Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Axil Axil]

This is the question that I am asking of you. If we assume that Holmlid is
correct in the particles he is seeing, what does that mean for the types of
nuclear reaction that result?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> If you provide several balanced reactions that involve mesons, pions and
> muons, I can take them as a model and attempt to generalize.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> If LENR is producing mesons, pions, and muons, how does that effect
>> reaction types?
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For comparison, Rossi stated his current theory in a recent interview.

 "“My theory is that a proton from a hydrogen atom enters, by the
 quantum tunneling effect, into a nucleus of Li-7 (i.e., a lithium nucleus
 of atomic weight 7), forming a nucleus of Be-8 (i.e., a beryllium nucleus
 of atomic weight 8), which then decays in a few seconds into two alpha
 particles (helium nuclei), accompanied with the release of significant
 nuclear energy."

>>>
>>> Here are relevant reactions (I think my script is working now!):
>>>
>>> $ python scripts/reactions.py "H+Li"
>>> d + 6Li → p + 7Li + 5027 keVn-transfer, stable
>>> d + 6Li → 2·4He + 22373 keV stable, α
>>> p + 7Li → 2·4He + 17346 keV stable, α
>>> p + 6Li → 3He + 4He + 4020 keV  stable, α
>>> d + 6Li → p + t + 4He + 2559 keVn-transfer, t, α, 
>>> →β-
>>> d + 6Li → t + 5Li + 593 keV n-transfer, t, →p, 
>>> →β-
>>> d + 7Li → 4He + 5He + 14387 keV α, →n
>>> d + 6Li → 3He + 5He + 1060 keV  →n
>>> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be + 16694 keV   stable, ɣ
>>> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be + 22281 keV   ɣ, →α
>>> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be + 17254 keV   ɣ, →α
>>> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 5655 keVɣ, →α
>>> p + 6Li → ɣ + 7Be + 5607 keVɣ, →ε
>>> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be (i) + 2304 keVɣ
>>> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 628 keV ɣ, →α
>>> d + 7Li → n + 2·4He + 15122 keV n, α, →β-
>>> d + 7Li → n + 8Be + 15030 keV   n, →α, →β-
>>> d + 6Li → n + 7Be + 3382 keVn, →β-, →ε
>>> d + 6Li → n + 3He + 4He + 1795 keV  n, α, →β-
>>>
>>>
>>> Since many of these reactions are not happening, if Rossi's speculation
>>> is correct, this suggests several things:
>>>
>>>- either the proton is masked as a neutral particle (e.g., an
>>>"Exotic Neutral Particle" or hydrino, or electron screening from the
>>>lattice, etc.), or there is some external force holding the proton close 
>>> to
>>>the lithium nucleus
>>>- there is something suppressing the gamma-producing branches
>>>- there is something suppressing the neutron-producing branches
>>>- there is something favoring branches with stable daughters
>>>
>>> If Rossi's speculation is right, the challenge of a theory would be to
>>> explain these bullet points.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Eric Walker]

If you provide several balanced reactions that involve mesons, pions and
muons, I can take them as a model and attempt to generalize.

Eric


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If LENR is producing mesons, pions, and muons, how does that effect
> reaction types?
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>> For comparison, Rossi stated his current theory in a recent interview.
>>>
>>> "“My theory is that a proton from a hydrogen atom enters, by the quantum
>>> tunneling effect, into a nucleus of Li-7 (i.e., a lithium nucleus of atomic
>>> weight 7), forming a nucleus of Be-8 (i.e., a beryllium nucleus of atomic
>>> weight 8), which then decays in a few seconds into two alpha particles
>>> (helium nuclei), accompanied with the release of significant nuclear
>>> energy."
>>>
>>
>> Here are relevant reactions (I think my script is working now!):
>>
>> $ python scripts/reactions.py "H+Li"
>> d + 6Li → p + 7Li + 5027 keVn-transfer, stable
>> d + 6Li → 2·4He + 22373 keV stable, α
>> p + 7Li → 2·4He + 17346 keV stable, α
>> p + 6Li → 3He + 4He + 4020 keV  stable, α
>> d + 6Li → p + t + 4He + 2559 keVn-transfer, t, α, →β-
>> d + 6Li → t + 5Li + 593 keV n-transfer, t, →p, 
>> →β-
>> d + 7Li → 4He + 5He + 14387 keV α, →n
>> d + 6Li → 3He + 5He + 1060 keV  →n
>> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be + 16694 keV   stable, ɣ
>> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be + 22281 keV   ɣ, →α
>> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be + 17254 keV   ɣ, →α
>> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 5655 keVɣ, →α
>> p + 6Li → ɣ + 7Be + 5607 keVɣ, →ε
>> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be (i) + 2304 keVɣ
>> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 628 keV ɣ, →α
>> d + 7Li → n + 2·4He + 15122 keV n, α, →β-
>> d + 7Li → n + 8Be + 15030 keV   n, →α, →β-
>> d + 6Li → n + 7Be + 3382 keVn, →β-, →ε
>> d + 6Li → n + 3He + 4He + 1795 keV  n, α, →β-
>>
>>
>> Since many of these reactions are not happening, if Rossi's speculation
>> is correct, this suggests several things:
>>
>>- either the proton is masked as a neutral particle (e.g., an "Exotic
>>Neutral Particle" or hydrino, or electron screening from the lattice,
>>etc.), or there is some external force holding the proton close to the
>>lithium nucleus
>>- there is something suppressing the gamma-producing branches
>>- there is something suppressing the neutron-producing branches
>>- there is something favoring branches with stable daughters
>>
>> If Rossi's speculation is right, the challenge of a theory would be to
>> explain these bullet points.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting

[Eric Walker]

What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the economic 
considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat.  What caught my 
interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent application cited 
below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability of the Lugano isotope 
assays.  If they were intentionally compromised, and were nonetheless used as 
evidence in the patent application, this would have endangered the patent, once 
granted, if there was a patent suit.

In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial evidence 
in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run for no 
obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be 
compromised).  Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless.


> On Oct 6, 2015, at 9:26, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> 
> Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure Rossi 
> would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni.  In the 
> process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum.  I would be surprised if he 
> found out that it was the only isotope that was active.
> 
> Just to put it in perspective, I got a quote from Trace Sciences for 1 gram 
> of  isotopically enriched 62Ni to >95% (natural is 3.6%).  The quote was 
> $11,300.00.  While I am sure that this price could come down in purchase of 
> any significant quantity, it will not be as cheap as Rossi's original 
> promises.
> 
> It would be far cheaper to just put in more fuel (Ni and LAH) to get the 
> power you need from the existing 3.6% of the 62Ni in the natural powder.

Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting

[Bob Higgins]

Faced with a working reaction and attempting to optimize it, I am sure
Rossi would have explored the reactivity of the individual isotopes of Ni.
In the process, he may have found that 62Ni was optimum.  I would be
surprised if he found out that it was the only isotope that was active.

Just to put it in perspective, I got a quote from Trace Sciences for 1 gram
of  isotopically enriched 62Ni to >95% (natural is 3.6%).  The quote was
$11,300.00.  While I am sure that this price could come down in purchase of
any significant quantity, it will not be as cheap as Rossi's original
promises.

It would be far cheaper to just put in more fuel (Ni and LAH) to get the
power you need from the existing 3.6% of the 62Ni in the natural powder.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Teslaalset 
> wrote:
>
> The Ni62 amendments to US2009125444 were sent to the patent office in
>> April 2013 while Rossi’s patent US9115913B1 originated as filing in March
>> 2012. US91159B1 does not mention specifically Ni62 in the claims, but
>> instead the general term ‘Nickel’. These claims were not amended to be more
>> specific at a later stage in the patent process, probably for a very good
>> reason.
>>
>
> Here is the patent application I was thinking of, where results similar to
> (the same as?) those of the Lugano test were incorporated as evidence:
>
> http://www.google.com/patents/US20140326711
>
> Only the byzantine energy calculations are included.  There is less than
> the usual reference to different isotopes of nickel.  I found nothing more
> specific than "nickel," and there is no mention of the ICP-MS, ICP-AES,
> SEM/EDS or ToF-SIMS results.  I assume the evidence goes back to the Lugano
> trial, but it's hard to say for sure.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, I would like to hear your arguments of evidence that the muons CAME
from the proton.

My first observation is that muons are ~100MeV particles by positive mass
energy.  That says that ~200MeV could wrench a muon - antimuon pair into
existence (presumably from the Dirac sea).  Since this was a 14TeV
collision, enough energy was present to liberate 70 muon - antimuon pairs -
forgetting entirely about the presence of the protons.  That they saw 4
muons emerge does not strike me as evidence they came from a proton.

Second, I thought these collisions were conducted in a vacuum.  An antimuon
is just a +charged muon, and in a vacuum I would not think an antimuon
would be subject to more rapid recombination than than the ordinary muon.
It should have been observed.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Let me try to be more specific on this point:
>
> Ø
>
> Ø  Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough
> (as at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not
> absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of
> some kind of cross-identity... The reason there are 4 instead of 9 may
> relate to antimuon annihilation.
>
>
>
> Here is a reference from CERN on the Higgs boson process in which protons
> are collided at high energy to form muons.
>
>
>
> http://home.web.cern.ch/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons
>
>
>
> Note that in this collision, the only massive particles with any
> appreciable lifetime are the protons being collided and the muons seen in
> the debris. The Higgs boson may or may not have existed at all, and
> everything else is converted into energy – within picoseconds.
>
>
>
> On the surface, this happenstance could be argued (if you support the
> Stubbs theory) to demonstrate that a proton is built of 9 basic particles –
> 4 muons and 5 antimuons. The antimatter does not survive for any
> appreciable time, so the only particles remaining after high energy proton
> decay are the 4 muons, and they too decay quickly, but can be said to be
> the only mass in the debris which is identifiable for an appreciable time
> (nanoseconds).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Axil Axil]

If LENR is producing mesons, pions, and muons, how does that effect
reaction types?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> For comparison, Rossi stated his current theory in a recent interview.
>>
>> "“My theory is that a proton from a hydrogen atom enters, by the quantum
>> tunneling effect, into a nucleus of Li-7 (i.e., a lithium nucleus of atomic
>> weight 7), forming a nucleus of Be-8 (i.e., a beryllium nucleus of atomic
>> weight 8), which then decays in a few seconds into two alpha particles
>> (helium nuclei), accompanied with the release of significant nuclear
>> energy."
>>
>
> Here are relevant reactions (I think my script is working now!):
>
> $ python scripts/reactions.py "H+Li"
> d + 6Li → p + 7Li + 5027 keVn-transfer, stable
> d + 6Li → 2·4He + 22373 keV stable, α
> p + 7Li → 2·4He + 17346 keV stable, α
> p + 6Li → 3He + 4He + 4020 keV  stable, α
> d + 6Li → p + t + 4He + 2559 keVn-transfer, t, α, →β-
> d + 6Li → t + 5Li + 593 keV n-transfer, t, →p, →β-
> d + 7Li → 4He + 5He + 14387 keV α, →n
> d + 6Li → 3He + 5He + 1060 keV  →n
> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be + 16694 keV   stable, ɣ
> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be + 22281 keV   ɣ, →α
> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be + 17254 keV   ɣ, →α
> d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 5655 keVɣ, →α
> p + 6Li → ɣ + 7Be + 5607 keVɣ, →ε
> d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be (i) + 2304 keVɣ
> p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 628 keV ɣ, →α
> d + 7Li → n + 2·4He + 15122 keV n, α, →β-
> d + 7Li → n + 8Be + 15030 keV   n, →α, →β-
> d + 6Li → n + 7Be + 3382 keVn, →β-, →ε
> d + 6Li → n + 3He + 4He + 1795 keV  n, α, →β-
>
>
> Since many of these reactions are not happening, if Rossi's speculation is
> correct, this suggests several things:
>
>- either the proton is masked as a neutral particle (e.g., an "Exotic
>Neutral Particle" or hydrino, or electron screening from the lattice,
>etc.), or there is some external force holding the proton close to the
>lithium nucleus
>- there is something suppressing the gamma-producing branches
>- there is something suppressing the neutron-producing branches
>- there is something favoring branches with stable daughters
>
> If Rossi's speculation is right, the challenge of a theory would be to
> explain these bullet points.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Ron Wormus]

Jones,
Brightsen's Clustron Model of the nucleus also has antimatter in the 
nucleus.


I have pdf's of all his papers if anyone is interested.
Ron

--On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:58 PM -0700 Jones Beene 
 wrote:




Of interest - wrt the "9 muon model" of the proton is an old paper
by Harold Aspen where he came up with the same conclusion.

http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/books/Asp/1988c.pdf

Aspden missed the important detail about binding energy showing up as
mass deficit, but still it is more than coincidental to Stubb's model.

One more point for John Berry about antimatter and matter coexisting in
the nucleus without annihilating. It turns out that the standard model
of physics has the quark and antiquark coexisting without annihilation,
so there is an exact precedent for this, already in place and no good
reason the muon and antimuon cannot do the same.

I haven't had the time to review exactly how Don Hotson imagined the
proton to be constructed, but epo pairs are likely to be involved – so
here too we have a similar situation of bound matter and antimatter
showing up as building blocks. Stubbs mentions something like this in
one of his papers but rejects electrons in favor of muons, yet the muon
itself could be imagined to be 103 epos plus an electron .

Instead of "turtles all the way down"… it's looking more and
more like "leptons all the way down"

For the turtle challenged:

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

RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

> Then somebody suggested that NRL should try an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Rh. 
> The very first such alloy cathode they tried yielded over 10,000 Joules of 
> excess thermal energy NRL christened this cathode with the name Eve...

There is an older backstory for the choice of rhodium, which goes back to Gene 
Mallove's famous article about the 5 isotopes of rhodium which showed up in 
1992 as transmutation products. 

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEalchemynig.pdf

As for rhodium being the "forbidden fruit" ... The appearance of rhodium in the 
ash when there is palladium in the cathode - indicates that the helium seen in 
LENR derives from alpha decay of Pd, which can happen in numerous ways via 
deuteron interactions and should happen with protium as well. 

++ Palladium combining with deuterium and yielding hydrogen is generally a 
gamma-free reaction ++ so it fits in well with results of cold fusion. The 
Rhodium is not a reactant.

Palladium is still the main reactant, with rhodium as a type of catalyst. 
Presumably, having a smaller amount of rhodium alloyed in the cathode will 
increases the QM probability (quantum entanglement effect) of the desired Pd+D 
reaction happening. Another alternative is that it is a Mills catalyst (but no 
one wants to hear that).

This outcome of helium showing up from fission of Pd (actually alpha decay) was 
not popular with those who wanted to see deuterons fuse, instead of coming from 
alpha decay. That would arguably make the reaction "cold fission" instead of 
cold fusion. Then there was the Kevin Wolf episode...

BTW - the reason this work with rhodium is probably a going nowhere, is that it 
was done before, and does not scale up. But good luck trying. It will be a huge 
surprise is they get over a watt of gain.

QM effects generally do not scale up well ...

Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with Bob about the validity of the patent.
Unfortunately I believe all patents are ending up in this dilemma.
The amount of information is so enormous that it is going to  be very hard
to defend any patent.
In addition there is no way one can get any positive earnings out of the
patent only. One need organization, leadership and marketing much more than
the patent.
If I were in Rossi's position I would stop spending money on protection
(patents) and concentrate on developing a commercial product.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> If I were Rossi or IH, I would worry more about the validity of his patent
> due to prior art.  There is so much ART that is described over the years in
> online forums, particularly in Vortex-L, that a search used by any would be
> patent busting organization would likely turn up amazing prior art public
> disclosure for many of the things in his claims.  If I were hired to bust a
> patent, that's where I would begin.
>
> I don't think any controlling patent will survive for the basic LENR
> mechanisms due to prior art public disclosures (not necessarily by the
> inventors).  The valuable patents will be for the machines that utilize
> LENR in the future.
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the
>> economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat.  What
>> caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent
>> application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability
>> of the Lugano isotope assays.  If they were intentionally compromised, and
>> were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would
>> have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit.
>>
>> In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial
>> evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run
>> for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be
>> compromised).  Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless.
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

I'm surprised that this article has not been commented on yet...

We now have a PhD condensed matter physicist at NRL validating, unequivocally, 
a LENR effect, and that they have also established theoretical basis; their DFT 
simulations agree with empirical results.

“The Naval Research Labs (NRL) ran over 300 experiments using pure Pd cathodes, 
all of them yielding negative results. Then somebody suggested that NRL should 
try an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Rh. The very first such alloy cathode they tried 
yielded over 10,000 Joules of excess thermal energy – all from less than 1 gram 
of cathode material. I ran Density Functional Theory simulations on that alloy, 
and it, too, satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Pd and pure 
Rh do not.

NRL christened this cathode with the name Eve, after the obvious Biblical 
analogy. I’m pleased to share the news that Eve had a number of “sisters” who 
produced equal and even greater excess thermal energy, among a number of other 
more interesting effects. Finally, I can observe that the materials simulations 
now make it fairly easy to evaluate any given solid lattice material and 
estimate its level of LENR activity. We have good correlations between the 
simulation results and the known levels of experimentally-determined LENR 
activity in a number of different alloys whose dominant elements come from the 
Transition Metal Group of the Periodic Table. Hopefully, we will be able to get 
all the details of this material released for publication to the general public 
over the next few weeks.”

The article also gives the mainstream physics community an out on how they 
treated LENR... up to now anyway.
-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LENR theory

I sent this  information directly to Vortex but it never appeared.
Now you can see it here. 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/

RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

[a.ashfield]

I think this paper may well be the most important one since Pons and 
Fleischmann's original announcement.
Pity that Vortex didn't want to display it as it sent it here before 
sending it to ECatWorld.

It would be much easier to discuss with the full paper visible.

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Axil Axil]

Regarding:

"A departure from equilibrium must be established that will permit an
external energy source (eg. the DC power supply in an electrolysis
experiment and/or a pair of low power lasers as in the Letts/Hagelstein two
laser experiment) to feed energy into the H-H or D-D stretching mode
vibrations. The difference in chemical potential that is established in gas
loading experiments can also serve very nicely; in this case the flux feeds
energy into the stretching mode vibrations."

Light is usually reflected from the surface of a metal. In order for there
to be energy transferred from light to the lattice, an energy conversion
process must apply. What exactly gets the lattice to vibrate?

When electrons are applied to the lattice surface in the case of  DC
current, how do the electrons produce lattice vibrations? If the stimulus
is heat caused by electrical resistance, what localizes the heat? How did
they determine that localized vibrations were occurring? Did they just
assume that superoscillations were happening?

In the case of laser light stimulation, why is a very specific frequency of
light required? Any type of light will produce heat.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:04 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> I think this paper may well be the most important one since Pons and
> Fleischmann's original announcement.
> Pity that Vortex didn't want to display it as it sent it here before
> sending it to ECatWorld.
> It would be much easier to discuss with the full paper visible.
>
>

RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Oh, this statement is a real teaser...
" a number of “sisters” who produced equal and even greater excess thermal 
energy, among a number of other more interesting effects."

"... a number of more interesting effects."
What could be MORE interesting than excess heat/low energy nuclear reactions??? 
 Could he be referring to the fact that there are no energetic radiations... 
but that is like common knowledge in this field, so not all that interesting to 
those following the field.  So what could be more interesting???
Enquiring minds want to know...
:-)
-mark iverson

-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR theory

I'm surprised that this article has not been commented on yet...

We now have a PhD condensed matter physicist at NRL validating, unequivocally, 
a LENR effect, and that they have also established theoretical basis; their DFT 
simulations agree with empirical results.

“The Naval Research Labs (NRL) ran over 300 experiments using pure Pd cathodes, 
all of them yielding negative results. Then somebody suggested that NRL should 
try an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Rh. The very first such alloy cathode they tried 
yielded over 10,000 Joules of excess thermal energy – all from less than 1 gram 
of cathode material. I ran Density Functional Theory simulations on that alloy, 
and it, too, satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Pd and pure 
Rh do not.

NRL christened this cathode with the name Eve, after the obvious Biblical 
analogy. I’m pleased to share the news that Eve had a number of “sisters” who 
produced equal and even greater excess thermal energy, among a number of other 
more interesting effects. Finally, I can observe that the materials simulations 
now make it fairly easy to evaluate any given solid lattice material and 
estimate its level of LENR activity. We have good correlations between the 
simulation results and the known levels of experimentally-determined LENR 
activity in a number of different alloys whose dominant elements come from the 
Transition Metal Group of the Periodic Table. Hopefully, we will be able to get 
all the details of this material released for publication to the general public 
over the next few weeks.”

The article also gives the mainstream physics community an out on how they 
treated LENR... up to now anyway.
-Mark Iverson

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LENR theory

I sent this  information directly to Vortex but it never appeared.
Now you can see it here. 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[John Berry]

If Protons are are made of Muons, then could Muons or anti-Muons fired at a
Proton/atom not cause Proton Decay and atomic Transmutation/Fission?

Particle physics isn't my bag, anyone know what results?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> You don’t see any quarks.
>
>
> I believe this ad hoc result falls under the notion of "color
> confinement," meaning you don't find partial color charge in the wild.
> Instead you get a "hadron jet" of quark-antiquark pairs, whose number
> depends upon the kinetic energy of the scattering particles.  If we're
> going to do away with quarks, we'd better think up an explanation for these
> jets.
>
> The point being that the name “quark” is merely a place-marker which will
>> be returned to when physics has a better understanding.
>
>
> To replace quarks, we're going to have to come up with an alternative to
> the "uud," "udd," etc., description, for describing things like beta +/-
> decay, which sounds like a daunting project.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[a.ashfield]

For comparison, Rossi stated his current theory in a recent interview.

"“My theory is that a proton from a hydrogen atom enters, by the quantum 
tunneling effect, into a nucleus of Li-7 (i.e., a lithium nucleus of 
atomic weight 7), forming a nucleus of Be-8 (i.e., a beryllium nucleus 
of atomic weight 8), which then decays in a few seconds into two alpha 
particles (helium nuclei), accompanied with the release of significant 
nuclear energy."

Re: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid's research is worth at least 20 billion euros. CENR wants to build
a Muon factory that cost that huge amount, but has not figured out how to
reduce the energy of the muons that they will produce to low levels.
Holmlid produces very mild muons from the getgo.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   Jones, I would like to hear your arguments of evidence that the
> muons CAME from the proton.
>
> Bob,
>
> The CERN report is certainly aware of the implications of pair formation.
> Good evidence comes from that - and the next best comes as implications
> from Holmlid’s papers.
>
> I am assuming, based on prior reports from the LHC that they understand by*
> position* (relative to the impact zone) whether a particle derives from
> pair formation or not – since there is a time delay for pairs. CERN
> apparently considers these muons to be derived from the collision as
> primary debris, based on their report.
>
> I picked up on that story in support of Stubb’s papers, but I do not
> necessarily agree that he is correct. I only stumbled on his site a
> couple of days ago, and am trying to gauge the informed objections to it
> (such as your own). However, if Holmlid is correct, then Stubbs muon
> theory goes a long way to explain those amazing results. They are
> extremely important results - for LENR, perhaps the most important for
> theoretical understanding in the 25+ year history of the field.
>
> Holmlid is getting a lot of attention in the science press, most of it
> negative. I have a feeling that one or more groups (especially someone at
> SLAC) will endeavor to replicate his experiment. If they should find the
> anything similar, then the focus of the field will probably shift (pun
> intended). That is, the focus will shift to laser input (or at least
> semi-coherent light).
>
> I know you are familiar with the Letts/Cravens effect. I think those
> gentlemen opened the door for this and I hope they go back and take full
> advantage of that earlier effort.
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

"... a number of more interesting effects." What could be MORE interesting
> than excess heat/low energy nuclear reactions???


Some questions are better left unasked.  One of the sisters could be
Pandora.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Bob Higgins]

There's plenty of observations that are more interesting than excess heat,
because, by itself, it is not proof LENR is nuclear.  Radiations,
transmutations, isotopic shifts would all be more interesting than just
heat.  Or, even proof that the excess heat was coming without nuclear
involvement - again more interesting.  Piantelli says most of the
transition metals will host LENR - some with more radiation output than
others.  Proof that in Pd(Rh)-D that the reaction was not D-D would also be
cool.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> "... a number of more interesting effects." What could be MORE interesting
>> than excess heat/low energy nuclear reactions???
>
>
> Some questions are better left unasked.  One of the sisters could be
> Pandora.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Re: LENR theory

[Bob Cook]

David-

My idea is that a hydrogen flux in the Pd system is necessary, be it slow once 
a threshold concentration is established, and only necessary to maintain the 
threshold amount.  This is consistent with LENR after the stimulation is turned 
off.  Life after death.

I have assumed that the reaction rate is low enough so as to assure the 
threshold is maintained with a reasonable pressure or electric potential to 
create a flux—I think the flux is H ion or D ion.  Although it may be H-2 gas 
or D-2 gas if there is a source of gas as there may be at low temperatures in a 
Li-Al-H system.

I have assumed phonic coupling via electron spin for some time.  I think it is 
the most likely way to transfer energy from a nucleus to the electronic 
structure, since it fits better with the observed low energy level of EM 
radiation seen in LENR reactions.  

SPIN QUANTA ARE TRANSFERRED IN SMALL UNITS OF ENERGY, ONLY INFLUENCED BY THE 
AMBIENT MAGNETIC FIELD (B FIELD) AND THE CHANGING  ENERGY STATES OF THE 
ORIGINATING QM COHERENT SYSTEM THAT RESULT IN THEIR PRODUCTION, AS THAT SYSTEM  
LOSES MASS TO REACH A MORE STABLE GROUND ENERGY STATE. 

I think the rate of reaction is influenced by a stimulus of some sort—probably 
electric or magnetic to create proper resonances.  Multiple coherent systems 
are required, each to be stimulated in turn to reach a lower energy state.

As Jones recently noted, it is hard to maintain a chain reaction in a coherent 
system.   

Bob Cook
From: David Roberson 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR theory

You are suggesting an interesting concept Bob.  Do you suppose that there is 
phononic coupling between the individual reacting sites resulting in some form 
of chain reaction?   If that is true then a threshold density of deuterium 
would be required in order to spread a local burn.  Otherwise you might expect 
a somewhat linear reaction rate with deuterium density.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 7:58 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: LENR theory


The laser is made up of a specific frequency of oscillating electric and 
magnetic fields of considerable intensity (oscillating amplitudes).  It is 
either the electric field or magnetic field of the laser at an appropriate 
frequency in resonance with the resonance frequency of the electronic bonds of 
the FCC crystal lattice or the orbital magnetic moments of the electrons 
bonding the lattice that are excited to energies above their ground state that 
cause deflection of the lattice.   These resonant electric and magnetic fields 
cause the lattice to vibrate in resonant phonic energy states and not random 
vibrations associated with a temperature and its spectrum of different lattice 
frequencies.  The deflections of the lattice parameters can be substantially 
greater than would occur at any given temperature.  These greater vibrations 
provide for more motion of the lattice nuclei and potential for close approach 
and a LENR reaction.  When H or D are found inside a FCC crystal lattice 
position, the localized energy of the vibrating lattice can be enough to force 
the H or D together and or to force them close to a lattice nucleus.  The same 
effects may occur in a tight defect in the lattice or a vacancy in the normal 
lattice structure.  Alloying elements in a lattice may also change the modes of 
vibration and cause D and or H to be forced together more than in a normal 
lattice vacancy or inside a normal FCC lattice cube.  

As suggested above the addition of energy to the lattice is much different than 
occurs during resistance heating where electrons are drawn down a voltage 
gradient and collide at random with nuclei of the lattice and/or non-conducting 
electrons of the lattice.  This random collision is what causes the lattice to 
vibrate at various frequencies and results in some temperature resulting from 
the electrical resistance of the lattice and its relative random response to 
the electrons’ kinetic energies.  

Adding energy by resistance heating causes only a relatively few lattice bonds 
to vibrate at any given frequency, whereas a laser beam would cause many more 
lattice bonds to vibrate at the desired frequency.  The desired frequency is of 
course the natural resonant frequency of the lattice—much like a spring has a 
resonant frequency.   The motion of the lattice particles is the greatest at 
the resonant frequency and can increase substantially with substantial resonant 
energy input that may be provided by an intense laser beam, even during a very 
short duration in time.  Hence large lattice displacements and LENR may occur 
with very little total energy input.  

If LENR does occur in a lattice, it will heat the lattice and produce random 
vibrations in the normal spectrum of vibrations.  The laser can stimulate the 
lattice positions that happen to be 

RE: [Vo]:Re: LENR theory

[Jones Beene]

The advantage of muons as the medium with which to sustain a chain reaction is 
that, unlike neutrons in fission, they are charged and can thus have freedom of 
movement constrained (by magnetic field or electrostatics). The downside is 
short lifetime.

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

I think the rate of reaction is influenced by a stimulus of some sort—probably 
electric or magnetic to create proper resonances.  Multiple coherent systems 
are required, each to be stimulated in turn to reach a lower energy state… As 
Jones recently noted, it is hard to maintain a chain reaction in a coherent 
system.   

 

 

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Eric Walker]

I was referring in a very roundabout way to new military applications,
although I doubt that allusion was at all clear to anyone.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> There's plenty of observations that are more interesting than excess heat,
> because, by itself, it is not proof LENR is nuclear.  Radiations,
> transmutations, isotopic shifts would all be more interesting than just
> heat.  Or, even proof that the excess heat was coming without nuclear
> involvement - again more interesting.  Piantelli says most of the
> transition metals will host LENR - some with more radiation output than
> others.  Proof that in Pd(Rh)-D that the reaction was not D-D would also be
> cool.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>> "... a number of more interesting effects." What could be MORE
>>> interesting than excess heat/low energy nuclear reactions???
>>
>>
>> Some questions are better left unasked.  One of the sisters could be
>> Pandora.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:55 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

For comparison, Rossi stated his current theory in a recent interview.
>
> "“My theory is that a proton from a hydrogen atom enters, by the quantum
> tunneling effect, into a nucleus of Li-7 (i.e., a lithium nucleus of atomic
> weight 7), forming a nucleus of Be-8 (i.e., a beryllium nucleus of atomic
> weight 8), which then decays in a few seconds into two alpha particles
> (helium nuclei), accompanied with the release of significant nuclear
> energy."
>

Here are relevant reactions (I think my script is working now!):

$ python scripts/reactions.py "H+Li"
d + 6Li → p + 7Li + 5027 keVn-transfer, stable
d + 6Li → 2·4He + 22373 keV stable, α
p + 7Li → 2·4He + 17346 keV stable, α
p + 6Li → 3He + 4He + 4020 keV  stable, α
d + 6Li → p + t + 4He + 2559 keVn-transfer, t, α, →β-
d + 6Li → t + 5Li + 593 keV n-transfer, t, →p, →β-
d + 7Li → 4He + 5He + 14387 keV α, →n
d + 6Li → 3He + 5He + 1060 keV  →n
d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be + 16694 keV   stable, ɣ
d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be + 22281 keV   ɣ, →α
p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be + 17254 keV   ɣ, →α
d + 6Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 5655 keVɣ, →α
p + 6Li → ɣ + 7Be + 5607 keVɣ, →ε
d + 7Li → ɣ + 9Be (i) + 2304 keVɣ
p + 7Li → ɣ + 8Be (i) + 628 keV ɣ, →α
d + 7Li → n + 2·4He + 15122 keV n, α, →β-
d + 7Li → n + 8Be + 15030 keV   n, →α, →β-
d + 6Li → n + 7Be + 3382 keVn, →β-, →ε
d + 6Li → n + 3He + 4He + 1795 keV  n, α, →β-


Since many of these reactions are not happening, if Rossi's speculation is
correct, this suggests several things:

   - either the proton is masked as a neutral particle (e.g., an "Exotic
   Neutral Particle" or hydrino, or electron screening from the lattice,
   etc.), or there is some external force holding the proton close to the
   lithium nucleus
   - there is something suppressing the gamma-producing branches
   - there is something suppressing the neutron-producing branches
   - there is something favoring branches with stable daughters

If Rossi's speculation is right, the challenge of a theory would be to
explain these bullet points.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: LENR theory

[Bob Cook]

The laser is made up of a specific frequency of oscillating electric and 
magnetic fields of considerable intensity (oscillating amplitudes).  It is 
either the electric field or magnetic field of the laser at an appropriate 
frequency in resonance with the resonance frequency of the electronic bonds of 
the FCC crystal lattice or the orbital magnetic moments of the electrons 
bonding the lattice that are excited to energies above their ground state that 
cause deflection of the lattice.   These resonant electric and magnetic fields 
cause the lattice to vibrate in resonant phonic energy states and not random 
vibrations associated with a temperature and its spectrum of different lattice 
frequencies.  The deflections of the lattice parameters can be substantially 
greater than would occur at any given temperature.  These greater vibrations 
provide for more motion of the lattice nuclei and potential for close approach 
and a LENR reaction.  When H or D are found inside a FCC crystal lattice 
position, the localized energy of the vibrating lattice can be enough to force 
the H or D together and or to force them close to a lattice nucleus.  The same 
effects may occur in a tight defect in the lattice or a vacancy in the normal 
lattice structure.  Alloying elements in a lattice may also change the modes of 
vibration and cause D and or H to be forced together more than in a normal 
lattice vacancy or inside a normal FCC lattice cube.  

As suggested above the addition of energy to the lattice is much different than 
occurs during resistance heating where electrons are drawn down a voltage 
gradient and collide at random with nuclei of the lattice and/or non-conducting 
electrons of the lattice.  This random collision is what causes the lattice to 
vibrate at various frequencies and results in some temperature resulting from 
the electrical resistance of the lattice and its relative random response to 
the electrons’ kinetic energies.  

Adding energy by resistance heating causes only a relatively few lattice bonds 
to vibrate at any given frequency, whereas a laser beam would cause many more 
lattice bonds to vibrate at the desired frequency.  The desired frequency is of 
course the natural resonant frequency of the lattice—much like a spring has a 
resonant frequency.   The motion of the lattice particles is the greatest at 
the resonant frequency and can increase substantially with substantial resonant 
energy input that may be provided by an intense laser beam, even during a very 
short duration in time.  Hence large lattice displacements and LENR may occur 
with very little total energy input.  

If LENR does occur in a lattice, it will heat the lattice and produce random 
vibrations in the normal spectrum of vibrations.  The laser can stimulate the 
lattice positions that happen to be vibrating at the laser frequency to gain in 
their amplitudes and hence influence  local H or D molecules or Cooper pairs or 
whatever is in the FCC lattice position of defect or void to react.   Such 
laser increases the population of lattice vibrations at the right frequency and 
amplitude necessary for LENR compared to such vibrations induced by temperature 
alone.  

These are only rough classical ideas of what may occur.  

Bob Cook





From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 12:31 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

Regarding: 

"A departure from equilibrium must be established that will permit an external 
energy source (eg. the DC power supply in an electrolysis experiment and/or a 
pair of low power lasers as in the Letts/Hagelstein two laser experiment) to 
feed energy into the H-H or D-D stretching mode vibrations. The difference in 
chemical potential that is established in gas loading experiments can also 
serve very nicely; in this case the flux feeds energy into the stretching mode 
vibrations."


Light is usually reflected from the surface of a metal. In order for there to 
be energy transferred from light to the lattice, an energy conversion process 
must apply. What exactly gets the lattice to vibrate? 


When electrons are applied to the lattice surface in the case of  DC current, 
how do the electrons produce lattice vibrations? If the stimulus is heat caused 
by electrical resistance, what localizes the heat? How did they determine that 
localized vibrations were occurring? Did they just assume that 
superoscillations were happening?


In the case of laser light stimulation, why is a very specific frequency of 
light required? Any type of light will produce heat. 

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:04 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

  I think this paper may well be the most important one since Pons and 
Fleischmann's original announcement.
  Pity that Vortex didn't want to display it as it sent it here before sending 
it to ECatWorld.
  It would be much easier to discuss with the full paper visible.

[Vo]:Re: Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[Bob Cook]

Adrian--

I had the same question about the text reported on E-Cat World web page 
concerning DeChiaro's notes and the details of LENR in PD.


Where did the notes come from?  Is this private communication?  The source 
is not specifically identified in the E-Cat World item except as being 
provided by Adrian Ashfield via some communication with Frank Acland, an 
editor at E-Cat World.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 4:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on 
Replicating P+F


Patrick,
Please note this is the topic of the thread two below yours

Re: [Vo]:Re: Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[Blaze Spinnaker]

"
AdrianAshfield   Bob Greenyer

 • 39 minutes ago


Bob, They came from a private discussion with someone who had received the
text, but wished to remain anonymous for work related reasons. He had
received authorization to make them public."


I'm trying to send email to Louis.   You can get him via inmail on
linkedin.  I'll sign up for a trial account, I guess.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Adrian--
>
> I had the same question about the text reported on E-Cat World web page
> concerning DeChiaro's notes and the details of LENR in PD.
>
> Where did the notes come from?  Is this private communication?  The source
> is not specifically identified in the E-Cat World item except as being
> provided by Adrian Ashfield via some communication with Frank Acland, an
> editor at E-Cat World.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> -Original Message- From: a.ashfield
> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 4:47 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
> on Replicating P+F
>
> Patrick,
> Please note this is the topic of the thread two below yours
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR theory

[David Roberson]

You are suggesting an interesting concept Bob.  Do you suppose that there is 
phononic coupling between the individual reacting sites resulting in some form 
of chain reaction?   If that is true then a threshold density of deuterium 
would be required in order to spread a local burn.  Otherwise you might expect 
a somewhat linear reaction rate with deuterium density.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 7:58 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: LENR theory




The laser is made up of a specific frequency of oscillating electric and 
magnetic fields of considerable intensity (oscillating amplitudes).  It is 
either the electric field or magnetic field of the laser at an appropriate 
frequency in resonance with the resonance frequency of the electronic bonds of 
the FCC crystal lattice or the orbital magnetic moments of the electrons 
bonding the lattice that are excited to energies above their ground state that 
cause deflection of the lattice.   These resonant electric and magnetic fields 
cause the lattice to vibrate in resonant phonic energy states and not random 
vibrations associated with a temperature and its spectrum of different lattice 
frequencies.  The deflections of the lattice parameters can be substantially 
greater than would occur at any given temperature.  These greater vibrations 
provide for more motion of the lattice nuclei and potential for close approach 
and a LENR reaction.  When H or D are found inside a FCC crystal lattice 
position, the localized energy of the vibrating lattice can be enough to force 
the H or D together and or to force them close to a lattice nucleus.  The same 
effects may occur in a tight defect in the lattice or a vacancy in the normal 
lattice structure.  Alloying elements in a lattice may also change the modes of 
vibration and cause D and or H to be forced together more than in a normal 
lattice vacancy or inside a normal FCC lattice cube.  
 
As suggested above the addition of energy to the lattice is much different than 
occurs during resistance heating where electrons are drawn down a voltage 
gradient and collide at random with nuclei of the lattice and/or non-conducting 
electrons of the lattice.  This random collision is what causes the lattice to 
vibrate at various frequencies and results in some temperature resulting from 
the electrical resistance of the lattice and its relative random response to 
the electrons’ kinetic energies.  
 
Adding energy by resistance heating causes only a relatively few lattice bonds 
to vibrate at any given frequency, whereas a laser beam would cause many more 
lattice bonds to vibrate at the desired frequency.  The desired frequency is of 
course the natural resonant frequency of the lattice—much like a spring has a 
resonant frequency.   The motion of the lattice particles is the greatest at 
the resonant frequency and can increase substantially with substantial resonant 
energy input that may be provided by an intense laser beam, even during a very 
short duration in time.  Hence large lattice displacements and LENR may occur 
with very little total energy input.  
 
If LENR does occur in a lattice, it will heat the lattice and produce random 
vibrations in the normal spectrum of vibrations.  The laser can stimulate the 
lattice positions that happen to be vibrating at the laser frequency to gain in 
their amplitudes and hence influence  local H or D molecules or Cooper pairs or 
whatever is in the FCC lattice position of defect or void to react.   Such 
laser increases the population of lattice vibrations at the right frequency and 
amplitude necessary for LENR compared to such vibrations induced by temperature 
alone.  
 
These are only rough classical ideas of what may occur.  
 
Bob Cook
 
 
 
 

 

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 12:31 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

 
Regarding: 
 
"A departure from equilibrium must be established that will permit an external 
energy source (eg. the DC power supply in an electrolysis experiment and/or a 
pair of low power lasers as in the Letts/Hagelstein two laser experiment) to 
feed energy into the H-H or D-D stretching mode vibrations. The difference in 
chemical potential that is established in gas loading experiments can also 
serve very nicely; in this case the flux feeds energy into the stretching mode 
vibrations."


Light is usually reflected from the surface of a metal. In order for there to 
be energy transferred from light to the lattice, an energy conversion process 
must apply. What exactly gets the lattice to vibrate? 


When electrons are applied to the lattice surface in the case of  DC current, 
how do the electrons produce lattice vibrations? If the stimulus is heat caused 
by electrical resistance, what localizes the heat? How did they determine that 
localized vibrations were occurring? Did they just assume that 
superoscillations 

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

Of interest - wrt the “9 muon model” of the proton is an old paper by Harold 
Aspen where he came up with the same conclusion.
http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/books/Asp/1988c.pdf
Aspden missed the important detail about binding energy showing up as mass 
deficit, but still it is more than coincidental to Stubb’s model. 
One more point for John Berry about antimatter and matter coexisting in the 
nucleus without annihilating. It turns out that the standard model of physics 
has the quark and antiquark coexisting without annihilation, so there is an 
exact precedent for this, already in place and no good reason the muon and 
antimuon cannot do the same.
I haven’t had the time to review exactly how Don Hotson imagined the proton to 
be constructed, but epo pairs are likely to be involved – so here too we have a 
similar situation of bound matter and antimatter showing up as building blocks. 
Stubbs mentions something like this in one of his papers but rejects electrons 
in favor of muons, yet the muon itself could be imagined to be 103 epos plus an 
electron .
Instead of “turtles all the way down”… it’s looking more and more like “leptons 
all the way down”
For the turtle challenged:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Vo]:Of Magic and Mainstream physics...

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Fellow Vorts:

 

I've been harping on the importance of resonance in producing anomalous
behaviors in atomic physics which contradict established theory.

Turns out that there may be another specific condition which may also have
to be considered. when 'midway' between two values which exactly cancel.  

   "the magic wavelength happens to be in between two excited states of the
atom, so they 'magically' cancel each other out"

 

Reference below.

 

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-laser-wielding-physicists-seize-atoms-behavior.
html

 

In Chin's lab,   cesium atoms replace
the billiard balls, and ordinarily they repel each other when they collide.
But by turning up the laser while operating at a "magic" wavelength, Clark
showed that the repulsion between atoms can be converted into attraction.

 

"The atoms exhibit fascinating behavior in this system," he said. By
exposing different parts of the sample to different laser intensities, "We
can choose to make the atoms attract or repel each other, or pass right
through each other without colliding."

 

Alternatively, by oscillating their interactions, analogous to making the
billiard balls rapidly grow and shrink while they roll, the atoms stick to
each other in pairs.

 

The researchers explained two fundamental ways that lasers influence the
atomic motion. One is to create potentials, like a bump or valley on the
billiard table, proportional to laser intensity. The new way is to alter how
billiard balls collide.  "We want our laser to control collisions, but we
don't want it to create any hills or valleys," Clark said. When the laser is
tuned to a "magic wavelength," the beam creates no hills or valleys, but
only affects collisions.  "This is because the magic wavelength happens to
be in between two excited states of the atom, so they 'magically' cancel
each other out," he said.

 

I leave it to the Vort Collective to determine if this concept might be
operating in LENR.

 

-mark iverson

 

[Vo]:Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[Patrick Ellul]

If this news is legitimate, it is of significance.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/

"Hopefully, we will be able to get all the details of this material
released for publication to the general public over the next few weeks"

Best Regards.
-- 
Patrick

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Where is this from?  Link?

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, a.ashfield  wrote:

> I sent this  information directly to Vortex but it never appeared.
> Now you can see it here.
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

pandora, indeed.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> "... a number of more interesting effects." What could be MORE interesting
>> than excess heat/low energy nuclear reactions???
>
>
> Some questions are better left unasked.  One of the sisters could be
> Pandora.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[a.ashfield]

Patrick,
Please note this is the topic of the thread two below yours

Re: [Vo]:Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[Patrick Ellul]

For the record, DeChiaro's recent presentation slides can be found at:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Ellul 
wrote:

> If this news is legitimate, it is of significance.
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/
>
> "Hopefully, we will be able to get all the details of this material
> released for publication to the general public over the next few weeks"
>
> Best Regards.
> --
> Patrick
>
>


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[Patrick Ellul]

I am sorry for the duplication.

In my weak defence, i did a search for "dechiaro" before my post and
nothing came up.

regards.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Patrick,
> Please note this is the topic of the thread two below yours
>
>


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

[Vo]:Daily LENR Info for Sep 6, 2015

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/sep-6-2015-lenr-info.html
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting

[Bob Higgins]

If I were Rossi or IH, I would worry more about the validity of his patent
due to prior art.  There is so much ART that is described over the years in
online forums, particularly in Vortex-L, that a search used by any would be
patent busting organization would likely turn up amazing prior art public
disclosure for many of the things in his claims.  If I were hired to bust a
patent, that's where I would begin.

I don't think any controlling patent will survive for the basic LENR
mechanisms due to prior art public disclosures (not necessarily by the
inventors).  The valuable patents will be for the machines that utilize
LENR in the future.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> What you say is interesting and possibly explains something of the
> economic considerations relating to nickel that go into the E-Cat.  What
> caught my interest in the lack of detail about nickel in the patent
> application cited below went back to the earlier thread on the reliability
> of the Lugano isotope assays.  If they were intentionally compromised, and
> were nonetheless used as evidence in the patent application, this would
> have endangered the patent, once granted, if there was a patent suit.
>
> In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial
> evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run
> for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be
> compromised).  Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless.
>

Re: [Vo]:Translation of Parkhomov slides at recent Soshi meeting

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

> In other words, the lack of mention is a small piece of circumstantial 
> evidence in support of your hunch that 62Ni was added before the blank run 
> for no obvious operational reason (e.g., so that the ash analysis would be 
> compromised).  Not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting nonetheless.

I gather your hunch is that the subsequent natural nickel offered as the "fuel" 
is what would not have had an operational basis.  But the general idea still 
holds.

Eric

[Vo]:LENR theory

[a.ashfield]

I sent this  information directly to Vortex but it never appeared.
Now you can see it here. 
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/

RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Jones, I would like to hear your arguments of evidence that the muons 
CAME from the proton.

Bob,

The CERN report is certainly aware of the implications of pair formation. Good 
evidence comes from that - and the next best comes as implications from 
Holmlid’s papers.

I am assuming, based on prior reports from the LHC that they understand by 
position (relative to the impact zone) whether a particle derives from pair 
formation or not – since there is a time delay for pairs. CERN apparently 
considers these muons to be derived from the collision as primary debris, based 
on their report.

I picked up on that story in support of Stubb’s papers, but I do not 
necessarily agree that he is correct. I only stumbled on his site a couple of 
days ago, and am trying to gauge the informed objections to it (such as your 
own). However, if Holmlid is correct, then Stubbs muon theory goes a long way 
to explain those amazing results. They are extremely important results - for 
LENR, perhaps the most important for theoretical understanding in the 25+ year 
history of the field.

Holmlid is getting a lot of attention in the science press, most of it 
negative. I have a feeling that one or more groups (especially someone at SLAC) 
will endeavor to replicate his experiment. If they should find the anything 
similar, then the focus of the field will probably shift (pun intended). That 
is, the focus will shift to laser input (or at least semi-coherent light).

I know you are familiar with the Letts/Cravens effect. I think those gentlemen 
opened the door for this and I hope they go back and take full advantage of 
that earlier effort. 

Jones