Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I do not by any means rule out the scenario you propose. I only attempt to draw out its implications. If what you say is what happened, I see several implications. A first implication is that the 62Ni would have had to have been relatively granular and segregated from the "fuel" nickel, even after undergoing high temperature excursions. The reason I referred to the ICP-MS and AES analyses is because (to my knowledge) they involve digesting the entire sample, as you describe. Since the isotope analysis of the ash showed nearly pure 62Ni, there was no mixing or sintering of the 62Ni with the residual "fuel" nickel. That means that any functional role played by 62Ni would have to work in a granular form. A second implication is that either the "fuel" was sampled prior to insertion into the E-Cat, or it was a bit of random chance that the sample showed natural isotope ratios, since it might have shown elevated 62Ni instead. (It seems pretty reasonable that the "fuel" nickel would have been sampled before insertion, so this implication isn't that big of a deal.) A third implication is that any functional role played by the 62Ni would be other than the suppression of penetrating radiation. This is because if the natural-ratio nickel was the source of penetrating radiation, the 62Ni would be unlikely to help out once the normal nickel was included. So whatever functional role it plays is probably different. (This implication is interesting mostly to me.) A fourth implication in your scenario is that, even if the 62Ni plays a functional role, Rossi seems to have engaged in conscious misdirection by including the natural-ratio nickel in the "fuel" (along with the LAH). (You appear to anticipate this yourself.) Here is an exchange that comes to mind: Team: Andrea, will you allow us to analyze the fuel? Can we do an isotope analysis? (Here the team assumes that it will be a meaningful thing to do.) Rossi: Yes, you can do an isotope analysis. Team: Thank you. We will analyze samples before and after the live run, and we will look at what happens to the fuel. Rossi: Yes, please go ahead and do that if you like. Team: Thank you for being forthcoming. It's possible that your scenario isn't the one that happened. But if it is, it's hard to see how to avoid a conclusion of misdirection, unless there's a functional role that is played by the 62Ni and a different functional role played by the natural-isotope nickel. At this point, explanations start to get pretty fancy. A relevant question here is the role that the isotope analysis played, if any, in Industrial Heat's due diligence process. I should mention that I'm still optimistic that the nickel was active, so I don't necessarily assume misdirection at this point. Your scenario is interesting nonetheless. Eric On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to > the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their > dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time > for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was > taken for analysis as the "fuel". But, what Rossi put in was not the whole > fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis. When the > ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a > smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy > test. In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the > free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test. However, in my > hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original > 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that > was added when Rossi added the powder fuel. > > The ICP-MS and AES only tested the particles that were sampled from > Rossi's powder fuel before he added it to the reactor, and then the > particles that were shaken loose from the sintered mass of ash in the > reactor after the experiment. The ICP-MS analysis begins with chemical > digestion of a few small particles, I think in ultra-pure nitric acid. > This acid with the dissolved metals is injected into the spectrometer. > ICP-MS only tests the average composition of the digested particles in the > acid. ICP-MS does not analyze the materials while still in the reactor > like some sort of MRI. AES is an optical emission spectrum measurement on > the excited plasma that feeds the mass spectrometer in the ICP machine - > testing the same digested particles. > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins >> wrote >> >> Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to >> the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then >> present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by >> hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then jus
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Yes, my hypothesis is that the reactor tube was not empty when given to the Lugano team to test - it had been pre-loaded with 62Ni. They did their dummy tests with the inert 62Ni by itself (and no H2). When it came time for Rossi to add the "fuel" powder, a sample of what he was putting in was taken for analysis as the "fuel". But, what Rossi put in was not the whole fuel - only some LAH and some natural Ni to obscure the analysis. When the ash was analyzed, it was a mix of a large amount of 62Ni pre-loaded + a smaller amount of natural Ni loaded as powder by Rossi after the dummy test. In the ash analysis, there was still 0.3% of 58Ni, probably from the free "fuel" powder he added after the dummy test. However, in my hypothesis, the ash particles tested were mostly comprised of the original 62Ni that was pre-loaded into the reactor with a small amount of Ni that was added when Rossi added the powder fuel. The ICP-MS and AES only tested the particles that were sampled from Rossi's powder fuel before he added it to the reactor, and then the particles that were shaken loose from the sintered mass of ash in the reactor after the experiment. The ICP-MS analysis begins with chemical digestion of a few small particles, I think in ultra-pure nitric acid. This acid with the dissolved metals is injected into the spectrometer. ICP-MS only tests the average composition of the digested particles in the acid. ICP-MS does not analyze the materials while still in the reactor like some sort of MRI. AES is an optical emission spectrum measurement on the excited plasma that feeds the mass spectrometer in the ICP machine - testing the same digested particles. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote > > Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to > the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then > present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by > hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then just prior to the live run the > natural-ratio nickel is added, sampled and measured. And then the test > proceeds. After the test has been concluded, several of the nickel > isotopes are found to have been consumed, leaving only 62Ni as the > residue. Have I understood this correctly? > > In this scenario, it seems that nickel is still active, whereas it is not, > as far as we can tell, in the other experimenter's (shorter) tests. > > Also, if the 62Ni was present in Lugano prior to the start of the live > run, why was it not detected in the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses? (I do > note that the amount was slightly above the nickel standard that was used.) > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:A article describing the theory and mechanisms of the Suncell
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Abstract: EUV radiation in the 10-30 nm region observed only arising from > very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen first > at BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) and reproduced at the Harvard Center for > Astrophysics (CfA) ... > When I first saw "reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics" in connection with a similar analysis a few years ago, it struck me as very interesting. When I followed through and looked into the credentials of the researcher, he turned out to be a fellow in Russia with no clear affiliation with Harvard, who appears to have used a lab at CfA. When I pieced all of this together, I became somewhat irritated with the whole thing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the > fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the > Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li > isotopic ratio. > Yes, I'm struck by that as well. For drawing conclusions, it would be nice if the various experiments were a little more comparable in their excess heat and running time. > The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a > deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither > intended to give nor was he obliged to give. > My hope is not to imply deception, although I do not rule it out. But the only alternative I can think of is that the 62Ni plays some functional role, especially in view of the high price for isotopically enriched nickel. I can think of one possible functional role -- perhaps natural-isotopic-ratio nickel yields penetrating radiation in the conditions provided by Rossi's device, whereas 62Ni is inert. But that begs the question of whether penetrating radiation would be observed in the other experiments, and if not, why not. Perhaps there is another functional role. Absent a functional role for the 62Ni, misdirection is an obvious explanation. That is, was the reactor tube empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor > could well have been full with the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. > Any 62Ni present in the tube initially would have been inert during the > dummy runs. I wrote to Bo Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to > be empty before this "fuel" was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it > doesn't mean he knew). Because of this unknown, differential analysis of > the of the Lugano fuel/ash isotopes is meaningless. > Just to make sure I understand your hypothesis -- 62Ni is added prior to the blank runs, before the natural-ratio nickel fuel was added. It is then present during the blank runs and doesn't do anything, because by hypothesis it is presumed to be inert. Then just prior to the live run the natural-ratio nickel is added, sampled and measured. And then the test proceeds. After the test has been concluded, several of the nickel isotopes are found to have been consumed, leaving only 62Ni as the residue. Have I understood this correctly? In this scenario, it seems that nickel is still active, whereas it is not, as far as we can tell, in the other experimenter's (shorter) tests. Also, if the 62Ni was present in Lugano prior to the start of the live run, why was it not detected in the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analyses? (I do note that the amount was slightly above the nickel standard that was used.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Bob, Interesting point on the SS can being stripped of its protective oxides. In my most recent experiment (with no excess heat seen), the stainless fuel container was extremely shiny after use as if nickel plated. There was a cooler end that appeared to have an oxidized layer. Jack On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:02 PM Bob Higgins wrote: > While I was translating Parkhomov's latest presentation, I was struck > again by the plethora of elements in the ash that were not in the "fuel". > Previously I pleaded through Bob Greenyer to get Parkhomov to give us a > slice of his stainless steel fuel can. When the reactor is heated over > 1000C in the presence of hydrogen gas, the stainless steel will be stripped > of its protective oxides, and most of its constituents will dissolve to > some extent in the molten Li-Al-H. It is likely a great deal of the > elements found in the ash came from the stainless steel can. > > This makes any conclusions from changes in the element composition, other > than for Li, Al, and Ni, to have no basis at the moment. In a Hangouts > call today with Bob Greenyer, I brought this up again - to have him ask > Parkhomov for a sliver of the can material. MFMP would have elemental > analysis performed on the sliver of can. There is little excuse to not > have had this done before presenting such a table of element values in his > presentation - at least without the caveat that many of those elements > likely came from the can. > > Bob Higgins > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission >> going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z) >> elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to >> Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be >> disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon >> fission going on? >> > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Eric Walker >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell >>> wrote: >>> >>> This just in. See: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >>> >>> These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that >>> all tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than >>> weeks and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano >>> test. >>> >>> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi >>> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this >>> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with >>> little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some >>> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) >>> >>> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits >>> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, >>> and are always left wondering what's going on. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
While I was translating Parkhomov's latest presentation, I was struck again by the plethora of elements in the ash that were not in the "fuel". Previously I pleaded through Bob Greenyer to get Parkhomov to give us a slice of his stainless steel fuel can. When the reactor is heated over 1000C in the presence of hydrogen gas, the stainless steel will be stripped of its protective oxides, and most of its constituents will dissolve to some extent in the molten Li-Al-H. It is likely a great deal of the elements found in the ash came from the stainless steel can. This makes any conclusions from changes in the element composition, other than for Li, Al, and Ni, to have no basis at the moment. In a Hangouts call today with Bob Greenyer, I brought this up again - to have him ask Parkhomov for a sliver of the can material. MFMP would have elemental analysis performed on the sliver of can. There is little excuse to not have had this done before presenting such a table of element values in his presentation - at least without the caveat that many of those elements likely came from the can. Bob Higgins On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission > going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z) > elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to > Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be > disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon > fission going on? > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> >> This just in. See: >>> >>> >>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >>> >> >> These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all >> tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks >> and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. >> >> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi >> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this >> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with >> little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some >> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) >> >> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits >> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, >> and are always left wondering what's going on. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
I have a intuition that the one 100 micro particle that the Lugano analysts looked at was a one in a million rough event. That particle could never have been manually fabricated by anybody. A human could not have made that particle. It is a miracle of transmutation. On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the > fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the > Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li > isotopic ratio. > > The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a > deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither > intended to give nor was he obliged to give. That is, was the reactor tube > empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor could well have been full with > the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. Any 62Ni present in the tube > initially would have been inert during the dummy runs. I wrote to Bo > Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to be empty before this "fuel" > was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it doesn't mean he knew). Because > of this unknown, differential analysis of the of the Lugano fuel/ash > isotopes is meaningless. > > This is supported by the fact that the reactor showed no signs of heat > production abatement even though the isotope had ostensibly changed from a > natural distribution to purely 62Ni. > > Bob Higgins > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell >> wrote: >> >> This just in. See: >>> >>> >>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >>> >> >> These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all >> tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks >> and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. >> >> There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi >> played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this >> shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with >> little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some >> unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) >> >> Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits >> of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, >> and are always left wondering what's going on. >> >> Eric >> >> >
[Vo]:A article describing the theory and mechanisms of the Suncell
A article describing the theory and mechanisms of the Suncell http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Cont_EUV_HOH-031215.pdf Abstract: EUV radiation in the 10-30 nm region observed only arising from very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen first at BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) and reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA) was determined to be due to the transition of H to the lower-energy hydrogen or hydrino state H(1/4) whose emission matches that observed wherein alternative sources were eliminated. The identity of the catalyst that accepts 3⋅ 27.2 eV from the H to cause the H to H(1/4) transition was investigated by recording the EUV continuum emission from electrodes having metal oxides that are thermodynamically favorable to undergo H reduction to form HOH catalyst; whereas, those that are unfavorable did not show any continuum even though the low-melting point metals tested are very favorable to forming metal ion plasmas with strong short-wavelength continua in more powerful plasma sources. Of the two possible catalysts, 3 H and HOH, the latter catalyst is more likely to be active in the H pinch plasma based on the behavior with oxide-coated electrodes and the consideration of the intensity profile of the multi-body reaction required during 3 H catalysis. The HOH catalyst was further shown to give EUV radiation of the same nature by igniting a solid fuel comprising a source of H and HOH catalyst by passing a low voltage, high current through the fuel to produce explosive plasma. No chemical reaction can release such highenergy light, and the field corresponded to a voltage that was less than 15 V for the atmospheric pressure collisional plasma. No high field existed to form highly ionized ions that could give radiation in this EUV region. Following ignition, high-power plasma was observed with no power input. This plasma source serves as strong evidence for the existence of the transition of H to hydrino H(1/4) by HOH as the catalyst. The hydrino reaction is a powerful new energy source released primarily as blackbody radiation equivalent to the Sun spectrum. Initial prototypes to generate extraordinary optical power by the formation of hydrinos are already producing photovoltaic generated electrical power. Moreover, m H catalyst was identified to be active in the laboratory and astronomical sources such as the Sun, stars, and interstellar medium wherein the characteristics of hydrino product match those of the dark matter of the universe.
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
As I was translating Parkhomov's paper this morning, I was struck by the fact that the other researchers are not seeing any isotopic movement in the Ni in their experiments, while they are seeing minor shifts in the Li isotopic ratio. The big shadow still hanging over the Lugano experiment does not regard a deception by Rossi, but rather a withholding of information he neither intended to give nor was he obliged to give. That is, was the reactor tube empty when he added his "fuel"? The reactor could well have been full with the 62Ni before he added his "fuel" powder. Any 62Ni present in the tube initially would have been inert during the dummy runs. I wrote to Bo Hoisted to ask if the reactor was inspected to be empty before this "fuel" was added by Rossi. He would not reply (it doesn't mean he knew). Because of this unknown, differential analysis of the of the Lugano fuel/ash isotopes is meaningless. This is supported by the fact that the reactor showed no signs of heat production abatement even though the isotope had ostensibly changed from a natural distribution to purely 62Ni. Bob Higgins On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > This just in. See: >> >> >> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >> > > These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all > tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks > and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. > > There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi > played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this > shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with > little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some > unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) > > Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of > half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, > and are always left wondering what's going on. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
Will someone with an analogical bent find out if there was more fission going on than fusion. It looks like there was an increase in lighter (Z) elements and a reduction in the heavier elements. Nickel which according to Rossi is not a fuel looks like the element that was most likely to be disrupted in favor of lighter elements like oxygen. Are we seeing muon fission going on? On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > > This just in. See: >> >> >> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ >> > > These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all > tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks > and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. > > There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi > played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this > shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with > little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some > unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) > > Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of > half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, > and are always left wondering what's going on. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:one pion exchange potential (OPEP) and "neutron tunneling" in LENR
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:20 PM, wrote: Try starting out with radioactive nuclei, and ending up with stable nuclei. > That > should swing the tide in your favour. Often removing a neutron from an > unstable > nucleus will make it stable, and adding a proton to another unstable > nucleus can > make it stable, so pion exchange could turn two unstable nuclei into two > stable > nuclei, and produce energy at the same time. This may result in a method of > stabilizing radioactive nuclei. > By the way, Robin was correct about this. When reactions are considered under pion exchange, where a neutron and a proton swap places in two nuclei, there are plenty of exothermic reactions if one or the other nucleus is unstable (or both). It seems that it is only when both nuclei are stable that all reactions are endothermic. Perhaps this question will interest a doctoral student at some point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This just in. See: > > > http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/ > These comparisons are interesting. But it's pretty unsatisfying that all tests but the Lugano test were run for a handful of days rather than weeks and developed much less excess heat than that purported to the Lugano test. There is a shadow hanging over the Lugano test, concerning whether Rossi played with the contents of the fuel (or ash). I would love for this shadow to be dispelled, but isotopic analyses from a short test run with little excess heat will not do it. (Another possibility: there's some unknown parameter that adjusts what isotopes are consumed and produced.) Unfortunately, we watchers of this field must be satisfied with tidbits of half-information of the kind that can be derived from the Lugano report, and are always left wondering what's going on. Eric
[Vo]:20 km space elevator could be built from earth
See: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/55d4d277fe34442f3e00023d
[Vo]:Today's quiz
Regarding: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/22/analogue-hawking-radiation-spotted-in-the-lab Analogue Hawking radiation spotted in the lab The vacuum is not nothing. When virtual particle pairs are created one has positive energy and mass and the other has negative energy and mass. This pair of virtual particles are not a positron and an electron, instead, they are a positive particle and a negative particle. When they recombine, that that positive and negative particle recombination reverts back into nothing. When a dark mode SPP emits a positive photon as Analogue Hawking radiation, a negative photon enters the SPP. This nano black hole grows more negative in energy as time goes on. The SPP will eventually fill up with negative energy. This negative energy is said to make time and light move faster. There are many physical laws that assumes that EMF have a constant velocity. But what happens to that EMF if light speed is increased. Are there anyone here that can explain to me what happens inside the SPP to the EMF that is trapped inside when the speed of that EMF is increased beyond the speed of light? Does anybody know what happens to the gas atoms if any that are inside that SPP? What happens inside the nucleus of those gas atoms? These are the things I would like to know.
[Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting
This just in. See: http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/387-Parkhomov-Soshi-20150930-English-1-pdf/
Re: [Vo]:Beware all this Industrial Heat excitement
from their public documents that is 49Mn$ on two fund, one long term capital fund, and one bigger income fund. http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2073-BIG-Tom-Darden-interviewed-in-Fortune-on-his-LENR-insvestment/?postID=8098#post8098 https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/wpct/fullportfolio/ https://woodfordfunds.com/our-funds/weif/fullportfolio/ 2015-10-02 15:39 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield : > In a comment to a share holder, Woodford Equity wrote: "With regard to > Industrial Heat, we were, and have been, very aware of the scepticism about > this technology. We have undertaken a rigorous due diligence process that > has taken two and half years." > > Due diligence has a well defined legal meaning, so if they did that they > must have seen E-Cats working. One would suppose also the crown jewel of > the 1 MW plant. They were satisfied enough to invest more than $10 million > according to Darden in his interview with Fortune. This mean Industrial > heat has more than $20 million now. > > This is strong evidence that the 1 MW plant works. > > >
[Vo]:a question- important for the future of LENR
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/02-oct-2015-lenr-metals-list-info.html Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Beware all this Industrial Heat excitement
In a comment to a share holder, Woodford Equity wrote: "With regard to Industrial Heat, we were, and have been, very aware of the scepticism about this technology. We have undertaken a rigorous due diligence process that has taken two and half years." Due diligence has a well defined legal meaning, so if they did that they must have seen E-Cats working. One would suppose also the crown jewel of the 1 MW plant. They were satisfied enough to invest more than $10 million according to Darden in his interview with Fortune. This mean Industrial heat has more than $20 million now. This is strong evidence that the 1 MW plant works.
[Vo]:Beware all this Industrial Heat excitement
Ross is only a part of IH (which explains a lot of Vaughn's statement of him not being credible / the weird disconnect between Rossi and IH lately). IH has invested in other LENR organizations. I still stand by my assessment of 9% https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/ I am excited by Holmlid though. I'd roughly gauge him at 25% being real.
