[Vo]:LENR GLOBAL PLAN IS MARCHING ON, COOL RECEPTION

[Peter Gluck]

This

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-26-2015-there-is-no-peace-under.html


Plus some INFO

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:
>
> Volkswagen will be required to implement corrective action at no cost
> to the owner.
>
>
>
> Whenever I read or hear the words "...at no cost to the owner." Yeah,
> right.
>
Why do you find that unbelievable? The fix will be at no cost to present
owners. The cost will be borne by Volkswagen stockholders and by people who
buy new cars from Volkswagen later. These cars will be a little more
expensive than they would have been, to make up for the losses.

In related news, the EPA announced it is changing its test method to ensue
this will not happen again.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

>>Volkswagen will be required to implement corrective action at no cost to 
>> the owner.

>> 

>> Whenever I read or hear the words "...at no cost to the owner." Yeah, right.

 

> Why do you find that unbelievable? The fix will be at no cost to present

> owners. The cost will be borne by Volkswagen stockholders and by people

> who buy new cars from Volkswagen later. These cars will be a little more

> expensive than they would have been, to make up for the losses.

 

Poor wording on my part. My sarcasm was meant to imply that, as you pointed 
out, future VW customers and stockholders will bare the brunt of mistakes made 
from past avoidances. I hope you are right that the additional cost will be 
just a little more expensive than what future autos would have cost otherwise. 
The impression I have been getting from the news is that this is a really big 
deal. Whether it is an accurate assumption for me to make or not, I tend to 
interpret a big deal in financial terms. Truth of the matter is that I don't 
know how expensive or costly this matter is going to end up being for VW. 
Hopefully, you are correct. I like the German company. I've owned several bugs 
myself in my earlier years. I'd hate to see VW suffer irreparable financial 
hardship. Over the decades I think they have done a decent job manufacturing 
high quality transportation for the common man.

 

> In related news, the EPA announced it is changing its test method to

> ensue this will not happen again.

 

Good!

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

> Poor wording on my part. My sarcasm was meant to imply that, as you
> pointed out, future VW customers and stockholders will bare the brunt of
> mistakes made from past avoidances.
>
But not the present owners. HOWEVER, present owners are filing a class
action lawsuit because this defect lowers the resale value of the cars. In
that sense, they have lost money.

It is complicated. I do not know if such lawsuits have succeeded in the
past. With a normal defect, the company does not know about the problem
until it is discovered, so I do not think it can be held responsible for
lowering the resale value. The company's only obligation is to report the
problem with 5 days and then repair it promptly, at no cost to the owners.

(They can "repair" this problem easily, by adjusting the software, but it
will hurt the car's performance and mpg rating, as I said. So that lowers
the resale value.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Article: These Incredible Saltwater Batteries Are Designed To Store Renewable Energy

[David L. Babcock]

I downloaded some specs. (Doesn't seem to be linkable, I didn't try.)

The S20 and S30 "stacks" are about 3.3 cuft, 260 lbs, 48 volts from 8 
modules (I would not infer 6 volts/cell; picture unclear). Not intended 
for vehicle use, too many lbs/watt, but cheap and safe ingredients. I 
did not get prices, but it does seem they are available.


Charge and discharge currents are low, voltage appears "mushy" 
(subjective -I did not compare to lead acid).  Efficiency 80 to 90 % at 
the currents they graphed. 2 KWH delivered when charged for 10 hr, 
discharged over 20 hr.  Max current 8 or 10 amps in the graphs.


Sounds good for solar, except maybe poor for heavy sustained loads. Not 
clear about battery maintenance costs, probably low.


Ol' Bab. who were a engineer...



On 9/25/2015 7:49 PM, Jack Cole wrote:


Now we can clean power even when the sun isn't shining or the wind 
isn't blowing. If we're going use renewable power in a big way, we're 
going to need better battery storage. Because solar and wind are 
intermittent sources of energy, they need to be backed up for when 
they're not there, because, ...


http://flip.it/h6SCz




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of
> gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments...


Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion lacks
neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct impression
that there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas in MFC.

Eric

[Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

In retrospect - it's been one helluva month for surprising LENR revelations.
and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once the resistance
subsides - assuming replication).

This has nothing, ostensibly. or maybe a lot to do with the
harvest-blood-super-moon eclipse tomorrow :-)  At least there is a
"prophecy" angle which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions.
Can we blame it on Obama?

Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid's ultradense deuterium and
muons - which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several weeks
and months:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html

. and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:

1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of
gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and thus
the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P
2)  Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet of
solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors
3)  P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF (muon
catalyzed fusion) but never realized it. 
4)  A source of light appears to be important to muon creation -
suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never been
a recognized parameter for cold fusion
5)  "Cold Fusion" would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956. 
6)  Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so easily.
This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion itself.
7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
8)  The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the same
kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
9)  The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
momentum of the muon).
http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Predict
ion-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf
11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
when conservation of charge is considered - the muons could be transferring
from another dimension - Dirac's "sea". as explicated by Hotson. Or else
muons and anti-muons are both forming.
12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of the
doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are disturbing
to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion approach of the past
25 years (somewhat ironic, isn't it)

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Bob Cook]

RevelationsIt will be ironic if the F-P effect is really muon catalyzed 
fusion—referred to as “cold fusion” by a guru of theoretical physics in 
1956—turns out to be the effective mechanism for conversion of mass to thermal 
energy.  

Jones, you seem to suggest that the muons carry the excess energy away from a 
fusion of 2 D or 2 H  in the form of kinetic  energy and at the same time 
conserve linear momentum.  However, that is inconsistent with their 
characteristic of not being slowed downed (shielded) very well by ordinary 
matter and leaving that energy in the material near the fusion reaction.  

It’s one thing to catalyze a fusion reaction and another to leave the excess 
energy in the neighborhood of the fusion (as seems to happen in both the Pd–D 
system and the Li-H  system  and  maybe the Ni-H system) with no energetic EM 
radiation emerging.   

Bob Cook   

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 4:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Revelations

In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR revelations… 
and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once the resistance 
subsides - assuming replication).

This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the 
harvest-blood-super-moon eclipse tomorrow J  At least there is a “prophecy” 
angle which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it 
on Obama?

Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and muons 
– which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several weeks and 
months:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html

… and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:


1) Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack of 
gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and thus 
the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P

2) Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet of 
solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it. 
http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors

3) P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF (muon 
catalyzed fusion) but never realized it. 

4) A source of light appears to be important to muon creation – suggesting 
that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do consistently could 
be related to varying illumination, which has never been a recognized parameter 
for cold fusion

5) “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the 
simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956. 

6) Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so easily. This 
is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion itself.

7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first 
discovery of MCF by Alvarez.

8) The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the same 
kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.

9) The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF

10)MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an 
unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the momentum 
of the muon). 
http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf

11)So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that 
when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be transferring 
from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by Hotson. Or else muons 
and anti-muons are both forming.

12)We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not 
circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of the 
doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are disturbing to 
those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion approach of the past 25 
years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it)

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Terry Blanton]

The letter to VW from the EPA:


http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mark Goldes]

*Jones,*

*From the Star Scientific Ltd. **Website.*

*Muons are the decayed products of pions, and are the catalysts in the
fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, a process which releases copious amounts
of energy. The beauty of the muon is that it acts very much like an
electron whose job it is to bond atoms together into molecules. Since a
muon is 207 times heavier than an electron, it bumps the electron out of
the way and replaces it. Because the orbit of the heavier muon is much
closer, it causes the atoms in the molecule to draw closer until the
natural repelling force is overcome* *and a strong nuclear force brings the
atoms together – causing them to fuse. This process kicks the muon out to
do it all over again some 300 times. This fusion gives us energetic
neutrons, which are easily converted to heat in a pressurized water reactor
– resulting in steam which can be harnessed to create electricity.*


*Mark*

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org


On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR
> revelations… and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once
> the resistance subsides - assuming replication).
>
> This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the harvest-blood
> -super-moon eclipse tomorrow J  At least there is a “prophecy” angle
> which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it
> on Obama?
>
> Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and
> muons – which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several
> weeks and months:
>
> *http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html*
> 
>
> … and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:
>
> 1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack
> of gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and
> thus the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P
>
> 2)  Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet
> of solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
> *http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors*
> 
>
> 3)  P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF
> (muon catalyzed fusion) but never realized it.
>
> 4)  A source of light appears to be important to muon creation –
> suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
> consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never
> been a recognized parameter for cold fusion
>
> 5)  “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
> simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956.
>
> 6)  Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so
> easily. This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion
> itself.
>
> 7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
> discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
>
> 8)  The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the
> same kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
>
> 9)  The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
>
> 10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
> unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
> momentum of the muon).
> http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf
>
> 11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
> when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be
> transferring from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by
> Hotson. Or else muons and anti-muons are both forming.
>
> 12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
> circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of
> the doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are
> disturbing to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion
> approach of the past 25 years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it)
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  Can you elaborate on research showing that muon-catalyzed fusion lacks 
neutrons and gammas?  In my reading today I got the distinct impression that 
there were and were expected to be fast neutrons and gammas in MFC.

 

It is more complicated than that, Eric. Holmlid has been publishing his results 
for at least 6 years and AFAIK he reports few neutrons or gammas. But yes – 
there are others who have reported them. The answer for why there is a 
difference could be in the density of the deuterium (prior activation).

 

With the original MCF which is based on cosmic muons, which is to say NO 
densification of deuterium – we have typical hot fusion ash including neutrons 
and gammas. Fortunately, this is not economically feasible because no muons are 
produced to replace the cosmic muons.

 

However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form as a 
replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next round. This 
is massive synergy.

 

Do you interpret this differently?

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

Hi Mark,

 

Interesting – the name is familiar. I see a thread on Vortex from 2011 on Star 
Scientific. 

 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg57554.html

 

Looks like they have been around a while. Unfortunately, there is still no 
independent test of their claim or Journal Paper.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Mark Goldes 

 

All,

 

Why has muon catalysed fusion not been successful in the past, and how does 
Star Scientific plan to overcome this?
People have been producing nuclear fusion reactions from muon catalysed fusion 
for decades – they just haven’t been able to do it consistently, or in 
sufficient volumes for it to be considered a viable energy source.

Star Scientific is developing a method to efficiently and consistently produce 
pions, and hence muons economically – and these muons are the catalyst for 
fusion energy.

How will Star Scientific overcome the “alpha sticking problem” which has caused 
many scientists to abandon research into muon catalysed fusion?
The ‘alpha sticking problem’ refers to the concern that during the muon 
catalysed reaction, some muons – about 1% to 2% – bond with the by-products 
instead of catalysing. This reduces the number of muons available to liberate 
energy, and therefore the energy output.

Star Scientific is perfecting a method to constantly produce pions, which 
immediately decay into muons, which means the natural loss of some muons during 
the reaction is of no consequence.

How has Star Scientific addressed the issue of energy input vs output in 
creating fusion energy?
Energy input versus output is an issue with plasma fusion, not muon catalysed 
fusion. Plasma fusion consumes 18 times more energy than it produces. The Star 
Scientific system requires very little energy to run, which means 99% of the 
energy liberated by the fusion reaction is available for use.

Has your muon catalysed fusion system been independently tested?
Our system has undergone, and continues to undergo, rigorous testing by our own 
team of scientists as well as leading, independent global experts from around 
the world. As long as our IP is protected, we have an open door policy where 
results measurement is concerned to ensure this technology can be officially 
evaluated and then shared with the world as soon as possible.

There is also a Joint Japanese - UK effort involved with developing muon 
catalyzed fusion.

 

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 26 Sep 2015 20:43:19 -0500:
Hi,

Horvath (of Star Scientific) patents of interest:-

4,454,850
4,107,008
3,980,053
3,954,592

I haven't been able to find any others that are energy related, and some of
these involve the use of Potassium Hydroxide.

I get the distinct impression that Horvath is using Hydrinos without knowing it,
and thinks he has a method of producing muons derived from pions. 

I have been unable to find any other US patents with him as the inventor.

Does anyone know of a patent specifically covering the production of
pions/muons?
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

One further detail - on the importance of having a light source of some kind, 
which apparently does not have to be coherent – like a laser. But having a 
laser probably helps, if it is the right wavelength of light.

As I recall, Letts and Cravens spent many months trying to find laser light 
which worked --- and ended up using two different WLs. 

The reason that light is important most likely relates to SPP. It could very 
well be the case that the SPP are necessary to further reduce the f/H atoms, 
which first form in contact with the iron/potassium catalyst, but can only 
shrink part of the way. The intense magnetic field of SPP could then finish off 
the job.

 

RE: [Vo]:Revelations

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  It's a source of concern that the evidence both for ultradense deuterium and 
for the different branching fractions all go back to Holmlid.

 

Yes, but he has worked with many respected collaborators, including Miley and 
Winterberg. He has over 80 peer reviewed publications, which only goes part of 
the way. 

 

Hopefully, we will see replication from an independent party soon. Holmlid does 
not seem to be holding back any details – and he says that off-the-shelf 
catalyst works. He has patent filings in place – so there is less reason to try 
to deceive.

 

Anyone got a muon detector handy?

 

[Vo]:Revelations

[Mark Goldes]

Japan Fusion Exploring Alternative
Muon Catalyzed Approach With UK

Japan fusion alternative energy generation through the muon catalyzed
approach continues from two sites around the world. Building on long- and
well-understood principles, the researchers feel they have a significant
chance of success.

Their approach parallels the Australian Star Scientific's initiative
 but employs a few
different techniques.
- See more at:
http://www.ialtenergy.com/japan-fusion.html#sthash.xMWT1KQk.dpuf

Mark

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org

[Vo]:Re: Revelations

[Bob Cook]

I wonder what keeps the energetic neutrons Mark Goldes suggests result from the 
muon catalyzed fusion reaction from activating the pressurized water reactor 
containment material or other elements around the reactor.

Lots of water would thermalize fast neutrons and transfer lots of their energy 
into thermal energy, but resulting neutron activation would seem to be a severe 
problem with its attendant gamma radiation.  It certainly seems that reaction 
is not apparent in any of the nice LENR experience.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 7:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Revelations

Hi Mark,

 

Interesting – the name is familiar. I see a thread on Vortex from 2011 on Star 
Scientific. 

 

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg57554.html

 

Looks like they have been around a while. Unfortunately, there is still no 
independent test of their claim or Journal Paper.

 

Jones

 

 

From: Mark Goldes 

 

All,

 

Why has muon catalysed fusion not been successful in the past, and how does 
Star Scientific plan to overcome this?
People have been producing nuclear fusion reactions from muon catalysed fusion 
for decades – they just haven’t been able to do it consistently, or in 
sufficient volumes for it to be considered a viable energy source.

Star Scientific is developing a method to efficiently and consistently produce 
pions, and hence muons economically – and these muons are the catalyst for 
fusion energy.

How will Star Scientific overcome the “alpha sticking problem” which has caused 
many scientists to abandon research into muon catalysed fusion?
The ‘alpha sticking problem’ refers to the concern that during the muon 
catalysed reaction, some muons – about 1% to 2% – bond with the by-products 
instead of catalysing. This reduces the number of muons available to liberate 
energy, and therefore the energy output.

Star Scientific is perfecting a method to constantly produce pions, which 
immediately decay into muons, which means the natural loss of some muons during 
the reaction is of no consequence.

How has Star Scientific addressed the issue of energy input vs output in 
creating fusion energy?
Energy input versus output is an issue with plasma fusion, not muon catalysed 
fusion. Plasma fusion consumes 18 times more energy than it produces. The Star 
Scientific system requires very little energy to run, which means 99% of the 
energy liberated by the fusion reaction is available for use.

Has your muon catalysed fusion system been independently tested?
Our system has undergone, and continues to undergo, rigorous testing by our own 
team of scientists as well as leading, independent global experts from around 
the world. As long as our IP is protected, we have an open door policy where 
results measurement is concerned to ensure this technology can be officially 
evaluated and then shared with the world as soon as possible.

There is also a Joint Japanese - UK effort involved with developing muon 
catalyzed fusion.

 

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Axil Axil]

A little over  year ago, in a post submitted on EGO OUT titled "Fundamental
Causation Mechanisms of LENR." axil predicted that LENR based SPP theory
would produce mesons and those mesons would decay to produced muon
catalyzed fusion.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html

Since then, this SPP theory has been perfected in that year's time to
explain how gamma and neutron radiation has been neutralized and
radioactive isotopes are stabilized through the action of SPPs as EMF black
holes.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> In retrospect - it’s been one helluva month for surprising LENR
> revelations… and it could change the way the whole field is viewed (once
> the resistance subsides - assuming replication).
>
> This has nothing, ostensibly… or maybe a lot to do with the harvest-blood
> -super-moon eclipse tomorrow J  At least there is a “prophecy” angle
> which seems to be upsetting to many closely held notions. Can we blame it
> on Obama?
>
> Anyway, first check out this story of Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium and
> muons – which we have talked about many times, in pieces, for several
> weeks and months:
>
> *http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/near-term-commercial-fusion-power.html*
> 
>
> … and consider that the results, if true, could be much broader. To wit:
>
> 1)  Muons, as the output of LENR, rather elegantly explain the lack
> of gammas and neutrons in many if not all past low energy experiments, and
> thus the muon finding could be applicable all the way back to P
>
> 2)  Muon detection is specialized. Muons can go through several feet
> of solid steel. Few in LENR before Holmlid considered it.
> *http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors*
> 
>
> 3)  P could have been inadvertently practicing a version of MCF
> (muon catalyzed fusion) but never realized it.
>
> 4)  A source of light appears to be important to muon creation –
> suggesting that one of the reasons that cold fusion was difficult to do
> consistently could be related to varying illumination, which has never
> been a recognized parameter for cold fusion
>
> 5)  “Cold Fusion” would be defined as an amplified version of MCF, the
> simple version of which was invented by Luis Alvarez in 1956.
>
> 6)  Few in physics appreciate that muons can be manufactured so
> easily. This is almost as disturbing to the mainstream as cold fusion
> itself.
>
> 7)   The NYT article is almost unassailable on this priority of first
> discovery of MCF by Alvarez.
>
> 8)  The P version, using lithium electrolyte, would then form the
> same kind of ultra-dense deuterium on the cathode as does Holmlid.
>
> 9)  The Letts/Cravens effect can be revisited as MCF
>
> 10) MCF can be expanded to incorporate the Lipinski finding of an
> unexpectedly low threshold energy for D fusion (easily supplied by the
> momentum of the muon).
> http://unifiedgravity.com/resources/Theory-Describing-All-Forces-and-Prediction-of-the-Baryon-Rest-Masses.pdf
>
> 11) So many muons seem to be forming, and their lifetime is so low, that
> when conservation of charge is considered – the muons could be
> transferring from another dimension - Dirac’s “sea”… as explicated by
> Hotson. Or else muons and anti-muons are both forming.
>
> 12) We should hope that the community of LENR researchers does not
> circle-the-wagons against Holmlid- at least giving him full benefit of
> the doubt until results show otherwise. Yet the full implications are
> disturbing to those who are fully invested in standard cold fusion
> approach of the past 25 years (somewhat ironic, isn’t it)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

However, with deuterium densification, Holmlid seems to suggest muons form
> as a replacement for gammas – and which then go on to catalyze the next
> round. This is massive synergy.


It's possible that the ultradense deuterium is causing muon-catalyzed
fusion to behave differently in this special context.  It's a source of
concern that the evidence both for ultradense deuterium and for the
different branching fractions all go back to Holmlid.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Revelations

[Mark Goldes]

All,

*Why has muon catalysed fusion not been successful in the past, and how
does Star Scientific plan to overcome this?*
People have been producing nuclear fusion reactions from muon catalysed
fusion for decades – they just haven’t been able to do it consistently, or
in sufficient volumes for it to be considered a viable energy source.

Star Scientific is developing a method to efficiently and consistently
produce pions, and hence muons economically – and these muons are the
catalyst for fusion energy.

*How will Star Scientific overcome the “alpha sticking problem” which has
caused many scientists to abandon research into muon catalysed fusion?*
The ‘alpha sticking problem’ refers to the concern that during the muon
catalysed reaction, some muons – about 1% to 2% – bond with the by-products
instead of catalysing. This reduces the number of muons available to
liberate energy, and therefore the energy output.

Star Scientific is perfecting a method to constantly produce pions, which
immediately decay into muons, which means the natural loss of some muons
during the reaction is of no consequence.

*How has Star Scientific addressed the issue of energy input vs output in
creating fusion energy?*
Energy input versus output is an issue with plasma fusion, not muon
catalysed fusion. Plasma fusion consumes 18 times more energy than it
produces. The Star Scientific system requires very little energy to run,
which means 99% of the energy liberated by the fusion reaction is available
for use.

*Has your muon catalysed fusion system been independently tested?*
Our system has undergone, and continues to undergo, rigorous testing by our
own team of scientists as well as leading, independent global experts from
around the world. As long as our IP is protected, we have an open door
policy where results measurement is concerned to ensure this technology can
be officially evaluated and then shared with the world as soon as possible.

There is also a Joint Japanese - UK effort involved with developing muon
catalyzed fusion.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Chairman, CEO, AESOP Energy LLC

707 861-9070

AESOP Institute website: www.aesopinstitute.org


On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Ø  It's a source of concern that the evidence both for ultradense
> deuterium and for the different branching fractions all go back to Holmlid.
>
>
>
> Yes, but he has worked with many respected collaborators, including Miley
> and Winterberg. He has over 80 peer reviewed publications, which only goes
> part of the way.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, we will see replication from an independent party soon. Holmlid
> does not seem to be holding back any details – and he says that
> off-the-shelf catalyst works. He has patent filings in place – so there is
> less reason to try to deceive.
>
>
>
> Anyone got a muon detector handy?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Jed Rothwell]

EPA announcement:

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm

RE: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

>EPA announcement:

> 

>http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm

 

Excerpt:

 

How much will this cost to fix?

 

Volkswagen will be required to implement corrective action at no cost to 
the owner.

 

 

Whenever I read or hear the words "...at no cost to the owner." Yeah, right. 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks