2/Publications/Mod._Phys._Let._3_1367-1.pdf 
(1989)
http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/mchenry/mchenry2/Publications/Dynamic%20Jahn-Teller-1.pdf 
(1991, Invited paper)


These both reference Johnson's 1983 and 1984 papers.

Ahern definitely seems to have priority in the LENR area.

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.

And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article:

 “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields,
fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.”

“Physicists predict new state of matter”
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html

And I’m going to add my spin to the topic…
‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only
our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed
discovery of what is really going on.  Attosecond physics and other
experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what
subatomic particles really are.

-mark

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away


From: Steve High 

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does
spin energy come from? [snip]

A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to
explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
nuclear source - is this paragraph.

“It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent
violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring
conservation.”

OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. 

The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. 

This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter
and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source”
since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR.

One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was
that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac
sea – which Brian showed.

Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which
we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report.

That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac
explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper).

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

Yep, in the Dot-com universe it's called Google Search.
;-)

Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :)



Actually, there is an old paper from the nineties, which did not turn up on
Google search, and which covers the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam anhamonic material in
much greater detail. 

The discrete breathers thing is LOL anyway, not so much in deriving from
older ideas
http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~flach/publications.DIR/2012/NOLTA_2012.pdf

...but for some strange reason. possibly related to a misspent youth in the
sixties, I keep flashing on Jethro Tull.

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.

2014-06-18 Thread ChemE Stewart

Guys,

I will add my weird two cents, based upon my version of a Theory of
Everything, which allows me to help predict the future:

1) Don Hotson worked on Guam for 10 years

2) Guam has approx. 20-30,000,000 watts of pulsed microwave military radars
and
50-10 times incidence of ALS/motor neuron disease in locals, linked with
blue-green algae, which I am finding around microwave radar towers (algae
blooms) in Florida and other places:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19929726


3) Pulsed microwave radars are shown to increase the rates of Leukemia
http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/Yakymenko_cancer_MW2011.pdf


4) Don died of Leukemia

I think I figured out what all of this reflected pulsed microwave/RF
radiation really is doing to the CaCO3 in reefs, starfish and sea urchins:

They are pulsed electromagnetic water softeners, dissolving CaCO3.
http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/06/17/the-clue-is-in-the-goo/

In my model, the Doppler electromagnetic pulses are scattered and ducted
back to Earth due to quantum vacuum in our atmosphere (we call its effects
the weather), which should bend electromagnetic radiation, including
light waves, microwaves and RF, due to domain walls, strings, etc. from
our quantum vacuum decaying gravity field from the Sun.

In other words, it is the failure of physics to accept the Dirac
Sea/Quantum Vacuum and its properties that is gradually damaging/killing us
all around these microwave radars.

Stewart



On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article:

  “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields,
 fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.”

 “Physicists predict new state of matter”
 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html

 And I’m going to add my spin to the topic…
 ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only
 our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably
 delayed
 discovery of what is really going on.  Attosecond physics and other
 experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of
 what
 subatomic particles really are.

 -mark

 _
 From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away


 From: Steve High

 Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
 open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where
 does
 spin energy come from? [snip]

 A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
 other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying
 to
 explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
 nuclear source - is this paragraph.

 “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the
 apparent
 violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
 when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
 does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
 shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,”
 restoring
 conservation.”

 OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
 inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
 interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
 sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface.

 The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
 interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
 ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
 instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
 dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
 conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

 However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
 can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
 the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space.

 This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from
 matter
 and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source”
 since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in
 LENR.

 One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI
 was
 that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the
 Dirac
 sea – which Brian showed.

 Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report
 which
 we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report.

 That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac
 explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper).

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

RE: your misspent youth and Jethro Tull...
The Pied-piper of Rock

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

Yep, in the Dot-com universe it's called Google Search.
;-)

Wow. There must be an echo in cyberspace the past few days... :)

Actually, there is an old paper from the nineties, which did not turn up on
Google search, and which covers the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam anhamonic material in
much greater detail. 

The discrete breathers thing is LOL anyway, not so much in deriving from
older ideas
http://www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de/~flach/publications.DIR/2012/NOLTA_2012.pdf

...but for some strange reason. possibly related to a misspent youth in the
sixties, I keep flashing on Jethro Tull.

Re: [Vo]:New Paper on LENR theory submitted to arxiv and Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

2014-06-18 Thread Alan Fletcher



An interesting new theory paper
has been submitted to Cornell's ArxivÂ 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.3941.pdf
Despite its not being entirely new (see Ahern, Johnson ...) it's well
worth reading.
In particular, it explains how discrete breathers can be
created either above a specific temperature, or by an external stimulus.
Also that they result in a quasi-particle with a high-temperature
hot spot which propagates at half the speed of sound. It
seems in other studies that these can collide with lattice
discontinuities, so the actual NAE may be there. It doesn't explain how
resultant gammas can be made to disappear, but Hagelstein/McKubre's work
on photon/phonon coupling may provide the answer to that.

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.

It occurred to me that Hotson’s DH theory (in part stemming from the 
observation that pair production did not conserve energy, considering the 
energy associated with the angular momentum of electrons and positrons) may 
suggest another mechanism like pair production in which the angular momentum 
energy goes to  make up additional mass of the new particles ( heavy electrons 
and positrons) which are able to catalyze a LENR in Ni and Pd etc.  


This picks up on Mark’s observation--“Rozhkov also noted that at low 
temperatures and in high magnetic fields,
fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.”



More spin,


Bob 


 






Sent from Windows Mail





From: ChemE Stewart
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎18‎, ‎2014 ‎7‎:‎01‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Guys,



I will add my weird two cents, based upon my version of a Theory of 
Everything, which allows me to help predict the future:




1) Don Hotson worked on Guam for 10 years




2) Guam has approx. 20-30,000,000 watts of pulsed microwave military radars and 

50-10 times incidence of ALS/motor neuron disease in locals, linked with 
blue-green algae, which I am finding around microwave radar towers (algae 
blooms) in Florida and other places:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19929726








3) Pulsed microwave radars are shown to increase the rates of Leukemia

http://www.safeschool.ca/uploads/Yakymenko_cancer_MW2011.pdf








4) Don died of Leukemia




I think I figured out what all of this reflected pulsed microwave/RF radiation 
really is doing to the CaCO3 in reefs, starfish and sea urchins:




They are pulsed electromagnetic water softeners, dissolving CaCO3.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/06/17/the-clue-is-in-the-goo/





In my model, the Doppler electromagnetic pulses are scattered and ducted back 
to Earth due to quantum vacuum in our atmosphere (we call its effects the 
weather), which should bend electromagnetic radiation, including light waves, 
microwaves and RF, due to domain walls, strings, etc. from our quantum vacuum 
decaying gravity field from the Sun.




In other words, it is the failure of physics to accept the Dirac Sea/Quantum 
Vacuum and its properties that is gradually damaging/killing us all around 
these microwave radars.




Stewart







On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article:

 “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields,
fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.”

“Physicists predict new state of matter”
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html

And I’m going to add my spin to the topic…
‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only
our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably delayed
discovery of what is really going on.  Attosecond physics and other
experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of what
subatomic particles really are.

-mark

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away


From: Steve High

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does
spin energy come from? [snip]

A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to
explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
nuclear source - is this paragraph.

“It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent
violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring
conservation.”

OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface.

The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space.

This energy in one sense is nuclear,

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm

The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies
symmetry-protected phases

This example is just one of the 500.


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:21 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 And this interesting tidbit from a recent PhysOrg article:

  “Rozhkov also noted that at low temperatures and in high magnetic fields,
 fermions begin to behave as if they had no spin.”

 “Physicists predict new state of matter”
 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicists-state.html

 And I’m going to add my spin to the topic…
 ‘Spin’ and other behaviors or properties of fundamental particles are only
 our perception of what is going on, and the terms used have probably
 delayed
 discovery of what is really going on.  Attosecond physics and other
 experimental techniques have begun to reveal a more accurate picture of
 what
 subatomic particles really are.

 -mark

 _
 From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:44 AM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away


 From: Steve High

 Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
 open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where
 does
 spin energy come from? [snip]

 A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
 other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying
 to
 explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
 nuclear source - is this paragraph.

 “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the
 apparent
 violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
 when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
 does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
 shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,”
 restoring
 conservation.”

 OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
 inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
 interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
 sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface.

 The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
 interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
 ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
 instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
 dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
 conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

 However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
 can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
 the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space.

 This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from
 matter
 and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source”
 since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in
 LENR.

 One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI
 was
 that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the
 Dirac
 sea – which Brian showed.

 Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report
 which
 we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report.

 That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac
 explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper).

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

Jones--


I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong.


If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of 
a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct.


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎18‎, ‎2014 ‎5‎:‎44‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





From: Steve High 

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does
spin energy come from? [snip]

A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying to
explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
nuclear source - is this paragraph.

“It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the apparent
violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,” restoring
conservation.”

OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface. 

The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space. 

This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from matter
and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source”
since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in LENR.

One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI was
that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the Dirac
sea – which Brian showed.

Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report which
we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report.

That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac
explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper).

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

Steve--


I agree with Marks’s assessment of your one-sentence eulogy…


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎18‎, ‎2014 ‎5‎:‎39‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Steve,

You did a fine job of the one-sentence eulogy…

 

For anyone interested, Hotson’s work has been an ongoing topic amongst Vorts 
for a decade or more… if you go to the vortex-l website and do a search for 
‘Hotson’, you’ll get a reading list which will keep you busy for months!

 

-Mark

 


From: Steve High [mailto:diamondweb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

 

Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with open minds: decades 
of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where does spin energy come 
from?) providing testable answers with theories that predicted observations 
that have subsequently been made, but remain unexplained to the general 
consensus---and no Wikipedia entry. Wow.


(I gleaned this from the Infinite Energy article. I hope I got it right)

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:



 

From: Steve High 

 

How about a brief eulogy for those of us who are not familiar with Don Hotson's 
contributions. Thanks



This is a pretty good summary of his work.

 

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html

[Vo]:Gamma downshifting

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html

New quantum mechanism to trigger the emission of tunable light at terahertz
frequencies


There are those that believe that LENR is invalid because Gamma radiation
is expected from a nuclear reaction, but in LENR, no such radiation is seen.

This leads them to conclude that LENR is not possible.

But this reference from Nano-optics shows that high frequency light can be
down shifted to a lower frequency by a properly shaped Nano-cavity filled
with the proper type of photon based subatomic quasiparticle.

In LENR, Gamma radiation is down shifted into the extreme ultra violet by
densely packed electron based coherent and entangled quasiparticles called
surface Plasmon Polaritons (SDD).

Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting

More...

take note:

Electrons are trapped in the structure and this confinement can be
exploited to enhance their capacity to interact with light at given
frequencies much lower than the laser frequency at which they are excited:
the system emits light by interacting with vacuum fluctuations that
permeate space, according to quantum theory.

 Fano resonance takes to frequencies and mixes them together to forn a
third intermediate frequency, just like mixing cold water and hot water
will produce warm water.

This resonance behavior is a property of whispering gallery waves,

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave






On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html

 New quantum mechanism to trigger the emission of tunable light at
 terahertz frequencies


 There are those that believe that LENR is invalid because Gamma radiation
 is expected from a nuclear reaction, but in LENR, no such radiation is seen.

 This leads them to conclude that LENR is not possible.

 But this reference from Nano-optics shows that high frequency light can be
 down shifted to a lower frequency by a properly shaped Nano-cavity filled
 with the proper type of photon based subatomic quasiparticle.

 In LENR, Gamma radiation is down shifted into the extreme ultra violet by
 densely packed electron based coherent and entangled quasiparticles called
 surface Plasmon Polaritons (SDD).

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

The transmutation of nickel is a minor reaction which is far surpassed by
the transmutation of hydrogen into light elements such as lithium, boron,
and beryllium.


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Jones--

 I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong.

 If the first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the
 reaction of a proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct.

 Bob

 Sent from Windows Mail

 *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
 *Sent:* ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎18‎, ‎2014 ‎5‎:‎44‎ ‎AM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

 From: Steve High

 Here is a sure indication of his value, to physicists with
 open minds: decades of asking obvious but inconvenient questions (where
 does
 spin energy come from? [snip]

 A detail that stands out in Zebuhr’s writeup, relative to Rossi (and to
 other forms of anomalous energy with a ferromagnetic component) in trying
 to
 explain how large amounts of thermal energy can appear without a known
 nuclear source - is this paragraph.

 “It solves the problem that got Don in trouble in physics class—the
 apparent
 violation of conservation of energy that occurs during “pair production”
 when a photon of at least 1.022 MeV “creates” an electron-positron pair and
 does not account for the large spin energy in the “created” particles. Don
 shows that the spin comes directly from the negative-energy “sea,”
 restoring
 conservation.”

 OK. Not sure that is worded as well as it could be - but think about the
 inverse of that reaction in the context of the “quantum foam” – the
 interface of 3-space with reciprocal space, where the epo field can be
 sensed on both sides of the dimensional interface.

 The electrons and positrons from the “sea” are attracted across the
 interface by a magnetic “gateway,” which can be the nucleus of a
 ferromagnetic atom like Ni-62, but when they cannot tunnel across, will
 instead occasionally annihilate into photons, which can remain in either
 dimension. Either 2 or 3 photons are formed which creates problems for
 conservation of spin which is generally ignored.

 However, if spin energy remains in the gateway nucleus (a nickel atom) it
 can be thermalized as excess heat. It is also possible for spin to couple
 the other way, and for energy to be removed from 3-space.

 This energy in one sense is nuclear, but in another sense arises from
 matter
 and antimatter. That is why it was labeled as not a “known nuclear source”
 since it is not appreciated as the source of thermal gain (or loss) in
 LENR.

 One of the reasons that Don was attracted to Brian Ahern’s work for EPRI
 was
 that he realized that anomalous cooling could also be an effect of the
 Dirac
 sea – which Brian showed.

 Too bad Don could not hang on long enough to see an unequivocal report
 which
 we are all hoping will happen with the TIP/Elforsk report.

 That report, if positive, will almost certainly point to Hotson’s Dirac
 explanation - and NOT to Focardi’s (nickel transmuting into copper).

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

2014-06-18 Thread Andy Findlay


Hi Terry,

Thanks for the two links to Hotson's papers, but I'm having trouble with 
the second link. I get two pages - the first of which is the tail end of 
an unrelated article and the second page is the beginning of Hotson's 
harmonic paper.


Can you provide a link which covers the whole of the harmonic paper?

Thanks,
Andy.

On 18/06/14 12:47, Terry Blanton wrote:

Wow.  Mark and Jones posts are both time stamped at 11:51 pm.  Great minds . . .

Here is the compilation of Hotson's three signature papers:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBNEg4T25LS0FQM3c/edit?usp=sharing

And a fourth on harmonics:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8mt4mJOTGvBSmpTaUdZLXllT0U/edit?usp=sharing

These are non-public documents shared with list members for their
personal use only.  Some are in the public domain, others might not
be.

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Andy Findlay andy_find...@orange.net wrote:
 Hi Terry,

 Thanks for the two links to Hotson's papers, but I'm having trouble with the
 second link. I get two pages - the first of which is the tail end of an
 unrelated article and the second page is the beginning of Hotson's harmonic
 paper.

 Can you provide a link which covers the whole of the harmonic paper?

If you look at the page numbers, 30, 31 and 32, you'll realize that
you have the complete article.  The first page is last.  Kinda like
filling out a government form: First name last, last name first and
no middle.

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

From: Bob Cook 

I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the
first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a
proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct.

Bob,

Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are
aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed?

There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable
isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches
the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no
disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios.

The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is
definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely
natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They
concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no
light elements.

Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of
nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it
is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which
creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope
ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles
required.

Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite
“conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he
should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not
understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It
simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of
protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is
absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium
to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be.

But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no
hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. 

I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the
midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo
was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day
for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away... to spin or not to spin.

2014-06-18 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121221233120.htm

 The 500 phases of matter: New system successfully classifies
 symmetry-protected phases

 This example is just one of the 500.


This reminds me of the following classification of animals, attributed by
Jorge Luis Borges to an ancient Chinese source:

   - Those that belong to the emperor
   - Embalmed ones
   - Those that are trained
   - Suckling pigs
   - Mermaids (or Sirens)
   - Fabulous ones
   - Stray dogs
   - Those that are included in this classification
   - Those that tremble as if they were mad
   - Innumerable ones
   - Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
   - Et cetera
   - Those that have just broken the flower vase
   - Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

2014-06-18 Thread ChemE Stewart

Hey,

June 21st is my birfday, I will be 50, which kinda sucks because I still
act 18.  I will make the claim in advance that the Earth is not really
round, it is a 6-D vacuum torus with a glob of baryonic decay around it
that we play in.

Stewart

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Bob Cook

 I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the
 first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a
 proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct.

 Bob,

 Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are
 aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed?

 There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable
 isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which
 matches
 the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no
 disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios.

 The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is
 definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely
 natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They
 concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no
 light elements.

 Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of
 nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but
 it
 is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which
 creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope
 ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles
 required.

 Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite
 “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and
 he
 should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not
 understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It
 simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of
 protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is
 absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium
 to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be.

 But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no
 hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations.

 I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the
 midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo
 was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day
 for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

Jones---

 

I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test.  Is 
that info in their first report?  


If there was 10% Cu in the ash, I would not expect to see an unusual isotopic 
composition anyway.  


Rossi may not have understood the science but I thin Focardi did.  


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎18‎, ‎2014 ‎3‎:‎59‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





From: Bob Cook 

I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the
first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a
proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct.

Bob,

Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are
aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed?

There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable
isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which matches
the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no
disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios.

The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is
definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely
natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They
concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no
light elements.

Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of
nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but it
is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which
creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope
ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles
required.

Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite
“conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and he
should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not
understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It
simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of
protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is
absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium
to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be.

But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no
hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations. 

I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the
midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo
was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day
for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

From: Bob Cook 

 

I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test.  Is 
that info in their first report?  

 

 

Some of it turns up on Wiki starting at the 4th paragraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me.  I sounds like hearsay.

The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked.  They did not say 
anything about the ash to my knowledge.  My impression all along was that Rossi 
did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor.


Bob








Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎18‎, ‎2014 ‎6‎:‎01‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com








From: Bob Cook 

 



I missed the report of the Cu analysis by the Swedes on their first test.  Is 
that info in their first report?  


 



 

Some of it turns up on Wiki starting at the 4th paragraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

2014-06-18 Thread Eric Walker

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

 That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me.  I sounds like hearsay.


I agree.  One link in the Wikipedia article that talked about isotopes was
to Ethan Seigel's sloppy piece attempting to discredit the E-Cat, and the
other was to a broken link.  I do not recall having seen a definitive
analysis of the isotopes from the 2011 test yet.  I have seen a number of
Rossi's statements to the effect that there was significant transmutation
to copper (Gary Wright collects a bunch of them).  In addition, an assay
that produced natural ratios would not mean much without further context to
understand what happened prior to the assay.  There's few solid details to
work with, and any confidence in one's conclusions is misplaced.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%

2014-06-18 Thread Kevin O'Malley

In the article at ECat World... Blaze is the crow.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/

LENR Simplified: Pencils, Windmills and Super Mario
Posted on June 18, 2014 by admin http://www.e-catworld.com/author/admin/
• 15 Comments
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/#comments
http://www.repost.us/article-preview/hash/22d03ee81bb4934d6905ce5eb5bcfc7c/

*The following post was submitted by ECW reader Lilylover*

Often technical posts like the one about ‘Discrete Breathers’ may not
generate a lot of interest. Sometimes they are important, sometimes they
are trifling. So, today, I thought maybe I’ll interest some of the
E-Catters into desiring to read a technical/dry post by providing
a simplified version. This might also help you decide chaff from wheat; and
make you more hopeful about LENR scenario. Bear with the randomness and
length; I think in the end you’ll be glad you did.
•••
1

Imagine a box as large as a refrigerator with hundreds of small holes
barely large enough to let a pencil through. You have inserted thousands of
pencils to fill up the box. Now, imagine that you toppled the box. Do you
expect all the pencils to fall out of box? None? Some? If you shuffle it a
bit more, what then? Imagine if these holes were on all six sides of the
box – even in this scenario, only after a lot of vigorous shaking, some
pencils will fall out. But if the holes were only on one surface,
fewer pencils will fall out after similar random shaking. Now, for the same
amount of shaking if you wanted to get the maximum number of pencils out
from that one particular surface you’ll modify your shaking techniques so
as to try to align the pencils perpendicular to the surface. This strategy
will yield more pencils as opposed to vigorous random shaking.

2
Once upon a time there was a windmill atop a hill in a fairly windy area.
An albatross and a hummingbird decided to fly through the rotors. There
were spectators betting on who would come out on the other side alive. How
would you bet? Why? They both flew through it and made it through alive.
Then, they said, let’s do this until only one of us is alive. Who do you
think would stay alive? The albatross said, “Wait a minute. Surely my luck
will run out faster. I see what you are doing. Let’s be fair.” Then the
albatross asked for a 5-minutes-time-out to come up with a fair plan.
Meanwhile, a poor crow watching this from afar saw an opportunity. He told
the betters that he wanted to participate. They okayed. The desparate crow
hoped that if went normally, surely the albatross will be dead and he
could split the prize with the hummingbird. Not knowing about the crow, the
albatross came up with a plan – a smaller windmill for hummingbird in the
same proportion as to the big windmill was to the albatross. The
hummingbird said that was fair since it would be equally dangerous game for
both of us. The crow said, “I’m in. Me too!” The crow wanted to use the
albatross’ windmill. The hummingbird and the albatross told him that’s not
fair – we are taking more risk, you’d be taking less.

How about using hummingbird’s windmill? The crow complained – “you’d be
taking less risk, I’d be taking more. That’s not fair.”

Then, they said, “Well, then, let’s have another windmill that’s right for
your size.” “That seems fair,” said the crow. But now with equal risk for
the same reward, the crow cowered. He said, “I’m out.” … and away he flew.

They flew through their windmills. Both made it through alive. But the
hummingbird realized that if they continued like this, he’d be tired
sooner. So, he said, “how about we create a series of seven windmills 10
feet apart and then fly through those?”

Albatross: I’m big, I cannot maneuver within 10 feet to be ready for the
next windmill. I’ll surely lose. Let’s keep them 200 meters apart.
Humming bird: I’m small, I’ll get tired by the time I reach third windmill.
Surely, I’ll lose. Let’s keep them at 5 body-lengths apart.
Albatross: I do good in the straight line, surely, 5 body-lengths is not
good for me.
Hummingbird: BTW, for the same wind speed, my windmill rotates faster. So
we have to wait for the wind that causes the same rpm.
Albatross: That’s beyond my control. How about, you get a little bit bigger
windmill to compensate for the higher rpm by the same wind speed?
Hummingbird: How about you get a smaller windmill, instead? It’ll be
equally risky.
Albatross: True, but more risky, nonetheless. Are trying to kill me sooner?
Instead of getting us both killed, let’s both use oversized mills and keep
playing the game longer and safer.
•••
All but Rossi: Let’s make them smaller, faster and riskier.
Rossi: Let’s make them bigger and safer. That’s rational.

more at the site...

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/18/lenr-simplified-pencils-windmills-and-super-mario/

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:

Blaze,

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

From: Bob Cook 

That Wiki “report” sounds fishy to me.  I sounds like
hearsay.
The actual observers of the test in 2011 say it worked.
They did not say anything about the ash to my knowledge.  My impression all
along was that Rossi did not allow a destructive exam of the first reactor.

Read the Mats Lewan report. There was plenty of info on the ash, direct from
the Swedes.
Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several elements are
present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis
through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic
composition of nickel and copper.




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hey,

 June 21st is my birfday, I will be 50,

Happy solstistic birthday.  June 21, 1964 was probably a long day for
your mom, too!

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
Kullander: … the used powder is different in that several
elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The
isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural
isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to be fusion?
Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the same in both then
exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and converted into the two
copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same natural ratio … but oops
! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58 and 2/3 of copper is 63.
This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must also be fused into each
nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of them must undergo EC (at
the exact same time) to form the required neutrons… and so on. Bizarre.
Not in this Universe :-)




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is
definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely
natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They
concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no
light elements.

===

Do you have a reference?

I never though that the Swedes were permitted to release the full ash assay
results from the Rossi reactor





On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Bob Cook

 I am not so sure that Rossi is completely wrong…. If the
 first step is to create heavy electrons that facilitate the reaction of a
 proton with a Ni nucleus, Rossi may be correct.

 Bob,

 Normally we expect that the inventor understands his device, but you are
 aware of the problems with that view - has anything changed?

 There is no known nuclear reaction of nickel which produces only stable
 isotopes as ash, and no reaction with a proton to go to copper which
 matches
 the facts- which are no gammas and no radioactive isotopes, and with no
 disproportion of isotopes compared to natural ratios.

 The Swedes already did isotope analysis of the copper in the ash (which is
 definitely there at about 10%) and found the isotope ratio was completely
 natural, with no radioactivity and no indication of transmutation. They
 concluded that the copper (and iron) was there initially. They found no
 light elements.

 Of course, one can invent another miracle, besides the first miracle of
 nuclear fusion, and assert that not only does proton-addition happen, but
 it
 is a new kind of fusion reaction, previously unknown to physics which
 creates only stable isotopes; but then the third miracle is the isotope
 ratio, which must remain completely natural. That is three miracles
 required.

 Many of Rossi’s supporters will not rule out nickel to copper, despite
 “conservation of miracles”, since the inventor believes it to be true and
 he
 should be given benefit of doubt. FWIW - my view is that Rossi does not
 understand his own invention, nor do the top experts like Ed Storms. It
 simply cannot involve transmutation of nickel to copper or the fusion of
 protons to deuterium (which will eventually produce tritium, which is
 absent). The Swedes ran it for 6 months, and they will have lots of tritium
 to show us - if this is what Ed Storms believes it to be.

 But after 6 months if there is no substantial tritium then there is no
 hydrogen fusion at all, and we must look for other explanations.

 I am still optimistic for a Saturday release of the report. It is the
 midsummer holiday in Sweden and June 21 was the date in 1633 when Galileo
 was forced by the Inquisition to abjure his Copernican views… a fitting day
 for any pariah to confront the mainstream stance.

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away


Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
Kullander: … the used powder is different in
that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent
iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from
the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to
be fusion?
Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the
same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and
converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same
natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58
and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must
also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of
them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required neutrons…
and so on. Bizarre.
Not in this Universe :-)
OK. In all fairness, if an observer was such a devoted fan of Rossi that
they felt compelled to make a case for the nucleons (balancing out) in some
kind of weird and wonderful new reaction … and given that Kullander did not
say that the iron was seen in a natural ratio… well… in that case, one could
imagine that if a proton and two Ni-58 nuclei went into some kind of novel
nucleon exchange reaction, then it could work out to give results which at
least were not as laughable as the above.
This would assume that almost all of the iron found was Fe-54. They are
silent on that.
If that were the case, the iron anomaly would itself be a nice little secret
for Kullander to hold onto. We can be pretty sure this was not the case, but
just for laughs… consider…
Two Ni-58 plus a proton is 117 nucleons; and so is one Cu-63 plus one Fe-54.
That is a rough balance …but of course, it is the tip of a deep iceberg. The
implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is
possible. Maybe it is Higgs-mediated :-)
What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of,
and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot
of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out
there…




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting

2014-06-18 Thread mixent

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:07:49 -0400:
Hi,
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html

In the paper, which is published in Physical Review B, the researchers predict
that by shining light on a 2D asymmetric nanostructure with a laser that is
tuned at resonance with the electronic transitions that can occur in the
nanostructure

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html#jCp;

...however there are no electronic transitions that match gamma energies of
several MeV. Though Uranium will absorb x-rays of 115 keV.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away

What would happen if the vacuum that a Rydberg crystal of hydrogen was
occupying turned into a soup of magically catalyzed pions? This sort of
thing happens in a quark plasma.

This happened just after the big bang and the QGP condenced into elements
that were what we see today in the universe. There would be a preponderance
of double magic elements as described by Dr Hora amd Miley

See

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg86917.html


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the
 analyses?
 Kullander: … the used powder is different
 in
 that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent
 iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from
 the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.
 Think about it. Isn’t it absolutely impossible for this to
 be fusion?
 Nickel has 5 isotopes and copper 2. If the ratio stays the
 same in both then exactly 10% of every nickel isotope is consumed and
 converted into the two copper isotopes, which also stay in the exact same
 natural ratio … but oops ! … that cannot happen since over 2/3 of Ni is 58
 and 2/3 of copper is 63. This would mean that in most cases 5 protons must
 also be fused into each nickel atom (at the exact same time) and then 4 of
 them must undergo EC (at the exact same time) to form the required
 neutrons…
 and so on. Bizarre.
 Not in this Universe :-)
 OK. In all fairness, if an observer was such a devoted fan of Rossi that
 they felt compelled to make a case for the nucleons (balancing out) in some
 kind of weird and wonderful new reaction … and given that Kullander did not
 say that the iron was seen in a natural ratio… well… in that case, one
 could
 imagine that if a proton and two Ni-58 nuclei went into some kind of novel
 nucleon exchange reaction, then it could work out to give results which at
 least were not as laughable as the above.
 This would assume that almost all of the iron found was Fe-54. They are
 silent on that.
 If that were the case, the iron anomaly would itself be a nice little
 secret
 for Kullander to hold onto. We can be pretty sure this was not the case,
 but
 just for laughs… consider…
 Two Ni-58 plus a proton is 117 nucleons; and so is one Cu-63 plus one
 Fe-54.
 That is a rough balance …but of course, it is the tip of a deep iceberg.
 The
 implication is that some kind of musical-chairs shuffle of nucleons is
 possible. Maybe it is Higgs-mediated :-)
 What is a nucleon exchange reaction? Well, this is actually not unheard of,
 and the Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction is the simple version. It takes a lot
 of imagination to go any further than that, but there are a few papers out
 there…

Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting

2014-06-18 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:07:49 -0400:
 Hi,
 
 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html

 In the paper, which is published in Physical Review B, the researchers
 predict
 that by shining light on a 2D asymmetric nanostructure

***Sounds a lot like my 1D V1DLLBEC theory. 1D is often interchanged with
2D in the literature.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg91401.html



 with a laser that is
 tuned at resonance with the electronic transitions that can occur in the
 nanostructure

***Yup.  It was KP Sinha who turned me straight in terms of focusing lasers
on specific frequencies so that the energy of the system would be REDUCED.
Ed Storms didn't seem to be aware of that; he thought it was in order to
heat up the system.  But it was Dr. Henry Chu, Obama's Science Advisor who
won the Nobel Prize in 1998 for laser cooling to form the first Bose
Einstein Condensates -- he was the one who broke this ground.





 Read more at:

 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html#jCp
 

 ...however there are no electronic transitions that match gamma energies of
 several MeV. Though Uranium will absorb x-rays of 115 keV.
 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Gamma downshifting

You can create an atom like behavior out of an ensemble of electrons.
Consider how a quantum dot works.

The larger this ensemble of electrons grows, the shorter the frequency of
the radiation that the ensemble can work with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot

The difference between a quantum dot and a nuclear active environment
populated with surface plasmon polaritons is that the charge of the
electrons has been displaced by tunneling through tight confinement.

A large ensemble of entangled SPPs can absorb any frequency of EMF. As
happens in the Sun, this EMF is in the form of magnetic field lines which
is tightly coupled between the nuclear reactants and the SPPs in the NAE.




On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:12 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:07:49 -0400:
 Hi,
 
 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html

 In the paper, which is published in Physical Review B, the researchers
 predict
 that by shining light on a 2D asymmetric nanostructure with a laser that is
 tuned at resonance with the electronic transitions that can occur in the
 nanostructure

 Read more at:

 http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-mechanism-trigger-emission-tunable.html#jCp
 

 ...however there are no electronic transitions that match gamma energies of
 several MeV. Though Uranium will absorb x-rays of 115 keV.
 [snip]
 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Size matters, especially with vacuum fluctuations

FYI to Fran and other Fluctuating Vacuum Vorts:

 

Fran, I believe this paper is at least in the ball park of one of your pet
hypotheses. and having to do with Casimir effect and the exclusion of longer
wavelength vacuum fluctuations from small confines. I'm working 70+ hours a
week so do not have time to read and comment on it.

 

Controlling the emission of light? Size matters

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-emission-size.html

 

The scientists have obtained a new understanding on how so-called

   **vacuum fluctuations are inhibited in the photonic crystals**. 

This study paves ways for applications such as efficient LEDs, lasers, and
photovoltaics, and even quantum computers where it is desirable to suppress
the fluctuations of the qubits. Their theoretical results are being
published in the leading journal Physical Review B that is published by the
American Physical Society (APS).

 

-mark iverson

RE: [Vo]:Don Hotson has passed away