RE: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Roarty, Francis X]

Jones, I've never thought that the underlying force would be otherwise.  Still 
suspect everyone underrates the energy potential of vacuum engineering. The 
window you mention of 2 to 12 nm may be where the most energy exchange occurs 
but I am convinced that fractional hydrogen can continue to shrink far below 
this scale via relativistic inertial frames where it continues to disassociate 
and re-associate normally from it's perspective but as a quantum function of 
ever decreasing surrounding geometry..a sort of nested Casimir effect where 
groups of already fractional atoms align to induce the Casimir effect on even 
more fractional hydrogen.. if I am correct about Casimir effect being 
relativistic then the effect is unaware of the nesting.. it is just the Casimir 
effect again from the perspective of a different inertial frame formed by the 
initial Casimir effect. Mills self catalyzing hydrogen?
Fran
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 8:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid


As most vorticians appreciate (since this value simplifies many calculations) 
the mass-energy of a photon at a unit wavelength = 1nm =1240 eV. The Casimir 
force anomaly operates at a geometry between 2 and 12 nm. There is a severe 
drop-off in the effect at either end of that range, so we can be fairly sure of 
the origins of anomalous energy signatures which fall within it.

This indicates that the most intense photon which can be derived from the 
Casimir force (which would operate as a boost in energy on a trapped photon) in 
a Casimir cavity of the optimum size for DCE (Dynamical Casimir Effect) is 
about 620 eV - a soft x-ray.

As fate would have it, Holmlid believes and has published that the densest form 
of dense hydrogen which fits within his experiments, appears to be bound at 630 
eV, which is well within the margin of error for the maximum from DCE 
(Dynamical Casimir Effect) at 620. This could indicate a surprising avenue for 
finding the source of the anomaly - which even Holmlid does not now recognize.

And furthermore, this leave open the strong possibility that the thermal gain 
in LENR - in fact 100% of the claimed thermal gain, can be realized from 
chemical energy alone. This conclusion intentionally disregards experiments 
with laser input, or with disintegration of nucleons, or with nuclear fusion 
evidenced by gamma rays. IOW, all of the gain in LENR where no gamma is seen as 
evidence of the reaction, can be solely attributable to a known non-nuclear 
physical phenomenon - which is the dynamical version of the Casimir force.

630 eV and 620 eV... hmmm... Coincidence, or no ??

Dunno for sure... and it is just an observation, for now... but I do suspect: 
it is too close not to consider the implications of a chemical gain nexus, 
which is due to dense hydrogen chemical bonds being manipulate for net gain by 
the Casimir effect.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Craig Haynie]

"Energy is roughly 10Wh"

They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely.

Craig


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> Price is 1200 Euro
> Power generation is 0.4W
> Energy is roughly 10Wh
> Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum casing.
> Even in a Feraday cage the device works.
> It’s not sensitive to geographic orientation.
> They have a granted patent on this.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm watching the replay of the webinar, at
>>  https://www.facebook.com/217496297671/videos/10153326632242672/
>>
>> when I tuned in to the actual broadcast, they said, 2.1amps, two full
>> recharges of a smartphone, then 24 hours to recharge in case the battery
>> ran out.
>>
>> Did I get it right, Craig? I stand corrected if I got it wrong.
>>
>> Oh, and the price? 1200€.
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Jones Beene]

Interesting conjecture and it shouldn't be too hard to falsify. This precise
suggestion with Rydberg matter has not come up before AFAIK, but going back
to the early days of cold fusion, it had been suggested that one reason why
P seemed to have a higher success rate was the elevation of Salt Lake
City. which permitted a much larger flux of cosmic rays. Muons are known to
catalyze deuterium fusion, no Rydberg matter required.

 

However (and I do not have a citation) this premise was apparently tested
many years ago, and found not to be accurate. Apparently Pd-D cold fusion
does not benefit from higher muon flux. That could mean many things -
including the lack of deuteron fusion as the relevant explanation for excess
heat.

 

From: Stephen Cooke 

 

I meant "encounter a 1 GeV muon" but neutrino encounters (with possibly even
higher Energy) might also be potentially interesting if they can occur.


> Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays or
may be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?
> 
> Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1
GeV muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter is
very low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there is a
higher cross section with Rydberg matter. 
> 
> What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter
> 
> 1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies if
that if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should
encounter a neutrino about daily on average. 
> 
> The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually reacting
with the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave functions would
also be important at these energies.
> 
> I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know. 

Re: [Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Stephen Cooke]

1 GeV could be enough to generate Phi Mesons and Kaons through nucleon 
resonance, although I suppose other factors such as resonance Windows and 
conservation of states would need to be taken into account. I wonder if they 
can provide an initial trigger to initiate LENR in the correctly resonating 
medium. If nucleon disintegration is triggered perhaps enough energy is 
generated and particles to sustain the process.

I suppose I cosmic radiation  is a trigger the South Atlantic Anomally will 
suddenly become prime real estate! 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 13:55, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> Interesting conjecture and it shouldn’t be too hard to falsify. This precise 
> suggestion with Rydberg matter has not come up before AFAIK, but going back 
> to the early days of cold fusion, it had been suggested that one reason why 
> P seemed to have a higher success rate was the elevation of Salt Lake City… 
> which permitted a much larger flux of cosmic rays. Muons are known to 
> catalyze deuterium fusion, no Rydberg matter required.
>  
> However (and I do not have a citation) this premise was apparently tested 
> many years ago, and found not to be accurate. Apparently Pd-D cold fusion 
> does not benefit from higher muon flux. That could mean many things – 
> including the lack of deuteron fusion as the relevant explanation for excess 
> heat.
>  
> From: Stephen Cooke
>  
> I meant "encounter a 1 GeV muon" but neutrino encounters (with possibly even 
> higher Energy) might also be potentially interesting if they can occur.
> 
> > Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays or 
> > may be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?
> > 
> > Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1 
> > GeV muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter 
> > is very low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there 
> > is a higher cross section with Rydberg matter. 
> > 
> > What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter
> > 
> > 1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies if 
> > that if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should 
> > encounter a neutrino about daily on average. 
> > 
> > The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually reacting 
> > with the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave functions would 
> > also be important at these energies.
> > 
> > I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Bob Higgins]

That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
charger would weigh less and last longer.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> "Energy is roughly 10Wh"
>
> They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset 
> wrote:
>
>> Price is 1200 Euro
>> Power generation is 0.4W
>> Energy is roughly 10Wh
>> Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum casing.
>> Even in a Feraday cage the device works.
>> It’s not sensitive to geographic orientation.
>> They have a granted patent on this.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Esa Ruoho  wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I'm watching the replay of the webinar, at
>>>  https://www.facebook.com/217496297671/videos/10153326632242672/
>>>
>>> when I tuned in to the actual broadcast, they said, 2.1amps, two full
>>> recharges of a smartphone, then 24 hours to recharge in case the battery
>>> ran out.
>>>
>>> Did I get it right, Craig? I stand corrected if I got it wrong.
>>>
>>> Oh, and the price? 1200€.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Jones Beene]

It could be coincidental that the ADGEX product is shipping at the same time or 
a little ahead of Steorn. The performance claims are very similar. 

Fortunately, I’m only out $99 if it doesn’t work. I got notice to expect the 
product next week.

If both ADGEX and Steorn are not the promoting the same or very similar 
technology – which is a form of self-charging capacitance - it would be 
mind-boggling. Perhaps the Steorn device also has a lithium battery to account 
for its higher cost.

Now ADGEX has a home lighting system which they claim is grid independent.
http://trade.adgex.com.au/

Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a fair 
probability of having some kind of breakthrough, whereas Steorn has already 
proved to be little more than scam artists on two separate occasions. What are 
Blaze’s odds on this one?

From: Bob Higgins 

That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1 year.  
And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still produce 10WH 
/ day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery will probably only 
last about 2 years.  

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Jones Beene]

It could be coincidental that the ADGEX product is shipping at the same time or 
a little ahead of Steorn. The performance claims are very similar. 

 

Fortunately, I’m only out $99 if it doesn’t work. I got notice to expect the 
product next week.

 

If both ADGEX and Steorn are not the same or very similar technology – which is 
a form of self-charging capacitance - it would be mind-boggling. Perhaps the 
Steorn device also has a lithium battery to account for its higher cost.

 

Now ADGEX has a home lighting system which they claim is grid independent.

http://trade.adgex.com.au/

 

Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a fair 
probability of having some kind of breakthrough, whereas Steorn has already 
proved to be little more than scam artists on two separate occasions. What are 
Blaze’s odds on this one?

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1 year.  
And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still produce 10WH 
/ day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery will probably only 
last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of electricity, or about 
$3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be worth the price as an 
experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved, but for nothing else.  If 
it really does involve new physics, the cost would have to decline by a factor 
of >100 before it would have an impact on society.  Keep in mind that you could 
provide the same daily energy from a couple of solar cells and a voltage 
boosting inverter for less than $10 in parts if you are looking or an emergency 
phone charger.  And the solar charger would weigh less and last longer.

 

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Craig Haynie  wrote:

"Energy is roughly 10Wh"

They're saying it will self-recharge indefinitely.

Craig

 

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Teslaalset  wrote:

Price is 1200 Euro

Power generation is 0.4W

Energy is roughly 10Wh

Weight is 300 grams, most of it is due to the aluminum casing. 

Even in a Feraday cage the device works. 

It’s not sensitive to geographic orientation. 

They have a granted patent on this. 

 

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Esa Ruoho  wrote:

Well, I'm watching the replay of the webinar, at

 https://www.facebook.com/217496297671/videos/10153326632242672/

 

when I tuned in to the actual broadcast, they said, 2.1amps, two full recharges 
of a smartphone, then 24 hours to recharge in case the battery ran out.

 

Did I get it right, Craig? I stand corrected if I got it wrong.

 

Oh, and the price? 1200€.

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[esa ruoho]

I'm confused.

Steorn have specifically mentioned Liquid Solutions, an E-Cig producing company 
that does E-Juices for electronic cigarettes - they are Steorn's first 
licensees, and they are coming out with a self-charging E-Cigarette device. - 
here's their press-release: 
http://www.wickedejuice.com/content/41-liquid-solutions-prepares-to-bring-the-orbo-never-die-battery-to-market

They've also sent the E-Cube devices to Brick Bear Clothing, and to Rabbit Hole 
Promotions - both are companies that specialize in either guerrilla marketing 
or better / more widespread social media activities to promote their products 
and skills.

And next week we'll hear about future R and additional licensees.

Wasn't it mentioned by Craig that they have a patent on their device.


(Liquid Solutions press-release here:)
27 October 2015

Embargoed until 7pm GMT, 28 October 2015

 

Liquid Solutions Prepares to bring the Orbo 'never die' battery to market

Register for webinar http://app.webinarjam.net/register/19428/91401be0a7



Liquid Solutions, the only Irish producer of certified e juice for e 
cigarettes, today announces it has licensed the revolutionary Orbo battery 
technology from Steorn to deliver an e cigarette that never needs charging.



Waterford based Liquid Solutions, the makers of Wicked e-juice, has been 
working with Steorn for the past three years to bring the never-die Orbo 
battery to market. This revolutionary move will allow consumers of e cigarettes 
never to charge the batteries in their e cigarettes again. In three short 
years, Liquid Solutions has created a battery small enough to fit into an e 
cigarette and still retain the self charging properties of Orbo.



Killian McGrath, founder of Liquid Solutions, recognized the impact of Orbo 
when first presented with the technology. The never die battery is the holy 
grail of all mobile device manufacturers. Increasingly people travel with 
energy banks, in-car chargers and charging points in public places.  To replace 
the humble battery with an ever-charged Orbo battery is to revolutionize the 
mobile populace.  Now the vaping community need never worry about charging 
their Wicked e cigarettes. We have a market winner.’

Dublin based Steorn headed up by Shaun McCarthy has enjoyed a roller coaster 
ride since its inception fifteen years ago. Their discovery of a constant 
energy source has attracted worldwide interest and criticism. Tonight (28 
October 2015, 7pm GMT) the company is beginning a series of webinars 
introducing their Orbo never die battery. As part of that process, the 
partnership with Liquid Solutions will be broadcast.




In terms of timing, Liquid Solutions intends having its first Orbo vaping 
products available to the Irish marketplace within the next six months. The 
never die batteries will be available to purchase from www.Wickedejuice.com

.

Ends



For more information, please visit www.Wickedejuice.com

Or contact me...@wickedejuice.com
-
---

---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 | http://fi.linkedin.com/in/esaruoho 
 |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com  | 
http://lackluster.org  | http://esaruoho.tumblr.com 
 |
| http://twitter.com/esaruoho  | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial  
|

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 17:47, Bob Higgins  wrote:
> 
> It is absurd then for Steorn to have invested in the marketing and 
> engineering to bring it out as a marketized/productized "cube" format with 
> its own brand as they have done.  These are tactics to sell a consumer 
> product.  If they want licencees, then they must have a patent portfolio 
> locking up the technology, publish journal papers on the technology, and then 
> sell demonstration systems that allow the potential investors to SEE how the 
> technology works - not have to tear it open to SEE it in action.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Teslaalset  > wrote:
> Bob, this is not targeted at end-consumers, but potential licensees, to allow 
> evaluation of their granted patent and potential trade secrets included in 
> the license deal. These prototypes also will allow those who want to 
> understand the physics, e.g. universities. What they currently show is far 
> from matured applications and integration. The first home VCR also weighted 
> 15Kg. I'd like my mobile phone having this technology embedded. 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:
> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1 
> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still 
> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery will 
> probably only last about 2 years.  

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[esa ruoho]

I'm pretty ready to wager that Steorn and ADGEX are using completely different 
technologies.
Btw, Jones, did you really get a notification that the ADGEX ELFE product is 
being shipped next week? I'd better get my orders in, then. 
---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 | http://fi.linkedin.com/in/esaruoho 
 |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com  | 
http://lackluster.org  | http://esaruoho.tumblr.com 
 |
| http://twitter.com/esaruoho  | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial  
|

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 17:14, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> It could be coincidental that the ADGEX product is shipping at the same time 
> or a little ahead of Steorn. The performance claims are very similar.
> 
> Fortunately, I’m only out $99 if it doesn’t work. I got notice to expect the 
> product next week.
> If both ADGEX and Steorn are not the promoting the same or very similar 
> technology – which is a form of self-charging capacitance - it would be 
> mind-boggling. Perhaps the Steorn device also has a lithium battery to 
> account for its higher cost.
> Now ADGEX has a home lighting system which they claim is grid independent.
> http://trade.adgex.com.au/ 
> Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a fair 
> probability of having some kind of breakthrough, whereas Steorn has already 
> proved to be little more than scam artists on two separate occasions. What 
> are Blaze’s odds on this one?
> From: Bob Higgins
> 
> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1 
> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still 
> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery will 
> probably only last about 2 years. 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: The fifth force.

[Axil Axil]

Mills interpretation of his experiments are wrong. The SPP production in
space organizes the random magnetic properties of the vacuum throughout
space into a bose condensate. The vacuum is gravitationally neutral. This
excess magnetism produced by LENR throughout the whole of space has
organized the vacuum and is the force that is defeating gravity by
stiffening the curvature of spacetime trough the generation of a
huge amount of magnetism.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Mills is producing nanoclusters of noble gases.
>
> Noble gases are ejected at high pressure from a supersonic nozzle into a
> partial vacuum.  The noble gas mixture cools when it is ejected into a
> partial vacuum via a small hole (a nozzle), producing a supersonic
> molecular beam. The process leads to a reduction in the random motion of
> the noble gas molecules and solid clusters of noble gas form.
>
> Mills is producing noble gas nanoparticles. In the Mills fifth force
> experiment, the noble gas nanoparticles produce SPPs. The SPPs produce a
> magnetic monopole beam that collectively point at the electron beam passing
> perpendicular to it. The magnetism produces the change in the line of
> flight direction of the electron beam.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://news.sciencemag.org/2001/06/magnetism-stiffens-space-time
>>
>>
>> Remember this:
>>
>>
>> Albert Einstein's rubber sheets--his metaphor for thinking of space and
>> time as a stretchy membrane--may be due for a dose of starch. By
>> reanalyzing the basic equations of general relativity, a researcher has
>> discovered that magnetic fields tend to flatten and stiffen the fabric of
>> space-time. The finding might force cosmologists and astronomers to
>> reexamine how magnetic fields have shaped the evolution of the cosmos.
>>
>> According to Einstein, a hunk of matter such as a star bends space-time
>> just as a bowling ball weighs down a rubber sheet. The result, described in
>> relativistic terms, is gravity. That much has been known for the better
>> part of a century. But physicist Christos Tsagas of Portsmouth University
>> in the United Kingdom looked at the equation in an unusual way, switching
>> the roles of space and time--a swap that makes no mathematical difference
>> but changes the form of the equation.
>>
>> Tsagas spotted something no one had seen before: A term in the equation
>> showed that magnetic fields transfer their properties to the very fabric of
>> space-time itself. Like rubber bands under tension, magnetic field lines
>> try to remain as straight as possible. The fields transmit that tension to
>> space-time, Tsagas writes in the 11 June issue of *Physical Review
>> Letters*, making nearby space like a rubber sheet that has been
>> stretched a little bit tighter. According to Tsagas, such a region becomes
>> stiffer and flattens out somewhat.
>>
>> "The normal assumption is to neglect magnetic fields in the early
>> universe, mostly for simplicity," says Bernard Carr, a physicist at Queen
>> Mary's College in London. But if the finding pans out, cosmologists will
>> have to rethink the role of magnetic fields in shaping the cosmos. And
>> black hole theorists--who deal with sharply curved space near strong
>> magnetic fields--might need to revise some pet notions as well.
>> Astrophysicists in general, it's safe to say, could lose a little sleep
>> over stiff sheets.
>>
>>
>> Magnetism is antigravity.
>>
>> SPPs throughout space produce huge amounts of anapole magnetism. The SPP
>> soliton in LENR could be the source of the accelerating universe.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> R. Mills has come up with a theory that purports to explain the
>>> expansion of the univere based on what he calls the hyperbolic electron.
>>> This electron is mated with a photon. This special type of electron sounds
>>> like a polariton to me.
>>>
>>> He has run experiments to show that these electrons(polaritons is the
>>> correct name) produce a fifth force or negative gravity witch cause an
>>> accelerating universe..
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/F%5E2%20paper102307.pdf
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 Discovering possible new forces in nature is no mean task. The
 discovery of gravity linked to Newton's arguably apocryphal apple
 experiment has remained anchored in popular culture. In January 1986,
 Ephraim Fischbach, Physics Professor from Purdue University in West
 Lafayette, Indiana, had his own chance to leave his mark on collective
 memory. His work made the front page of the New York Times after he and his
 co-authors published a study uncovering the tantalising possibility of the
 existence of a fifth force in the universe. In an article published in *EPJ
 H*, Fischbach 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Teslaalset]

Bob, this is not targeted at end-consumers, but potential licensees, to
allow evaluation of their granted patent and potential trade secrets
included in the license deal. These prototypes also will allow those who
want to understand the physics, e.g. universities. What they currently show
is far from matured applications and integration. The first home VCR also
weighted 15Kg. I'd like my mobile phone having this technology embedded.




On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
> will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
> electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
> worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
> but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
> would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
> society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
> couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
> parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
> charger would weigh less and last longer.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Craig Haynie]

"Perhaps the Steorn device also has a lithium battery to account for its
higher cost."

Yes, they said it has a lithium battery in their presentation. Supposedly,
the battery recharges continuously.

Craig


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> Bob, this is not targeted at end-consumers, but potential licensees, to
> allow evaluation of their granted patent and potential trade secrets
> included in the license deal. These prototypes also will allow those who
> want to understand the physics, e.g. universities. What they currently show
> is far from matured applications and integration. The first home VCR also
> weighted 15Kg. I'd like my mobile phone having this technology embedded.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
>> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
>> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
>> will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
>> electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
>> worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
>> but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
>> would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
>> society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
>> couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
>> parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
>> charger would weigh less and last longer.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Bob Higgins]

It is absurd then for Steorn to have invested in the marketing and
engineering to bring it out as a marketized/productized "cube" format with
its own brand as they have done.  These are tactics to sell a consumer
product.  If they want licencees, then they must have a patent portfolio
locking up the technology, publish journal papers on the technology, and
then sell demonstration systems that allow the potential investors to SEE
how the technology works - not have to tear it open to SEE it in action.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Teslaalset 
wrote:

> Bob, this is not targeted at end-consumers, but potential licensees, to
> allow evaluation of their granted patent and potential trade secrets
> included in the license deal. These prototypes also will allow those who
> want to understand the physics, e.g. universities. What they currently show
> is far from matured applications and integration. The first home VCR also
> weighted 15Kg. I'd like my mobile phone having this technology embedded.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> That may be true, but they are only guaranteeing that it will work for 1
>> year.  And, it is not clear that they are guaranteeing that it will still
>> produce 10WH / day at the end of one year.  The internal lithium battery
>> will probably only last about 2 years.  That is a total of about 3.6kWH of
>> electricity, or about $3.60 worth for $1300 for the device.  It may be
>> worth the price as an experiment demonstrating the novel physics involved,
>> but for nothing else.  If it really does involve new physics, the cost
>> would have to decline by a factor of >100 before it would have an impact on
>> society.  Keep in mind that you could provide the same daily energy from a
>> couple of solar cells and a voltage boosting inverter for less than $10 in
>> parts if you are looking or an emergency phone charger.  And the solar
>> charger would weigh less and last longer.
>>
>

[Vo]:Re: Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Bob Cook]

Jones noted:
>However (and I do not have a citation) this premise was apparently tested many 
>years ago, and found not to be accurate. Apparently Pd-D cold fusion does not 
>benefit from higher muon flux. That could mean many things – including the 
>lack of deuteron fusion as the relevant explanation for excess heat.>



It may also mean that the testing that looked at the Pd-D system and muon flux 
did not include the correct magnetic field and resonant conditions that were 
present in the P-F testing.   Muon flux polarization may be important when 
interacting with two D inside a FCC lattice position in Pd with its B field. 



Bob 

 

From: Stephen Cooke 

 

I meant "encounter a 1 GeV muon" but neutrino encounters (with possibly even 
higher Energy) might also be potentially interesting if they can occur.


> Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays or 
> may be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?
> 
> Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1 GeV 
> muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter is very 
> low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there is a higher 
> cross section with Rydberg matter. 
> 
> What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter
> 
> 1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies if 
> that if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should 
> encounter a neutrino about daily on average. 
> 
> The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually reacting 
> with the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave functions would 
> also be important at these energies.
> 
> I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know. 

[Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Bob Cook]

Casimir, ZPE and HolmlidFran and Jones--

Jones has suggested that the source of the excess energy described  by Holmlid 
is of a chemical origin (electronic potential chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long ago stored in the reactants.   

Is the assumption that the laser pre-conditioning of the materials in the 
Holmlid setup allowed the increase in potential energy of the reactants which 
then is later released as EM radiation and hence heat?

I ask this question not fully understanding the ultimate source of the thermal 
energy coming from the Holmlid experiment.  

Maybe one of you could explain the energy balance,  i.e., where the excess 
energy comes from?

Bob Cook

From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 5:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

Jones, I’ve never thought that the underlying force would be otherwise.  Still 
suspect everyone underrates the energy potential of vacuum engineering. The 
window you mention of 2 to 12 nm may be where the most energy exchange occurs 
but I am convinced that fractional hydrogen can continue to shrink far below 
this scale via relativistic inertial frames where it continues to disassociate 
and re-associate normally from it’s perspective but as a quantum function of 
ever decreasing surrounding geometry..a sort of nested Casimir effect where 
groups of already fractional atoms align to induce the Casimir effect on even 
more fractional hydrogen.. if I am correct about Casimir effect being 
relativistic then the effect is unaware of the nesting.. it is just the Casimir 
effect again from the perspective of a different inertial frame formed by the 
initial Casimir effect. Mills self catalyzing hydrogen?

Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 8:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

 

As most vorticians appreciate (since this value simplifies many calculations) 
the mass-energy of a photon at a unit wavelength = 1nm =1240 eV. The Casimir 
force anomaly operates at a geometry between 2 and 12 nm. There is a severe 
drop-off in the effect at either end of that range, so we can be fairly sure of 
the origins of anomalous energy signatures which fall within it.

This indicates that the most intense photon which can be derived from the 
Casimir force (which would operate as a boost in energy on a trapped photon) in 
a Casimir cavity of the optimum size for DCE (Dynamical Casimir Effect) is 
about 620 eV – a soft x-ray.

As fate would have it, Holmlid believes and has published that the densest form 
of dense hydrogen which fits within his experiments, appears to be bound at 630 
eV, which is well within the margin of error for the maximum from DCE 
(Dynamical Casimir Effect) at 620. This could indicate a surprising avenue for 
finding the source of the anomaly – which even Holmlid does not now recognize.

And furthermore, this leave open the strong possibility that the thermal gain 
in LENR – in fact 100% of the claimed thermal gain, can be realized from 
chemical energy alone. This conclusion intentionally disregards experiments 
with laser input, or with disintegration of nucleons, or with nuclear fusion 
evidenced by gamma rays. IOW, all of the gain in LENR where no gamma is seen as 
evidence of the reaction, can be solely attributable to a known non-nuclear 
physical phenomenon – which is the dynamical version of the Casimir force.

630 eV and 620 eV… hmmm… Coincidence, or no ??

Dunno for sure… and it is just an observation, for now… but I do suspect: it is 
too close not to consider the implications of a chemical gain nexus, which is 
due to dense hydrogen chemical bonds being manipulate for net gain by the 
Casimir effect.

[Vo]:NOT MANY VISIBLE NEWS ON THE LENR FRONTS

[Peter Gluck]

however please see

:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/oct-29-2015-nothing-new-on-lenr-front.html

Yours,
Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Axil Axil]

A lot of energy is required to setup the condensate of SPPs, but once the
SPP condensate is in place, it is highly efficient because it recycles
energy produced by the meson decay chain back into the SPP condensate. The
energy loss comes from EMF production and the generation of electrons. Any
energy from muon catalyzed fusion or pion or magnetic based nuclear
disruption would  find it way into the condensate.

Inputs

The SPP provides  three mechanisms that produce energy: entanglement,
particle production and magnetism.

outputs

The SPP produces heat, XUV and X-ray radiation, magnetism, and electrons as
output.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> 1 GeV could be enough to generate Phi Mesons and Kaons through nucleon
> resonance, although I suppose other factors such as resonance Windows and
> conservation of states would need to be taken into account. I wonder if
> they can provide an initial trigger to initiate LENR in the correctly
> resonating medium. If nucleon disintegration is triggered perhaps enough
> energy is generated and particles to sustain the process.
>
> I suppose I cosmic radiation  is a trigger the South Atlantic Anomally
> will suddenly become prime real estate! 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29 Oct 2015, at 13:55, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Interesting conjecture and it shouldn’t be too hard to falsify. This
> precise suggestion with Rydberg matter has not come up before AFAIK, but
> going back to the early days of cold fusion, it had been suggested that one
> reason why P seemed to have a higher success rate was the elevation of
> Salt Lake City… which permitted a much larger flux of cosmic rays. Muons
> are known to catalyze deuterium fusion, no Rydberg matter required.
>
>
>
> However (and I do not have a citation) this premise was apparently tested
> many years ago, and found not to be accurate. Apparently Pd-D cold fusion
> does not benefit from higher muon flux. That could mean many things –
> including the lack of deuteron fusion as the relevant explanation for
> excess heat.
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Cooke
>
>
>
> I meant "encounter a 1 GeV muon" but neutrino encounters (with possibly
> even higher Energy) might also be potentially interesting if they can occur.
>
>
> > Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays
> or may be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?
> >
> > Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1
> GeV muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter
> is very low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there
> is a higher cross section with Rydberg matter.
> >
> > What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter
> >
> > 1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies
> if that if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should
> encounter a neutrino about daily on average.
> >
> > The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually
> reacting with the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave
> functions would also be important at these energies.
> >
> > I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Stephen Cooke]

I wonder if they used GeV muons in these tests or a lower energy source?

> On 29 okt. 2015, at 19:06, Bob Cook  wrote:
> 
> Jones noted:
> >However (and I do not have a citation) this premise was apparently tested 
> >many years ago, and found not to be accurate. Apparently Pd-D cold fusion 
> >does not benefit from higher muon flux. That could mean many things – 
> >including the lack of deuteron fusion as the relevant explanation for excess 
> >heat.>
>  
> It may also mean that the testing that looked at the Pd-D system and muon 
> flux did not include the correct magnetic field and resonant conditions that 
> were present in the P-F testing.   Muon flux polarization may be important 
> when interacting with two D inside a FCC lattice position in Pd with its B 
> field.
>  
> Bob
>  
> From: Stephen Cooke
>  
> I meant "encounter a 1 GeV muon" but neutrino encounters (with possibly even 
> higher Energy) might also be potentially interesting if they can occur.
> 
> > Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays or 
> > may be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?
> > 
> > Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1 
> > GeV muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter 
> > is very low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there 
> > is a higher cross section with Rydberg matter. 
> > 
> > What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter
> > 
> > 1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies if 
> > that if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should 
> > encounter a neutrino about daily on average. 
> > 
> > The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually reacting 
> > with the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave functions would 
> > also be important at these energies.
> > 
> > I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Stephen Cooke]

So if the SPP is able to accumulate sufficient energy it is able to generate 
neutral mesons or signed meson pairs, for example if more than 1 GeV it may 
generate a Phi meson with conserved states which then quickly decays to the 
kaons and then the other mesons seen by Holmlid? 

Would it generate these mesons directly from the SPP or indirectly by 
stimulating nucleon resonance through the magnetic beam anapole you mentioned 
recently?

Sent from my iPad

> On 29 okt. 2015, at 20:18, Axil Axil  wrote:
> 
> There is a SPP condensate involved. When UV kight is absorbed by the 
> condensate, all the photons are concentrated to a few SPPs who form it into a 
> meson. When there are more photons as provided in a laser shot, more SPPs can 
> form particles from the  "SHARED" energy. The condensate is an energy 
> concentration device using super absorption where incoming photons produce 
> particles via specific SPP members of the condensate. This is how a laser 
> works.
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>> A comment on the THE FLEISCHMANN SINGULARITY as a clue to LERN 
>> reproducibility.
>> 
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-fleischmann-singularity.html#comment-form
>> 
>> Ed Storms can test materials until the cows come home withoul LENR responce 
>> because the key to LENR reproducibility is time.
>> 
>> It took the singuarity months to build up enough potential energy to become 
>> LENR active.
>> 
>> No replicator could get the the various types of LENR applictions to  work 
>> because of the tricky requirement for fuel preparation. We know now that the 
>> fuel used in LENR in all its forms must be prepared in a time intensive 
>> process. This preparation takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. The 
>> solitons that produce the LENR reaction hold a huge amount of energy.
>> 
>> The situation is like a car with a battery the size of a building. It takes 
>> a long time to pump power into that energy storage device before it becomes 
>> active enough to produce high grade power with a high enough “voltage”. This 
>> is what Holmlid tells us. He says that it takes weeks of applying Laser 
>> power before the catalyst he uses becomes active.
>> 
>> Lasers and dipoles don’t talk well together. Lasers produce plain waves at a 
>> single frequency and dipoles don’t take kindly to that type of EMF. An 
>> electron and a photon must have the same energy level to join together to 
>> become a polariton. That marriage needs a common energy level. Only a meager 
>> number of dipoles finely tuned to the exact frequency of the laser will 
>> become entangled. If there is lots of bumps and nanocavities, then the Laser 
>> light will become decoherent.
>> 
>> Decoherent light( from an arc that R. Mills uses in the Suncell) is best so 
>> that dipoles at any stage of development will become polaritons. A scattered 
>> shot cloud from a shotgun is better at downing a clay pigeon than a 22 is.
>> 
>> LENR replicators do not preprocess the fuel that they use and they don’t 
>> wait long enough for the LENR reaction to take hold. No one wants to invest 
>> the time and energy to properly prepare the fuel.
>> 
>> This is a lessen that we can draw from Joe Papp. No one understood the 
>> reason why he invented a fuel preparation process. If the Papp fuel was not 
>> preprocessed, the Papp engine would need to crank for a week before it 
>> kicked over. Papp knew he had to load a lot of energy into that fuel before 
>> it became active.
>> 
>> 
>> The various ways to inject energy into that fuel have differing power 
>> loading potential. Heat is the least effective method. Lasers seem to be 
>> somewhat more powerful but a few weeks to get the Holmlid fuel up to speed 
>> indicates to us that Laser power is marginal. Spark discharge and cavitation 
>> seem to be the most powerful method of power injection.
>> 
>> We can determine how long cavitation takes to charge up the LENR fuel by 
>> seeing how long it takes for gammas to appear after the pump is turned on in 
>> the LeClair reactor.
>> 
>> DGT could start their reaction in a few hours because an electric arc is a 
>> powerful source of incoherent EMF power.
>> 
>> Holmlid’s effect is difficult to duplicate because most replicators don’t 
>> have the patience to wait for weeks to see positive results.
>> 
>> The choice before the replicator is plainly stated; he can use a powerful 
>> source of incoherent energy or he could just wait for weeks while energy 
>> trickles into his power hungry fuel.
>> 
>> That said see the next post...
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Stephen Cooke  
>>> wrote:
>>> It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can generate 
>>> the mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on this idea 
>>> where mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high energy 
>>> interactions with 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid said that a brief exposure of the catalyst to room light produces a
limited number of mesons. So it sounds like all the photons from the room
light are concentrated to only a few SPPs.

SPPs produce particles like Hawking radiation. It is called hadronization.

See page 8 in this article

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0507219v3.pdf

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> So if the SPP is able to accumulate sufficient energy it is able to
> generate neutral mesons or signed meson pairs, for example if more than 1
> GeV it may generate a Phi meson with conserved states which then quickly
> decays to the kaons and then the other mesons seen by Holmlid?
>
> Would it generate these mesons directly from the SPP or indirectly by
> stimulating nucleon resonance through the magnetic beam anapole you
> mentioned recently?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 29 okt. 2015, at 20:18, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> There is a SPP condensate involved. When UV kight is absorbed by the
> condensate, all the photons are concentrated to a few SPPs who form it into
> a meson. When there are more photons as provided in a laser shot, more SPPs
> can form particles from the  "SHARED" energy. The condensate is an energy
> concentration device using super absorption where incoming photons produce
> particles via specific SPP members of the condensate. This is how a laser
> works.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> A comment on the THE FLEISCHMANN SINGULARITY as a clue to LERN
>> reproducibility.
>>
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-fleischmann-singularity.html#comment-form
>>
>> Ed Storms can test materials until the cows come home withoul LENR
>> responce because the key to LENR reproducibility is time.
>>
>> It took the singuarity months to build up enough potential energy to
>> become LENR active.
>>
>> No replicator could get the the various types of LENR applictions to
>>  work because of the tricky requirement for fuel preparation. We know now
>> that the fuel used in LENR in all its forms must be prepared in a time
>> intensive process. This preparation takes a lot of time and a lot of
>> energy. The solitons that produce the LENR reaction hold a huge amount of
>> energy.
>>
>> The situation is like a car with a battery the size of a building. It
>> takes a long time to pump power into that energy storage device before it
>> becomes active enough to produce high grade power with a high enough
>> “voltage”. This is what Holmlid tells us. He says that it takes weeks of
>> applying Laser power before the catalyst he uses becomes active.
>>
>> Lasers and dipoles don’t talk well together. Lasers produce plain waves
>> at a single frequency and dipoles don’t take kindly to that type of EMF. An
>> electron and a photon must have the same energy level to join together to
>> become a polariton. That marriage needs a common energy level. Only a
>> meager number of dipoles finely tuned to the exact frequency of the laser
>> will become entangled. If there is lots of bumps and nanocavities, then the
>> Laser light will become decoherent.
>>
>> Decoherent light( from an arc that R. Mills uses in the Suncell) is best
>> so that dipoles at any stage of development will become polaritons. A
>> scattered shot cloud from a shotgun is better at downing a clay pigeon than
>> a 22 is.
>>
>> LENR replicators do not preprocess the fuel that they use and they don’t
>> wait long enough for the LENR reaction to take hold. No one wants to invest
>> the time and energy to properly prepare the fuel.
>>
>> This is a lessen that we can draw from Joe Papp. No one understood the
>> reason why he invented a fuel preparation process. If the Papp fuel was not
>> preprocessed, the Papp engine would need to crank for a week before it
>> kicked over. Papp knew he had to load a lot of energy into that fuel before
>> it became active.
>>
>>
>> The various ways to inject energy into that fuel have differing power
>> loading potential. Heat is the least effective method. Lasers seem to be
>> somewhat more powerful but a few weeks to get the Holmlid fuel up to speed
>> indicates to us that Laser power is marginal. Spark discharge and
>> cavitation seem to be the most powerful method of power injection.
>>
>> We can determine how long cavitation takes to charge up the LENR fuel by
>> seeing how long it takes for gammas to appear after the pump is turned on
>> in the LeClair reactor.
>>
>> DGT could start their reaction in a few hours because an electric arc is
>> a powerful source of incoherent EMF power.
>>
>> Holmlid’s effect is difficult to duplicate because most replicators don’t
>> have the patience to wait for weeks to see positive results.
>>
>> The choice before the replicator is plainly stated; he can use a powerful
>> source of incoherent energy or he could just wait for weeks while energy
>> trickles into his power hungry fuel.
>>
>> That 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

"one might expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid
setup."

All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons hit the detector at the same
instant.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The vacuum may well be involved. When a meson is produced, a negative
> energy version of the meson must also be produced via a closed time loop.
> But this negative energy version(or anti particle) is sent back in time via
> the vacuum. This particle in the past must be discarded to preserve
> causality. So the vacuum act like a trash can to take care of the bad stuff
> produced by the LENR reaction.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>> Fran and Jones--
>>
>> Thanks for those explanations.
>>
>> However, I would bet that the US Patent Office would not agree with such
>> an invention, if zero point energy were mentioned.  They would classify in
>> the same category as perpetual motion machines.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I understand from Fran’s comment that the positive kinetic
>> energy “motion” of virtual particles in the vacuum are harnessed to provide
>> potential energy to make heavy hydrogen, which in turn decays to a lower
>> energy state via real EM radiation.  If the heavy hydrogen increased its
>> size by increasing the kinetic energy of its electron, it would be an
>> endothermic reaction I think and not what we are talking about.  Is this
>> correct?
>>
>> The endless reversible reaction Fran suggested would not seem to entail
>> the release of EM radiation to heat the real surroundings, if energy is
>> conserved between the vacuum and the real surroundings in a reversible
>> reaction.
>>
>> One other thought/question considering this thread—what dense hydrogen
>> energy levels are involved in the reaction?  The lowest energy state and
>> the highest one? or are there transitions between any of the dense hydrogen
>> states?  If it were transitions between various energy states, one might
>> expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid setup.
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> *From:* Roarty, Francis X 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:08 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid
>>
>>
>> [snip] But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which
>> can be extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum
>> vacuum).[/snip] which is why I tend to call it zero point energy since it
>> is effectively harnessing random motion to move the hydrogen between the
>> DCE regions that allow this endless chemical reversible reaction. Still
>> very similar to the original premise behind Lyne atomic furnace and the
>> MAHG..
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:53 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy
>> described  by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential
>> chemical energy of dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long
>> ago stored in the reactants.
>>
>>
>>
>> First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in
>> 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers.
>> The following is paraphrased from various sources.
>>
>>
>>
>> The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of
>> dense hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is
>> created by DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir
>> cavity or pit. The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can
>> produce strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside
>> from chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a
>> good indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies
>> to gain from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy
>> to miss.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of
>> space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with
>> virtual particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a
>> curiosity, it was quickly realized that vacuum fluctuations had measurable
>> consequences, for instance producing the Lamb shift and modifying the
>> magnetic moment for the electron… and in Casimir force.
>>
>>
>>
>> This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to
>> our understanding of nature….From early on, it was believed that it might
>> be possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the
>> quantum vacuum, or convert them to real particles. 40 years ago, Moore
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Stephen Cooke]

It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can generate the 
mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on this idea where 
mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high energy interactions 
with nucleons and require much higher energies than you are describing here?

> On 29 okt. 2015, at 19:53, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> From: Bob Cook
> Ø 
> Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy described  
> by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential chemical energy of 
> dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long ago stored in the 
> reactants.  
>  
> First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in 
> 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers. The 
> following is paraphrased from various sources.
>  
> The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of dense 
> hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is created by 
> DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir cavity or 
> pit. The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.
>  
> However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can produce 
> strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside from 
> chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a good 
> indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies to 
> gain from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy to 
> miss.
>  
> One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space 
> is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual 
> particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it 
> was quickly realized that vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, 
> for instance producing the Lamb shift and modifying the magnetic moment for 
> the electron… and in Casimir force.
>  
> This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to our 
> understanding of nature….From early on, it was believed that it might be 
> possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the 
> quantum vacuum, or convert them to real particles. 40 years ago, Moore 
> suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual 
> photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named 
> the dynamical Casimir effect (DCE)…. we have observed the DCE experimentally 
> for the first time in 2011…. In addition to observing the creation of real 
> photons, the discoverers found two-mode squeezing of the emitted radiation, 
> which is a signature of the quantum character of the generation process. End 
> of paraphrase.
> Ø 
> Ø  Is the assumption that the laser pre-conditioning of the materials in the 
> Holmlid setup allowed the increase in potential energy of the reactants which 
> then is later released as EM radiation and hence heat?
>  
> Yes. Most likely there would be a multi-stage process where the laser (or 
> another light source) creates SPPs over time, which then interact with 
> hydrogen in a Casimir cavity of 2-12 nm in dimensions. As it turns out, Shell 
> 105 catalyst is extraordinarily nanoporous. Like a zeolite, but 
> ferromagnetic. Curiously, Holmlid fails to realize this porosity connection.
>  
> The net effect is that the electron which once had ionization potential of 
> 13.6 eV in the ground state has been boosted to 630 eV of binding energy by 
> the DCE. This is an energy increase of about 46:1 per atom and it is 
> chemical. But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which 
> can be extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum 
> vacuum).
>  
>  

RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Roarty, Francis X]

[snip] But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which can be 
extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum vacuum).[/snip] 
which is why I tend to call it zero point energy since it is effectively 
harnessing random motion to move the hydrogen between the DCE regions that 
allow this endless chemical reversible reaction. Still very similar to the 
original premise behind Lyne atomic furnace and the MAHG..

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

From: Bob Cook

Ø

Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy described  by 
Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long ago stored in the reactants.

First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in 2010. 
It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers. The 
following is paraphrased from various sources.

The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is created by 
DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir cavity or pit. 
The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.

However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can produce 
strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside from 
chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a good 
indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies to gain 
from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy to miss.

One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is 
not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual 
particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it was 
quickly realized that vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, for 
instance producing the Lamb shift and modifying the magnetic moment for the 
electron… and in Casimir force.

This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to our 
understanding of nature….From early on, it was believed that it might be 
possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the 
quantum vacuum, or convert them to real particles. 40 years ago, Moore 
suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual 
photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named the 
dynamical Casimir effect (DCE)…. we have observed the DCE experimentally for 
the first time in 2011…. In addition to observing the creation of real photons, 
the discoverers found two-mode squeezing of the emitted radiation, which is a 
signature of the quantum character of the generation process. End of paraphrase.

Ø

Ø  Is the assumption that the laser pre-conditioning of the materials in the 
Holmlid setup allowed the increase in potential energy of the reactants which 
then is later released as EM radiation and hence heat?

Yes. Most likely there would be a multi-stage process where the laser (or 
another light source) creates SPPs over time, which then interact with hydrogen 
in a Casimir cavity of 2-12 nm in dimensions. As it turns out, Shell 105 
catalyst is extraordinarily nanoporous. Like a zeolite, but ferromagnetic. 
Curiously, Holmlid fails to realize this porosity connection.

The net effect is that the electron which once had ionization potential of 13.6 
eV in the ground state has been boosted to 630 eV of binding energy by the DCE. 
This is an energy increase of about 46:1 per atom and it is chemical. But in 
effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which can be extracted by 
chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum vacuum).

RE: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Jones Beene]

From: esa ruoho 

 

Could anyone who mentioned, on the Vort list, that they've gotten a
confirmation that the items are being shipped, please shed any light on the
details of the e-mail?

 

 

 

 

As mentioned in earlier post, they sent email confirmations to me. To wit:

 

 




Dear ELFE Customers!

ADGEX Limited intimates, that your ordered ELFE flashlight will be ready for
shipping by the end of October.

Specially for you, as one of the first buyers of ELFE flashlight, ADGEX
gives 20% discount voucher for purchase of our another innovative product
TACHYON - fast-charging device for mobile devices and laptops!

We appreciate your choice!

Sincerely yours,
ADGEX

 








Вы получили это письмо, как пользователь зарегистрированный на сайтах ADGEX
или Атлант. Если Вы не желаете больше получать нашу рассылку, то нажмите
ссылку "Отписаться" ниже

You have recieved this mail as user registered on ADGEX website. If you do
not wish to recieve further newsletters from us then click on link
"Отписаться" below

 

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a fair
> probability of having some kind of breakthrough,

Which Russians?

I know they won a Nobel for graphene in 2002; but, the latest
breakthrough I could find is

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671917/watch-2-scientists-accidentally-discover-a-world-changing-super-material

I think I'll make a ultracap!

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

There is a SPP condensate involved. When UV kight is absorbed by the
condensate, all the photons are concentrated to a few SPPs who form it into
a meson. When there are more photons as provided in a laser shot, more SPPs
can form particles from the  "SHARED" energy. The condensate is an energy
concentration device using super absorption where incoming photons produce
particles via specific SPP members of the condensate. This is how a laser
works.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> A comment on the THE FLEISCHMANN SINGULARITY as a clue to LERN
> reproducibility.
>
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-fleischmann-singularity.html#comment-form
>
> Ed Storms can test materials until the cows come home withoul LENR
> responce because the key to LENR reproducibility is time.
>
> It took the singuarity months to build up enough potential energy to
> become LENR active.
>
> No replicator could get the the various types of LENR applictions to  work
> because of the tricky requirement for fuel preparation. We know now that
> the fuel used in LENR in all its forms must be prepared in a time intensive
> process. This preparation takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. The
> solitons that produce the LENR reaction hold a huge amount of energy.
>
> The situation is like a car with a battery the size of a building. It
> takes a long time to pump power into that energy storage device before it
> becomes active enough to produce high grade power with a high enough
> “voltage”. This is what Holmlid tells us. He says that it takes weeks of
> applying Laser power before the catalyst he uses becomes active.
>
> Lasers and dipoles don’t talk well together. Lasers produce plain waves at
> a single frequency and dipoles don’t take kindly to that type of EMF. An
> electron and a photon must have the same energy level to join together to
> become a polariton. That marriage needs a common energy level. Only a
> meager number of dipoles finely tuned to the exact frequency of the laser
> will become entangled. If there is lots of bumps and nanocavities, then the
> Laser light will become decoherent.
>
> Decoherent light( from an arc that R. Mills uses in the Suncell) is best
> so that dipoles at any stage of development will become polaritons. A
> scattered shot cloud from a shotgun is better at downing a clay pigeon than
> a 22 is.
>
> LENR replicators do not preprocess the fuel that they use and they don’t
> wait long enough for the LENR reaction to take hold. No one wants to invest
> the time and energy to properly prepare the fuel.
>
> This is a lessen that we can draw from Joe Papp. No one understood the
> reason why he invented a fuel preparation process. If the Papp fuel was not
> preprocessed, the Papp engine would need to crank for a week before it
> kicked over. Papp knew he had to load a lot of energy into that fuel before
> it became active.
>
>
> The various ways to inject energy into that fuel have differing power
> loading potential. Heat is the least effective method. Lasers seem to be
> somewhat more powerful but a few weeks to get the Holmlid fuel up to speed
> indicates to us that Laser power is marginal. Spark discharge and
> cavitation seem to be the most powerful method of power injection.
>
> We can determine how long cavitation takes to charge up the LENR fuel by
> seeing how long it takes for gammas to appear after the pump is turned on
> in the LeClair reactor.
>
> DGT could start their reaction in a few hours because an electric arc is a
> powerful source of incoherent EMF power.
>
> Holmlid’s effect is difficult to duplicate because most replicators don’t
> have the patience to wait for weeks to see positive results.
>
> The choice before the replicator is plainly stated; he can use a powerful
> source of incoherent energy or he could just wait for weeks while energy
> trickles into his power hungry fuel.
>
> That said see the next post...
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Stephen Cooke  > wrote:
>
>> It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can
>> generate the mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on
>> this idea where mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high
>> energy interactions with nucleons and require much higher energies than you
>> are describing here?
>>
>> On 29 okt. 2015, at 19:53, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy
>> described  by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential
>> chemical energy of dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long
>> ago stored in the reactants.
>>
>>
>>
>> First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in
>> 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers.
>> The following is paraphrased from various sources.
>>
>>
>>
>> The basic concept for LENR, 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

It may also mean that the testing that looked at the Pd-D system and muon
> flux did not include the correct magnetic field and resonant conditions
> that were present in the P-F testing.


If we're talking about Holmlid, there was no PdD in the more recent reports
that I am aware of.  In two recent reports there was a laser bombarding a
copper or nickel target, upon which was falling what Homlid believed to be
Rydberg matter.  The Rydberg matter was assumed to be produced as deuterium
or hydrogen went through a tube that contained a porous plug of potassium
"catalyst".

It is instructive to read Holmlid's two latest papers, which are available
on arXiv.  In this 2015 draft paper he refers briefly to mesons once and
does not even mention muons:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01332

Holmlid's main difficulty in this particular instance seems to be that he
does not want to use straightforward, standard procedures for measuring the
flux of charged particles, or drawing upon expertise that would make use of
such methods.  Instead he wishes to use a device of his own design for
which there is no obvious way to calibrate.  I suspect this is because he
is attached to the notion that Rydberg matter is somehow involved, and an
objective third-party would not proceed with such an assumption.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

Ø 

Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy described  by 
Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long ago stored in the reactants.   

 

First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in 2010. 
It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers. The 
following is paraphrased from various sources. 

 

The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is created by 
DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir cavity or pit. 
The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.

 

However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can produce 
strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside from 
chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a good 
indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies to gain 
from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy to miss.

 

One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is 
not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual 
particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it was 
quickly realized that vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, for 
instance producing the Lamb shift and modifying the magnetic moment for the 
electron… and in Casimir force.

 

This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to our 
understanding of nature….From early on, it was believed that it might be 
possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the 
quantum vacuum, or convert them to real particles. 40 years ago, Moore 
suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual 
photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named the 
dynamical Casimir effect (DCE)…. we have observed the DCE experimentally for 
the first time in 2011…. In addition to observing the creation of real photons, 
the discoverers found two-mode squeezing of the emitted radiation, which is a 
signature of the quantum character of the generation process. End of paraphrase.

Ø 

Ø  Is the assumption that the laser pre-conditioning of the materials in the 
Holmlid setup allowed the increase in potential energy of the reactants which 
then is later released as EM radiation and hence heat?

 

Yes. Most likely there would be a multi-stage process where the laser (or 
another light source) creates SPPs over time, which then interact with hydrogen 
in a Casimir cavity of 2-12 nm in dimensions. As it turns out, Shell 105 
catalyst is extraordinarily nanoporous. Like a zeolite, but ferromagnetic. 
Curiously, Holmlid fails to realize this porosity connection.

 

The net effect is that the electron which once had ionization potential of 13.6 
eV in the ground state has been boosted to 630 eV of binding energy by the DCE. 
This is an energy increase of about 46:1 per atom and it is chemical. But in 
effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which can be extracted by 
chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum vacuum). 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a 
> fair probability of having some kind of breakthrough,

Which Russians?

ADGEX
http://www.adgex.com/

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

A comment on the THE FLEISCHMANN SINGULARITY as a clue to LERN
reproducibility.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-fleischmann-singularity.html#comment-form

Ed Storms can test materials until the cows come home withoul LENR responce
because the key to LENR reproducibility is time.

It took the singuarity months to build up enough potential energy to become
LENR active.

No replicator could get the the various types of LENR applictions to  work
because of the tricky requirement for fuel preparation. We know now that
the fuel used in LENR in all its forms must be prepared in a time intensive
process. This preparation takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. The
solitons that produce the LENR reaction hold a huge amount of energy.

The situation is like a car with a battery the size of a building. It takes
a long time to pump power into that energy storage device before it becomes
active enough to produce high grade power with a high enough “voltage”.
This is what Holmlid tells us. He says that it takes weeks of applying
Laser power before the catalyst he uses becomes active.

Lasers and dipoles don’t talk well together. Lasers produce plain waves at
a single frequency and dipoles don’t take kindly to that type of EMF. An
electron and a photon must have the same energy level to join together to
become a polariton. That marriage needs a common energy level. Only a
meager number of dipoles finely tuned to the exact frequency of the laser
will become entangled. If there is lots of bumps and nanocavities, then the
Laser light will become decoherent.

Decoherent light( from an arc that R. Mills uses in the Suncell) is best so
that dipoles at any stage of development will become polaritons. A
scattered shot cloud from a shotgun is better at downing a clay pigeon than
a 22 is.

LENR replicators do not preprocess the fuel that they use and they don’t
wait long enough for the LENR reaction to take hold. No one wants to invest
the time and energy to properly prepare the fuel.

This is a lessen that we can draw from Joe Papp. No one understood the
reason why he invented a fuel preparation process. If the Papp fuel was not
preprocessed, the Papp engine would need to crank for a week before it
kicked over. Papp knew he had to load a lot of energy into that fuel before
it became active.


The various ways to inject energy into that fuel have differing power
loading potential. Heat is the least effective method. Lasers seem to be
somewhat more powerful but a few weeks to get the Holmlid fuel up to speed
indicates to us that Laser power is marginal. Spark discharge and
cavitation seem to be the most powerful method of power injection.

We can determine how long cavitation takes to charge up the LENR fuel by
seeing how long it takes for gammas to appear after the pump is turned on
in the LeClair reactor.

DGT could start their reaction in a few hours because an electric arc is a
powerful source of incoherent EMF power.

Holmlid’s effect is difficult to duplicate because most replicators don’t
have the patience to wait for weeks to see positive results.

The choice before the replicator is plainly stated; he can use a powerful
source of incoherent energy or he could just wait for weeks while energy
trickles into his power hungry fuel.

That said see the next post...


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can
> generate the mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on
> this idea where mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high
> energy interactions with nucleons and require much higher energies than you
> are describing here?
>
> On 29 okt. 2015, at 19:53, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
> Ø
>
> Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy
> described  by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential
> chemical energy of dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long
> ago stored in the reactants.
>
>
>
> First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in
> 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers.
> The following is paraphrased from various sources.
>
>
>
> The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of
> dense hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is
> created by DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir
> cavity or pit. The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.
>
>
>
> However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can
> produce strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside
> from chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a
> good indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies
> to gain from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy
> to miss.
>
>
>
> One of 

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Terry Blanton]

I'm confused.

https://creditorwatch.com.au/express/asic/organisation/156556035/ADGEX-LIMITED

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Oh, then which Australians?  (I thought they were Aussies.)
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Terry Blanton
>>
>>> Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a
>>> fair probability of having some kind of breakthrough,
>>
>> Which Russians?
>>
>> ADGEX
>> http://www.adgex.com/
>>

[Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Bob Cook]

Casimir, ZPE and HolmlidFran and Jones--

Thanks for those explanations. 

However, I would bet that the US Patent Office would not agree with such an 
invention, if zero point energy were mentioned.  They would classify in the 
same category as perpetual motion machines.  

Nevertheless, I understand from Fran’s comment that the positive kinetic energy 
“motion” of virtual particles in the vacuum are harnessed to provide potential 
energy to make heavy hydrogen, which in turn decays to a lower energy state via 
real EM radiation.  If the heavy hydrogen increased its size by increasing the 
kinetic energy of its electron, it would be an endothermic reaction I think and 
not what we are talking about.  Is this correct? 

The endless reversible reaction Fran suggested would not seem to entail the 
release of EM radiation to heat the real surroundings, if energy is conserved 
between the vacuum and the real surroundings in a reversible reaction.  

One other thought/question considering this thread—what dense hydrogen energy 
levels are involved in the reaction?  The lowest energy state and the highest 
one? or are there transitions between any of the dense hydrogen states?  If it 
were transitions between various energy states, one might expect to see a 
spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid setup. 

Bob Cook

From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[snip] But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which can be 
extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum vacuum).[/snip] 
which is why I tend to call it zero point energy since it is effectively 
harnessing random motion to move the hydrogen between the DCE regions that 
allow this endless chemical reversible reaction. Still very similar to the 
original premise behind Lyne atomic furnace and the MAHG.. 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

 

From: Bob Cook 

Ø

Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy described  by 
Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long ago stored in the reactants.   

 

First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in 2010. 
It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers. The 
following is paraphrased from various sources. 

 

The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of dense 
hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is created by 
DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir cavity or pit. 
The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.

 

However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can produce 
strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside from 
chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a good 
indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies to gain 
from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy to miss.

 

One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is 
not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual 
particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it was 
quickly realized that vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, for 
instance producing the Lamb shift and modifying the magnetic moment for the 
electron… and in Casimir force.

 

This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to our 
understanding of nature….From early on, it was believed that it might be 
possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the 
quantum vacuum, or convert them to real particles. 40 years ago, Moore 
suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual 
photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named the 
dynamical Casimir effect (DCE)…. we have observed the DCE experimentally for 
the first time in 2011…. In addition to observing the creation of real photons, 
the discoverers found two-mode squeezing of the emitted radiation, which is a 
signature of the quantum character of the generation process. End of paraphrase.

Ø

Ø  Is the assumption that the laser pre-conditioning of the materials in the 
Holmlid setup allowed the increase in potential energy of the reactants which 
then is later released as EM radiation and hence heat?

 

Yes. Most likely there would be a multi-stage process where the laser (or 
another light source) creates SPPs over time, which then interact with hydrogen 
in a Casimir cavity of 2-12 nm in dimensions. As it turns out, Shell 105 
catalyst is extraordinarily nanoporous. Like a zeolite, but ferromagnetic. 
Curiously, 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons hit the detector at the same
instant.

Should read

All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons *decay products* hit the
detector at the same instant.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> "one might expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid
> setup."
>
> All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
> Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons hit the detector at the same
> instant.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The vacuum may well be involved. When a meson is produced, a negative
>> energy version of the meson must also be produced via a closed time loop.
>> But this negative energy version(or anti particle) is sent back in time via
>> the vacuum. This particle in the past must be discarded to preserve
>> causality. So the vacuum act like a trash can to take care of the bad stuff
>> produced by the LENR reaction.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bob Cook 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fran and Jones--
>>>
>>> Thanks for those explanations.
>>>
>>> However, I would bet that the US Patent Office would not agree with such
>>> an invention, if zero point energy were mentioned.  They would classify in
>>> the same category as perpetual motion machines.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, I understand from Fran’s comment that the positive kinetic
>>> energy “motion” of virtual particles in the vacuum are harnessed to provide
>>> potential energy to make heavy hydrogen, which in turn decays to a lower
>>> energy state via real EM radiation.  If the heavy hydrogen increased its
>>> size by increasing the kinetic energy of its electron, it would be an
>>> endothermic reaction I think and not what we are talking about.  Is this
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> The endless reversible reaction Fran suggested would not seem to entail
>>> the release of EM radiation to heat the real surroundings, if energy is
>>> conserved between the vacuum and the real surroundings in a reversible
>>> reaction.
>>>
>>> One other thought/question considering this thread—what dense hydrogen
>>> energy levels are involved in the reaction?  The lowest energy state and
>>> the highest one? or are there transitions between any of the dense hydrogen
>>> states?  If it were transitions between various energy states, one might
>>> expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid setup.
>>>
>>> Bob Cook
>>>
>>> *From:* Roarty, Francis X 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:08 PM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip] But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which
>>> can be extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum
>>> vacuum).[/snip] which is why I tend to call it zero point energy since it
>>> is effectively harnessing random motion to move the hydrogen between the
>>> DCE regions that allow this endless chemical reversible reaction. Still
>>> very similar to the original premise behind Lyne atomic furnace and the
>>> MAHG..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:53 PM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>>
>>> Ø
>>>
>>> Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy
>>> described  by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential
>>> chemical energy of dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long
>>> ago stored in the reactants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in
>>> 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers.
>>> The following is paraphrased from various sources.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of
>>> dense hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is
>>> created by DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir
>>> cavity or pit. The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can
>>> produce strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside
>>> from chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a
>>> good indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies
>>> to gain from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy
>>> to miss.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of
>>> space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with
>>> virtual particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a
>>> 

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Terry Blanton]

Oh, then which Australians?  (I thought they were Aussies.)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton
>
>> Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a
>> fair probability of having some kind of breakthrough,
>
> Which Russians?
>
> ADGEX
> http://www.adgex.com/
>

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[esa ruoho]

You know, as things go, I've tried to reach out to ADGEX using every single 
method I've figured out how to.
I've, thus far:

1- Emailed them to 3-4 different email addresses, no response.
2- Left messages on their Twitter -page (Direct Messages), no response
3- Left queries over their Facebook presences (both of the ADGEX presences). 
Chat / Messages, no response.
4- Tried to add them on LinkedIn and approach them that way, no response.
5- Added them on Skype (they added me back), left them a message, no response.
6- Called both of the phone numbers (for Australia, BTW) numerous times, no 
response.

I'm not sure how to approach them in order to reach them.

Could anyone who mentioned, on the Vort list, that they've gotten a 
confirmation that the items are being shipped, please shed any light on the 
details of the e-mail?

---
| Esa Ruoho | +358403703659 | http://fi.linkedin.com/in/esaruoho 
 |
| http://lackluster.bandcamp.com  | 
http://lackluster.org  | http://esaruoho.tumblr.com 
 |
| http://twitter.com/esaruoho  | 
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial  
|

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 21:10, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> https://creditorwatch.com.au/express/asic/organisation/156556035/ADGEX-LIMITED
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> Oh, then which Australians?  (I thought they were Aussies.)
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Terry Blanton
>>> 
 Easy to be skeptical of that claim but I would give the Russians a
 fair probability of having some kind of breakthrough,
>>> 
>>> Which Russians?
>>> 
>>> ADGEX
>>> http://www.adgex.com/
>>> 
> 

RE: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

The Australian company of the same name ADGEX is a subsidiary of the Russian 
company.

All sales to the USA are through the Aussie branch. (why? just in case Congress 
slaps an embargo on Russia?).

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

The vacuum may well be involved. When a meson is produced, a negative
energy version of the meson must also be produced via a closed time loop.
But this negative energy version(or anti particle) is sent back in time via
the vacuum. This particle in the past must be discarded to preserve
causality. So the vacuum act like a trash can to take care of the bad stuff
produced by the LENR reaction.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Fran and Jones--
>
> Thanks for those explanations.
>
> However, I would bet that the US Patent Office would not agree with such
> an invention, if zero point energy were mentioned.  They would classify in
> the same category as perpetual motion machines.
>
> Nevertheless, I understand from Fran’s comment that the positive kinetic
> energy “motion” of virtual particles in the vacuum are harnessed to provide
> potential energy to make heavy hydrogen, which in turn decays to a lower
> energy state via real EM radiation.  If the heavy hydrogen increased its
> size by increasing the kinetic energy of its electron, it would be an
> endothermic reaction I think and not what we are talking about.  Is this
> correct?
>
> The endless reversible reaction Fran suggested would not seem to entail
> the release of EM radiation to heat the real surroundings, if energy is
> conserved between the vacuum and the real surroundings in a reversible
> reaction.
>
> One other thought/question considering this thread—what dense hydrogen
> energy levels are involved in the reaction?  The lowest energy state and
> the highest one? or are there transitions between any of the dense hydrogen
> states?  If it were transitions between various energy states, one might
> expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid setup.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Roarty, Francis X 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:08 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid
>
>
> [snip] But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy which
> can be extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the quantum
> vacuum).[/snip] which is why I tend to call it zero point energy since it
> is effectively harnessing random motion to move the hydrogen between the
> DCE regions that allow this endless chemical reversible reaction. Still
> very similar to the original premise behind Lyne atomic furnace and the
> MAHG..
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:53 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
> Ø
>
> Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy
> described  by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential
> chemical energy of dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long
> ago stored in the reactants.
>
>
>
> First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed in
> 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers.
> The following is paraphrased from various sources.
>
>
>
> The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of
> dense hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is
> created by DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir
> cavity or pit. The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.
>
>
>
> However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can
> produce strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside
> from chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a
> good indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies
> to gain from chemistry and electron manipulation. The soft x-rays are easy
> to miss.
>
>
>
> One of the predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of
> space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with
> virtual particles foaming in and out of existence. While initially a
> curiosity, it was quickly realized that vacuum fluctuations had measurable
> consequences, for instance producing the Lamb shift and modifying the
> magnetic moment for the electron… and in Casimir force.
>
>
>
> This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to
> our understanding of nature….From early on, it was believed that it might
> be possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the
> quantum vacuum, or convert them to real particles. 40 years ago, Moore
> suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert
> virtual photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was
> later named the dynamical Casimir effect (DCE)…. we have observed the DCE
> experimentally for the first time in 2011…. In addition to observing the
> creation of real photons, the discoverers found two-mode squeezing of the
> emitted radiation, which is a signature of the quantum 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

The Holmlid effect is common throughout LERN as stated by the AIRBUS guy.

See how 8 different LENR systems produce  the same tell tail indications on
photos, Even Pd/D

http://restframe.com/rf/home.html





On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Stephen Cooke
>
>
>
> Ø  It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can
> generate the mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on
> this idea where mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high
> energy interactions with nucleons and require much higher energies than you
> are describing here?
>
> I am somewhat in Eric’s camp on the mesons, kaons and so on, which could
> be misidentified and/or have other explanations. The important detail in
> Holmlid’s work seems to be the clusters of dense hydrogen, and how to make
> them… That and the elegance of finding a way to make clusters of hydrogen
> on an inexpensive catalyst, with very high chemical binding energy.
>
> The mesons etc. which are claimed to be present could be related to cosmic
> rays – and/or to a hidden feature of dense hydrogen, such as having a large
> capture cross-section for muons, neutrinos or other exotica. Didn’t you
> mention that ? Plus – the sharpness of the laser pulse can cause the
> occasional nuclear reaction in normal deuterium, even if there was no dense
> RM. Certainly the dense clusters would seem to make an ideal target for ICF
> fusion. I am quite happy to leave all of that to the National Labs, in
> favor of focusing on the low end. That would mean gamma free.
>
> All of the high energy results, if accurate, are icing on the cake. The
> “cake” in this metaphor, would be … finally … a valid explanation for the
> “real LENR,” with emphasis on “low energy.” If the thermal gain can be
> understood as chemical, with no gamma and little transmutation – then that
> is the huge benefit of Holmlid’s work.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[mixent]

Hi,

The binding energy of the H2 molecule is 4.519 eV. Divide this by the fine
structure constant and you get 619.236 eV. Add some due to the increased binding
energy of magnetic attraction between the nuclei at close quarters.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:NEW LIVE Steorn Webinars Announced - Product Demonstrations

[Esa Ruoho]

Thanks Jonas. Ordered the flashlight.
Will you post an unboxing video or even images when you receive yours?


On 29 October 2015 at 21:58, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* esa ruoho
>
>
>
> Could anyone who mentioned, on the Vort list, that they've gotten a
> confirmation that the items are being shipped, please shed any light on the
> details of the e-mail?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As mentioned in earlier post, they sent email confirmations to me. To wit:
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dear ELFE Customers!*
>
> ADGEX Limited intimates, that your ordered ELFE flashlight will be ready
> for shipping by the end of October.
>
> Specially for you, as one of the first buyers of ELFE flashlight, ADGEX
> gives 20% discount voucher for purchase of our another innovative product
> TACHYON – fast-charging device for mobile devices and laptops!
>
> *We appreciate your choice!*
>
> Sincerely yours,
> ADGEX
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Вы получили это письмо, как пользователь зарегистрированный на сайтах
> ADGEX или Атлант. Если Вы не желаете больше получать нашу рассылку, то
> нажмите ссылку "Отписаться" ниже
>
> You have recieved this mail as user registered on ADGEX website. If you do
> not wish to recieve further newsletters from us then click on link
> "Отписаться" below
>
>
>



-- 

---
http://twitter.com/esaruoho
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com

RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

From: Stephen Cooke 

 

Ø  It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can generate 
the mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on this idea 
where mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high energy 
interactions with nucleons and require much higher energies than you are 
describing here?

I am somewhat in Eric’s camp on the mesons, kaons and so on, which could be 
misidentified and/or have other explanations. The important detail in Holmlid’s 
work seems to be the clusters of dense hydrogen, and how to make them… That and 
the elegance of finding a way to make clusters of hydrogen on an inexpensive 
catalyst, with very high chemical binding energy.

The mesons etc. which are claimed to be present could be related to cosmic rays 
– and/or to a hidden feature of dense hydrogen, such as having a large capture 
cross-section for muons, neutrinos or other exotica. Didn’t you mention that ? 
Plus – the sharpness of the laser pulse can cause the occasional nuclear 
reaction in normal deuterium, even if there was no dense RM. Certainly the 
dense clusters would seem to make an ideal target for ICF fusion. I am quite 
happy to leave all of that to the National Labs, in favor of focusing on the 
low end. That would mean gamma free.

All of the high energy results, if accurate, are icing on the cake. The “cake” 
in this metaphor, would be … finally … a valid explanation for the “real LENR,” 
with emphasis on “low energy.” If the thermal gain can be understood as 
chemical, with no gamma and little transmutation – then that is the huge 
benefit of Holmlid’s work.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

See how causality is protected in LENR

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

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
> Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons hit the detector at the same
> instant.
>
> Should read
>
> All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
> Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons *decay products* hit the
> detector at the same instant.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> "one might expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid
>> setup."
>>
>> All the mesons produce will be identically the same. This is seen in the
>> Holmlid meson decay timing. All the mesons hit the detector at the same
>> instant.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> The vacuum may well be involved. When a meson is produced, a negative
>>> energy version of the meson must also be produced via a closed time loop.
>>> But this negative energy version(or anti particle) is sent back in time via
>>> the vacuum. This particle in the past must be discarded to preserve
>>> causality. So the vacuum act like a trash can to take care of the bad stuff
>>> produced by the LENR reaction.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bob Cook 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Fran and Jones--

 Thanks for those explanations.

 However, I would bet that the US Patent Office would not agree with
 such an invention, if zero point energy were mentioned.  They would
 classify in the same category as perpetual motion machines.

 Nevertheless, I understand from Fran’s comment that the positive
 kinetic energy “motion” of virtual particles in the vacuum are harnessed to
 provide potential energy to make heavy hydrogen, which in turn decays to a
 lower energy state via real EM radiation.  If the heavy hydrogen increased
 its size by increasing the kinetic energy of its electron, it would be an
 endothermic reaction I think and not what we are talking about.  Is this
 correct?

 The endless reversible reaction Fran suggested would not seem to entail
 the release of EM radiation to heat the real surroundings, if energy is
 conserved between the vacuum and the real surroundings in a reversible
 reaction.

 One other thought/question considering this thread—what dense hydrogen
 energy levels are involved in the reaction?  The lowest energy state and
 the highest one? or are there transitions between any of the dense hydrogen
 states?  If it were transitions between various energy states, one might
 expect to see a spectrum of EM  radiation from the Holmlid setup.

 Bob Cook

 *From:* Roarty, Francis X 
 *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 12:08 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid


 [snip] But in effect, if the hydrogen does not escape, the energy
 which can be extracted by chemistry is endless (if the source is the
 quantum vacuum).[/snip] which is why I tend to call it zero point energy
 since it is effectively harnessing random motion to move the hydrogen
 between the DCE regions that allow this endless chemical reversible
 reaction. Still very similar to the original premise behind Lyne atomic
 furnace and the MAHG..



 *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
 *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:53 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid



 *From:* Bob Cook

 Ø

 Ø  Fran and Jones suggested that the source of the excess energy
 described  by Holmlid is of a chemical origin (electronic potential
 chemical energy of dense hydrogen) and not nuclear potential energy long
 ago stored in the reactants.



 First part of answer: The Dynamical Casimir Effect was first observed
 in 2010. It is real, but that does not necessarily provide all the answers.
 The following is paraphrased from various sources.



 The basic concept for LENR, is that the electronic chemical energy of
 dense hydrogen, with mass-energy in the range of 630 eV per H atom, is
 created by DCE. One way this can happen is when SPP interact with a Casimir
 cavity or pit. The electron becomes delocalized and possibly relativistic.



 However, it is also demonstrated by Holmlid that dense hydrogen can
 produce strong nuclear or sub-nuclear gain in other circumstances, aside
 from chemistry. Whenever gamma radiation is seen in an experiment, it is a
 good indication of the “other circumstances”. The DCE modality only applies
 to gain from chemistry and electron 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

Keep these items(dots to connect) in mind

Two different sources for producing H(0) have been used
for this study. They are similar to a source described in a
previous publication.28 Potassium-doped iron oxide catalyst
samples (cylindric pellets)32,33 in the sources produce the ultradense
H(0) from hydrogen or deuterium gas flow at pressures
of 10−5–100 mbars. The sources give a slowly decaying muon
signal for several hours and days after being used for producing
H(0). They can be triggered to increase the muon production
by laser irradiation inside the chambers or sometimes even by
turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short
time

Note that energy for muon production is stored for "several hours and days
after being used for producing H(0)."

They can be triggered to increase the muon production... sometimes even by
turning on the fluorescent lamps in the laboratory for a short time

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The Holmlid effect is common throughout LERN as stated by the AIRBUS guy.
>
> See how 8 different LENR systems produce  the same tell tail indications
> on photos, Even Pd/D
>
> http://restframe.com/rf/home.html
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Stephen Cooke
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  It's a nice process you are describing, but I'm curious how it can
>> generate the mesons reported by Holmlid? Is there some mechanism based on
>> this idea where mesons are produced or can they only generated by very high
>> energy interactions with nucleons and require much higher energies than you
>> are describing here?
>>
>> I am somewhat in Eric’s camp on the mesons, kaons and so on, which could
>> be misidentified and/or have other explanations. The important detail in
>> Holmlid’s work seems to be the clusters of dense hydrogen, and how to make
>> them… That and the elegance of finding a way to make clusters of hydrogen
>> on an inexpensive catalyst, with very high chemical binding energy.
>>
>> The mesons etc. which are claimed to be present could be related to
>> cosmic rays – and/or to a hidden feature of dense hydrogen, such as having
>> a large capture cross-section for muons, neutrinos or other exotica. Didn’t
>> you mention that ? Plus – the sharpness of the laser pulse can cause the
>> occasional nuclear reaction in normal deuterium, even if there was no dense
>> RM. Certainly the dense clusters would seem to make an ideal target for ICF
>> fusion. I am quite happy to leave all of that to the National Labs, in
>> favor of focusing on the low end. That would mean gamma free.
>>
>> All of the high energy results, if accurate, are icing on the cake. The
>> “cake” in this metaphor, would be … finally … a valid explanation for the
>> “real LENR,” with emphasis on “low energy.” If the thermal gain can be
>> understood as chemical, with no gamma and little transmutation – then that
>> is the huge benefit of Holmlid’s work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Steorn: Orbo 28th October 2015 Transcript from Webinar

[Esa Ruoho]

If you guys like the internets more, the transcript is mirrored here:
http://freeenergy.news/steorn/steorn-o-cube-webinar-full-transcript/


On 29 October 2015 at 02:17, Esa Ruoho  wrote:

> Hi, here's my transcript of the Orbo Steorn Webinar broadcast on the 28th
> October 2015.
>
> If you use any of it, please credit accordingly.
> the video is at http://orbo.com/
> --
>
> Pat: Welcome to the Orbo Webinar. We're here today to introduce you to the
> first Orbo product, the O-Cube. Orbo is a highly controversial technology
> ... (Shaun places the O-Cube on the table) ..and we're going to demonstrate
> the functionality of the O-Cube. Before we do that, however, we want to
> just give you a brief flavour of who we are and the journey that we've
> taken over the last fifteen years.
> ---
> Shaun: So, twelve and a half years ago, yeah? Tell me, how on earth, you
> got into this crazy company.
> Pat: The beginning's actually going back fourteen years ago, because, what
> happened was, in 2001, I was looking to evaluate a particular piece of
> technology, nothing to do with Steorn.. And, I didn't know how to evaluate
> it, and I made a number of calls, and I was put in contact with yourselves.
> So, I met Mike and yourself in 2001 and you looked at the proposition, the
> technology we're looking at, and you evaluated it and you said look,
> listen, this is not, you know, something to look at.. so, that was the way
> it was left. And, I went to meet you then in April 2004 and the purpose of
> that conversation was.. ahm..
> Shaun: "Where's me fucking money" (laughs)
> Pat: Well, it wasn't, it wasn't even at that, because I knew, like, the
> proposition for what is.. But the point you were putting to me, was you
> said, "Look, we're looking for a venture capital..".. you said to me, first
> of all, you said to me, "I'm looking for a VC company", and what I did
> was.. I.. The first thing I did probably before I even looked beyond them
> was, I got a friend of mine who's a, you know, he's an engineer and I got
> him to go in and spend some time with yourself and Mike and to evaluate
> what it was. And.. I can remember walking out of Fumberly Court as it was
> on a Friday afternoon and.. the two of yous were walking along side by
> side.. I said "What you think?" and he just said "Can I invest?". And it
> was, it was kind of like that, and I said "Are you serious?" and he said,
> "Pat, If this is right" he said, "This is gonna to be very very serious."
> 
> Mike: So Shaun, looking a bit tired.. Understandable. Ten years defending
> your claims and yourself. Ahm, give us a little bit of background about
> Steorn, for a bit, new people tuning in today.
> Shaun: Steorn was a company that you and me founded, Mike. Back in 2000,
> and we started doing project management.. We were in the world of fruit, a
> lot of bananas. And then we started developing technology for others, as
> you know, that's when we developed forensic systems for companies like
> Microsoft and credit card companies, and we did expert witnessing, in,
> fraud..
> Mike: (interrupts) So you get on..
> Shaun: And then one day..
> Mike: (interrupts) And then one day you're sitting there at your desk,
> magnets spinning around, and you decide: "I need an ad in the Economist".
> Shaun: One day we made a discovery, whatever you gonna call it, a mistake,
> depending on where you sit, where we went, yeah, look..
> We can get more energy out of these bizarre magnetic fields than we're
> putting in, isn't that really cool? And wouldn't it be great to build
> something that uses this, put it in the market, and hopefully make a lot of
> money.
> ---
> Alex?: When I saw yous guys coming in, and meeting up after work, I
> realized that yous were doing a lot of brainstorming, and once I, you know,
> I didn't really know much about it, because I kept hearing the name Steorn,
> and I didn't really know how to pronounce it or anything like that, but I
> realized that yous were doing some interesting stuff, but it's been
> enjoyable seeing the progression over the years, and, you know, we're
> really, really really interested in what's going on, ahm, you know..
> Shaun: And you.. You see all the lads from Steorn, outside and about, in
> and out of there, these lads that just (heard) about every provocation and
> word and insult in the world, they're called conman, scam-artist, and so
> on, you've seen them at their most vulnerable. Honestly what do you think
> of them?
> Alex?:  I've never seen them worry, I've never seen them. I like them,
> genuinely like, I know yous all, right down to Max, I've played poker with
> so many of yous, we've shared so many late nights, and I remember telling
> my friends, you know, we're also in business, and I said, this guy doing
> mad stuff with magnets, like, you know, and yeah.. Yous are operating in,
> you know, this crazy environment, and, when we, you know, when we
> eventually -- when you actually turned 

[Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Stephen Cooke]

Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays or may 
be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?

Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1 GeV 
muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter is very 
low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there is a higher 
cross section with Rydberg matter. 

What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter

1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies if that 
if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should encounter a 
neutrino about daily on average. 

The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually reacting with 
the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave functions would also be 
important at these energies.

I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know. 

RE: [Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.

[Stephen Cooke]

I meant "encounter a 1 GeV muon" but neutrino encounters (with possibly even 
higher Energy) might also be potentially interesting if they can occur.
> From: stephen_coo...@hotmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:00:41 +0100
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Would Rydberg Matter in Cosmic Radiation.
> 
> Would Rydberg Matter or UDD be more sensitive to muons from cosmic rays or 
> may be even neutrinos? Than ordinary matter?
> 
> Cosmic ray muons have can have high energy for example there are 1 1 GeV 
> muons per sq meter per second. Their interaction with ordinary matter is very 
> low. I think this has been discussed before but I wonder if there is a higher 
> cross section with Rydberg matter. 
> 
> What is the surface area of the Rydberg matter
> 
> 1 per sq m /s is I think about 864 per sq mm per day, which implies if 
> that if Rydberg matter or UDD is a few 10s micrometers in size it should 
> encounter a neutrino about daily on average. 
> 
> The rest would depend on the probability of an encounter actually reacting 
> with the matter,I suppose relativistic effects on the wave functions would 
> also be important at these energies.
> 
> I guess this has come up before so if you have a link let me know. 
  

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Unless Holmlid is proposing Rydberg excitation that is fundamentally
> different than that seen elsewhere, the orbitals of the electrons are those
> of the usual spherical harmonics (e.g., an s- or p-orbitals), but with
> large angular momentum, which leads them to be deformed and susceptible to
> magnetic fields.
>

Sorry, that was supposed to be "large principal quantum number," i.e.,
additional energy carried by the electron.  (The angular momentum is what
leads to the specific orbital type, s-, p-, d-, etc.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

In Rydberg matter the electron is in a very large circular orbit (and by
> circular, I mean that the orbital is planar).
>

My understanding is that the proposed clusters of varying sizes with
sixfold symmetry rotate in a plane.  Unless Holmlid is proposing Rydberg
excitation that is fundamentally different than that seen elsewhere, the
orbitals of the electrons are those of the usual spherical harmonics (e.g.,
an s- or p-orbitals), but with large angular momentum, which leads them to
be deformed and susceptible to magnetic fields.

Here are orbitals deformed under successive units of orbital angular
momentum; the specific shapes of the orbitals are not represented:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg/2000px-Sommerfeld_ellipses.svg.png

I believe these orbitals are understood to have the normal 3-dimensional
probability distributions.  The image suggests that additional units of
angular momentum in all orbital types increasingly expose the charge in the
nucleus, leading to something like an ion.  (Somewhere I got the impression
that the the Rydberg matter is presumed to form ionic bonds.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:11:39 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
> I have a hypothesis that the H(1) cannot form the ultra-dense H(-1) [or H(0) 
> depending on who is naming it] - only the D(1) can form the ultra-dense 
> state.  The reason is that because the D nucleus has a neutron, its nucleus 
> has a strong magnetic moment (think of it like a bar magnet).  How do two bar 
> magnets attract each other?  They do so by aligning in anti-parallel.  At 
> close distances the pull from the anti-parallel magnetic moments is very 
> strong. 

In Deuterium the magnetic moment of the proton should try to couple with that of
the neutron, but not completely succeed. IOW you end up with a pair of magnets
with low quality "keepers" leaving a residual external field. In Protium there
is no compensating magnet, so the full strength of the proton's magnetic field
should be felt externally.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Only, he was doing it for much smaller molecules and the spectrum is in the
> microwave bands ...
>

Yes -- it makes sense that he's talking about molecules and not monatomic
hydrogen.  If you had monatomic hydrogen and excited it, perhaps it might
become even more reactive with itself.

In that case, perhaps you would get Rydberg versions of the sigma and pi
molecular bonds rather than the spherical harmonics:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Electron_orbitals.svg

Perhaps Rydberg excitation can also happen with these, and they will be
similarly deformed from the low-principal-quantum number versions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, I hate to stick my neck out here, but, I will say that the Holmlid
Rydberg matter is the opposite of DDL.  DDL has the electron in an
ultra-tight orbit around the nucleus, making it appear like a tiny
composite neutral particle.  In Rydberg matter the electron is in a very
large circular orbit (and by circular, I mean that the orbital is planar).
Here is a little of my understanding of Holmlid's Rydberg matter that I
recently posted to an MFMP discussion site:

I am still reading about Rydberg clusters and Holmlid technology.  What
wasn't clear to me earlier was that the Rydberg matter that is created in
the catalyst is a 6-fold symmetric *planar* cluster - sort of like a
snowflake of atoms.  It is somewhere between a solid and a gas.  How many
atoms does it take to leave the domain of molecule and become a solid
powder particle dispersed to move like a gas?  It is said that once formed,
these snowflake Rydberg clusters of atoms are quite robust and long-lived.
So, Holmlid's accumulation of D(0) on a surface probably comes from a
self-assembling monolayer of the snowflakes over time.  I don't think the
bonding for snowflake-on-top-of-snowflake is nearly as strong as a
monolayer surface assemblage of snowflakes at the edges - they just become
bigger snowflakes (all still hypothetical) like a puzzle with all hexagonal
pieces.  I thought Winterberg's paper was wrong - he proposed it would only
assemble in columns of snowflakes.
It appears that the evidence for the Rydberg clusters is detection of
rotational spectra matching predictions from the modeled structure of the
Rydberg cluster.  This is sort of funny (just to me) because I was doing
microwave spectroscopy in my university physics lab at age 18 in 1973.  I
was a lab assistant for my physics professor who was doing just what
Holmlid describes - modeling molecular geometry, computing their rotational
spectra, and then optimizing the model to match the real measured spectra.
Only, he was doing it for much smaller molecules and the spectrum is in the
microwave bands, not around 100 MHz as Holmlid describes for the H(1) and
D(1).  The frequency is lower because the rotational moments are huge
compared to a small molecule.
So, as I am beginning to understand it, the hexagonal Rydberg clusters form
on the catalyst, and they like to form on an oxide surface with magnetic
properties (on an Fe2O3 surface for example).  Then they are sort of blown
off into the rarefied gas/vacuum, and randomly self-assemble on the surface
of a metal oxide to form a monolayer film whose lateral dimensions grow
with time.  Note that creation of the Rydberg clusters should be exothermic
because the reason the monatomic H/D form into a cluster is that it is a
lower energy state for the group of atoms as a whole to form the cluster -
as compared to remaining monatomic.  The catalyst provides H2 splitting and
an environment where the planar cluster favorably forms around it.  The
catalyst must also be able to remove the heat of formation of the cluster.

It is strange to talk about "density" of atoms with something that I
believe will only form a monolayer.  What I am describing is the H(1) and
D(1) state.  In this state, the atoms are drawn together by the strong
magnetic moments of the Rydberg electrons.  The switch to the ultra-dense
form is not clear to me.  I have a hypothesis that the H(1) cannot form the
ultra-dense H(-1) [or H(0) depending on who is naming it] - only the D(1)
can form the ultra-dense state.  The reason is that because the D nucleus
has a neutron, its nucleus has a strong magnetic moment (think of it like a
bar magnet).  How do two bar magnets attract each other?  They do so by
aligning in anti-parallel.  At close distances the pull from the
anti-parallel magnetic moments is very strong.  The Coulomb repulsion falls
off much more slowly with distance.  So, there could be a short distance
where the anti-parallel magnetic nuclear moments of the D atoms become so
strong that it draws the atoms closer together than normal.  This is just a
hypothesis.  It could be that this could only occur on a surface and not in
free space, because it might so distort the planar cluster that it would
destroy itself.

Like a molecule, the Rydberg matter behaves with one quantum state.  So, is
it a very large molecule or a room temperature BEC?  I am not sure of the
distinction.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
> The binding energy of the H2 molecule is 4.519 eV. Divide this by the fine
> structure constant and you get 619.236 eV. Add some due to the increased
> binding energy of magnetic attraction between the nuclei at close quarters.
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> It's not clear whether the hydrogen molecule would shrink as a unit, which
> seems to be your premise - with both electrons acting together ... or
> alternatively, each monatomic atom is reduced individually. My 

RE: [Vo]:Casimir, ZPE and Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

The binding energy of the H2 molecule is 4.519 eV. Divide this by the fine
structure constant and you get 619.236 eV. Add some due to the increased
binding energy of magnetic attraction between the nuclei at close quarters.

Hi Robin,

It's not clear whether the hydrogen molecule would shrink as a unit, which
seems to be your premise - with both electrons acting together ... or
alternatively, each monatomic atom is reduced individually. My impression is
that it is an individual action, not the molecule. Later, the dense atoms
collect into clusters - but 2 is not a favored cluster size.

My mental image is clouded by 25 years of following Mills theory, which is
quite different in the details. However, one wonders if the two can be
reconciled somehow. And also- does anyone know if Meulenberg has tried to
reconcile Holmlid's species with the DDL ? These concepts are all similar,
and all well thought-out and vetted to some degree - but Holmlid is the
relative newcomer - now getting all of the attention.

The long-hidden model with all the answers to the LENR conundrum seems like
it is trying to come out into the open. Hopefully we can expedite that by
cherry-picking the best details without giving deference to anyone (except
perhaps Dirac). Perhaps you are already trying to reconcile all of these.