Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

In and email, Sveinn told me in part as follows:Sveinn Olafsson
11/28/16


next mid  year we plan to  have mobile source to go to real large detector
setups so cloud chambers are then a bit antiqued ?



On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Nice addition.
>
> The main thing that worries me about Holmlid is that few experts who work
> in ICF and laser fusion are taking notice.
>
> Winterberg took notice, but he is just as controversial, and that paper is
> almost ancient history. The only intelligent criticism out there is saying
> essentially something like "show me". Common sense would indicate that this
> kind of work cannot rationally be ignored, but it is...
>
> from 2010: http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/winterberg-on-
> ultradense-deuterium.html
>
>
> Russ George wrote:
>
> I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that it
> is a Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… Here’s
> my historical point of view http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/
> ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear spallation and resonance

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:33:41 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>This explanation does not apply to the ‘moving particles’ that are clearly 
>involved which though mostly remaining and reacting within the solid state 
>matrix are also found as strange ‘particle emissions.’ 

The energy of the fusion reaction might be carried away by either a fast
electron, a fast proton or a fast Hydrino.
All three of these would be penetrating particles.
Also, if a whole Hydrino molecule fuses with a target nucleus, then the energy
release can be as much as 10-20 MeV, easily enough to produce a free neutron in
some cases. Or if the Hydrino is a Deuterino, then the proton may be retained by
the target nucleus, and the neutron expelled with the energy of the reaction.
Also, a fast Hydrino might have a similar capture cross section to a neutron.

In short, there are lots of possibilities.

Also, you didn't answer the lower or higher question below.

>A hydrino doesn’t bear the characteristics of a penetrating particle which 
>clearly said particles are, I don’t see hydrinos being both not captured and 
>captured when passing through various materials and especially I don’t see 
>hydrinos behaving with such materials in accordance with neutron capture cross 
>sections! 
>
> 
>
>From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:19 PM
>To: vortex-l
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear 
>spallation and resonance
>
> 
>
>Gamma mitigation might lie in how nuclear reactions occur inside a Bose 
>condinsate.
>
> 
>
>On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:11 PM,  > wrote:
>
>In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:50:44 -0800:
>Hi Russ,
>[snip]
>>Mischugenons however unlike 'hydrinos' do produce irrefutable isotopic
>>shifts in recipient nuclei,
>
>During Hydrino fusion, two things can happen:-
>
>1) A proton fuses with the target nucleus, resulting in a change of element.
>
>or
>
>2) A proton & an electron fuse concurrently with the target nucleus resulting 
>in
>an isotope shift in the original element, since essentially they combine to
>create a new neutron. This is enhanced electron capture. Enhanced, because the
>electron is severely shrunken, making it much easier to capture than a normal
>atomic electron.
>
>>though the quantity of shifted isotopes is much
>>lower
>
>lower or higher?
>
>
>>than the apparent mischugenon flux as measured/inferred by the
>>resulting weak emissions! Perhaps a 'third' miracle is needed, oh shit, will
>>it ever all be revealed.
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: mix...@bigpond.com   
>>[mailto:mix...@bigpond.com  ]
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:36 PM
>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
>>Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
>>spallation and resonance
>>
>>In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:53:41 -0800:
>>Hi Russ,
>>[snip]
>>>Agreed that is the second miracle required! But is there any standing
>>>reported evidence for strange mishugenonistic neutron resonance, aka
>>>reflected neutrons, that subsequently behave in a manner effecting the
>>>lack of 'energetic gamma'-less absorbing of neutrons save perhaps
>>>invoking quasi-dark matter-like behavior, nah... ;) Perhaps said
>>>resonant conditioned mischugenon/neutrons would behave somewhat like
>>>normal neutrons and be captured preferentially by nuclei according to
>>>their neutron capture cross-section resulting in only rather weak
>>>emissions. Such beasties would be revealed by the pattern of measurable
>>>though weak emissions increasing as they passed through thin foils of
>>>metals with increasing neutron capture cross sections, I can live with that
>>:) That's a neat experiment and result!
>>>http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/edward-teller/
>>
>>Are you the "I" in this tale?
>>
>>As for "mischugenons" they sound a lot like well shrunken Hydrinos. Not as
>>small as neutrons, so they penetrate the electron shells of atoms less
>>easily, and need to tunnel into the target nucleus, reducing the reaction
>>rate. When they merge with a target nucleus, the resultant energy can be
>>carried by the accompanying electron, or by the other proton if the initial
>>particle was a Hydrino molecule. The latter possibility in particular might
>>account for a considerable reduction in emitted gammas (by many orders of
>>magnitude).
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
> 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Nice addition.

The main thing that worries me about Holmlid is that few experts who 
work in ICF and laser fusion are taking notice.


Winterberg took notice, but he is just as controversial, and that paper 
is almost ancient history. The only intelligent criticism out there is 
saying essentially something like "show me". Common sense would indicate 
that this kind of work cannot rationally be ignored, but it is...


from 2010: 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/winterberg-on-ultradense-deuterium.html



Russ George wrote:


I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that 
it is a Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… 
Here’s my historical point of view 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/ 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

I would guesstimate that 99% of the energy output of a LENR reactor comes
in the form of muons that will decay into electrons. Rossi says that his
QuarkX reactor produces 20% of it COP as electric power (aka electrons).

The QuarkX reactor must produce huge amounts of muons for all those
electrons to form so close to the meson shower.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The muons that penetrate the body can not be a good thing especially if
> the muons produce ionization inside the body. Muons from space produce 1/2
> of the background radiation load. This is why I have predicted that the
> high powered LENR reactor will be heavily shielded, maybe placed
> underground, maybe shielded with iron ore to keep the radiation loading
> down.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization
>> produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained
>> about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from
>>> this paper.
>>>
>>> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
>>> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>>>
>>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>>>
>>> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
>>> protons.
>>>
>>> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>>>
>>> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than
>>> the age of the Universe
>>>
>>> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in
>>> protons - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>>>
>>> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
>>> any decay event.
>>>
>>> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from
>>> the reactor.
>>>
>>> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
>>> the system.
>>>
>>> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
>>> deuterons.
>>>
>>> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
>>> hundreds of meters away.
>>>
>>> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of
>>> >3 MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>>>
>>> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
>>> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
>>> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
>>> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
>>> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>>>
>>> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> Holmlid states as follows:
>>>
>>> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
>>> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
>>> formed and observed [16
>>> 
>>> ,17
>>> ]
>>> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
>>> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
>>> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
>>> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
>>> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
>>> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
>>> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
>>> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
>>> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
>>> much longer lifetime.
>>>
>>> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
>>> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
>>> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>>>
>>> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
>>> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
>>> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
>>> deuterium nanoparticle.
>>>
>>> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  Axil Axil wrote:

 The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
 with fusion:


 Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
 No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

 The main point is that mesons very quickly into 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The muons that penetrate the body can not be a good thing especially if the
muons produce ionization inside the body. Muons from space produce 1/2 of
the background radiation load. This is why I have predicted that the high
powered LENR reactor will be heavily shielded, maybe placed underground,
maybe shielded with iron ore to keep the radiation loading down.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization
> produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained
> about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from
>> this paper.
>>
>> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
>> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>>
>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>>
>> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
>> protons.
>>
>> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>>
>> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than
>> the age of the Universe
>>
>> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons
>> - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>>
>> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
>> any decay event.
>>
>> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
>> reactor.
>>
>> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
>> the system.
>>
>> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
>> deuterons.
>>
>> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
>> hundreds of meters away.
>>
>> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
>> MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>>
>> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
>> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
>> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
>> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
>> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>>
>> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> Holmlid states as follows:
>>
>> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
>> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
>> formed and observed [16
>> 
>> ,17
>> ]
>> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
>> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
>> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
>> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
>> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
>> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
>> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
>> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
>> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
>> much longer lifetime.
>>
>> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
>> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
>> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>>
>> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
>> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
>> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
>> deuterium nanoparticle.
>>
>> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>>> with fusion:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>>
>>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>>
>>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

This brings up the down side of LENR. LENR produce intense ionization
produced by muons far from the reaction. Many experimenters have complained
about this intense ionization which makes electronics useless.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this
> paper.
>
> This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as
> "annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.
>
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay
>
> 1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of
> protons.
>
> 2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.
>
> 3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the
> age of the Universe
>
> 4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons
> - the weak force is not involved at this point.
>
> 4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than
> any decay event.
>
> 5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the
> reactor.
>
> 6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into
> the system.
>
> 7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze
> deuterons.
>
> 8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost
> hundreds of meters away.
>
> 7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3
> MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.
>
> Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton
> annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus
> breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using
> deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven
> without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.
>
> On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Holmlid states as follows:
>
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime.
>
> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>
> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
> deuterium nanoparticle.
>
> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>> with fusion:
>>
>>
>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>
>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>
>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

I think we can agree on one thing about Holmlid’s paper, that is that it is a 
Magnum Opus in the field of nuclear science, aka atom-ecology… Here’s my 
historical point of view 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/
 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

 

You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from this 
paper. 

This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as "annihilation." If 
is important to use the correct semantics here.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of protons. 

2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than the age 
of the Universe

4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in protons - the 
weak force is not involved at this point.

4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than any 
decay event. 

5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from the 
reactor.

6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into the 
system.

7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze deuterons.

8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost hundreds of 
meters away.

7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of >3 MeV - 
that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.

Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton annihilation to 
mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus breakeven or net gain 
requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using deuterium. As of now, Holmlid 
has not shown a way to reach breakeven without deuterium fusion being the 
primary source of USABLE energy.

 

On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows: 

 

The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this 
involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and 
observed [ 

 16, 

 17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks 
in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons 
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. 
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 
MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The 
kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In 
the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly 
normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before 
they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.

 

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from. 
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is 
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

 

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can 
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will 
still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

 

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No one 
cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion in 
deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used 
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay too 
far away to provide gain.

Jones

 

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

You still are not making the correct and  important distinctions from 
this paper.


This may sound pedantic but "decay" is not the same thing as 
"annihilation." If is important to use the correct semantics here.


See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

1) Mesons are derived from annihilation of the proton, NOT decay of 
protons.


2) Mesons decay to muons. Muons decay to lighter leptons.

3) Protons do not decay. At least not in 10^29 years - far longer than 
the age of the Universe


4) A laser pulse is required to produce the annihilation event in 
protons - the weak force is not involved at this point.


4) A huge amount of energy is produced from annihilation, much more than 
any decay event.


5) This energy is generally NOT USABLE as the muons disperse far from 
the reactor.


6) To obtain usable energy, then actual fusion must be incorporated into 
the system.


7) Fusion of deuterons is a secondary effect of muons, which catalyze 
deuterons.


8) Without fusion the energy of the muon decay is essentially lost 
hundreds of meters away.


7) Because deuterium fusion in this case produces charged particles of 
>3 MeV - that energy can be captured and not lost. There are few gammas.


Thus we have a catch-22 scenario. The extreme energy of proton 
annihilation to mesons and muons is difficult to capture, and thus 
breakeven or net gain requires a secondary reaction - fusion - using 
deuterium. As of now, Holmlid has not shown a way to reach breakeven 
without deuterium fusion being the primary source of USABLE energy.



On 1/19/2017 12:00 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Holmlid states as follows:

The state /s/ = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested 
that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first 
particles formed and observed [16 
,17 
] 
are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six 
quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the 
interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three 
kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is 
downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed 
directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed 
decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the 
present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly 
normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the 
chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much 
longer lifetime.


Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come 
from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of 
energy is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).


Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium 
nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The 
protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the 
deuterium nanoparticle.


Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene > wrote:


 Axil Axil wrote:


The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing
to do with fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser
pulse. No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons
catalyze fusion in deuterium.*

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be
next to impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are
both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium
must be used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons
or muons which decay too far away to provide gain.

Jones

[Vo]:peace for a single day, lenr info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-19-2017-pacifist-for-day-lenr-info.html


peter

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

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

If the muons are charged, they can be focused and polarized in a magnetic 
field.  Hence they can be made to react more readily with polarized electrons 
in a lattice and their energy harvested in a cylindrical catching device.   


ARE THE MUONS NEUTRAL OR CHARGED that Holmlid claims?  

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 12:01 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Holmlid states as follows:

The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this 
involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and 
observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the 
six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. 
Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 
1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and 
releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even 
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions 
and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed 
directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the 
chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer 
lifetime.

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from. 
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is 
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can 
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will 
still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
 Axil Axil wrote:
The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:

Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No one 
cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.

The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. Muons catalyze fusion in 
deuterium.

Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.

The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be used 
because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which decay too 
far away to provide gain.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

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

"In particle physics , *proton
decay* is a hypothetical 
form of radioactive
decay  in which the proton
 decays into lighter subatomic
particles , such as a
neutral pion  and a positron
.[1]
 There is currently
no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

According to the Standard Model
, protons, a type of baryon
, are stable because baryon number
 (quark number
) is conserved
 (under normal
circumstances; see chiral anomaly
 for exception). Therefore,
protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are
the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon.


Some beyond-the-Standard Model grand unified theories
 (GUTs) explicitly
break the baryon number symmetry, allowing protons to decay via the Higgs
particle , magnetic monopoles
 or new X bosons
 with a half-life of 1031 to 1036 years.
To date, all attempts to observe new phenomena predicted by GUTs (like
proton decay or the existence of magnetic monopoles) have failed."


The ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle acts as a monopole quasiparticle
which capitalizes proton decay. The structure of this nanoparticle focuses
the spin from polaritons that forms on it surface to project forward in a
tight SPIN beam to zap protons. The photons come from the laser beam that
the UDH absorbs on it surface to form polaritons. There is a superradiant
based cause that also is in play to greatly amplify the magnetic power of
the beam. The UHD BEC forms from many coherent UHD particles that
multiplies the strength of the SPIN monopole beam.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Holmlid states as follows:
>
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime.
>
> Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come
> from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy
> is produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).
>
> Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium
> nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The
> protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the
> deuterium nanoparticle.
>
> Fusion is just as secondary side issue.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
>> with fusion:
>>
>>
>> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse.
>> No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>>
>> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
>> fusion in deuterium.*
>>
>> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
>> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>>
>> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
>> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
>> decay too far away to provide gain.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>
>

[Vo]:WHIMPS falling out of Flavor per Sci. Am.

[bobcook39923]

Vorts—

Rossi seemed to like an item about WHIMPS brought to his attention on his blog. 
 It seems WHIMP  advocates are having a hard time finding any.  

The Sci Am editor seems to think dark matter theories may entail “fringe 
science”.   Maybe hydrinos?

Mills claims to have some data that are consistent with dark matter 
characteristics as they may be.  I would think that’s better data than the real 
scientists have in their records.  

I wonder why Sci Am did not mention Mill’s data?   One may need to read between 
the lines. 

Bob Cook



Its an item from Sci Am last summer.  
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - 
nuclearspallation and resonance

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:50:44 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>Mischugenons however unlike 'hydrinos' do produce irrefutable isotopic
>shifts in recipient nuclei, 

During Hydrino fusion, two things can happen:-

1) A proton fuses with the target nucleus, resulting in a change of element.

or

2) A proton & an electron fuse concurrently with the target nucleus resulting in
an isotope shift in the original element, since essentially they combine to
create a new neutron. This is enhanced electron capture. Enhanced, because the
electron is severely shrunken, making it much easier to capture than a normal
atomic electron. 

>though the quantity of shifted isotopes is much
>lower 

lower or higher?

>than the apparent mischugenon flux as measured/inferred by the
>resulting weak emissions! Perhaps a 'third' miracle is needed, oh shit, will
>it ever all be revealed. 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:36 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
>spallation and resonance
>
>In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:53:41 -0800:
>Hi Russ,
>[snip]
>>Agreed that is the second miracle required! But is there any standing 
>>reported evidence for strange mishugenonistic neutron resonance, aka 
>>reflected neutrons, that subsequently behave in a manner effecting the 
>>lack of 'energetic gamma'-less absorbing of neutrons save perhaps 
>>invoking quasi-dark matter-like behavior, nah... ;) Perhaps said 
>>resonant conditioned mischugenon/neutrons would behave somewhat like 
>>normal neutrons and be captured preferentially by nuclei according to 
>>their neutron capture cross-section resulting in only rather weak 
>>emissions. Such beasties would be revealed by the pattern of measurable 
>>though weak emissions increasing as they passed through thin foils of 
>>metals with increasing neutron capture cross sections, I can live with that
>:) That's a neat experiment and result!
>>http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/edward-teller/
>
>Are you the "I" in this tale?
>
>As for "mischugenons" they sound a lot like well shrunken Hydrinos. Not as
>small as neutrons, so they penetrate the electron shells of atoms less
>easily, and need to tunnel into the target nucleus, reducing the reaction
>rate. When they merge with a target nucleus, the resultant energy can be
>carried by the accompanying electron, or by the other proton if the initial
>particle was a Hydrino molecule. The latter possibility in particular might
>account for a considerable reduction in emitted gammas (by many orders of
>magnitude).
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid states as follows:

The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that
this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
formed and observed [16

,17
]
are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
much longer lifetime.

Holmlid recognized that the DECAY of protons is where the mesons come from.
This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is
produced...(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can
produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle
will still produce the 1,88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Axil Axil wrote:
>
> The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do
> with fusion:
>
>
> Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. No
> one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.
>
> The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze
> fusion in deuterium.*
>
> Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to
> impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.
>
> The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be
> used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which
> decay too far away to provide gain.
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

 Axil Axil wrote:

The first reaction to occur is meson production which as nothing to do 
with fusion:


Well, that is partially true - mesons come first after the laser pulse. 
No one cares, since mesons have incredibly short lifetimes.


The main point is that mesons very quickly into muons. *Muons catalyze 
fusion in deuterium.*


Muon catalyzed fusion has been known for 75 years. It would be next to 
impossible to avoid fusion when muons and deuterons are both present.


The bottom line is this: if there is to be net gain, deuterium must be 
used because fusion provides the usable gain - not mesons or muons which 
decay too far away to provide gain.


Jones

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Let the semantics of the theorists begin…. Arrgggh. That in this complex 
environment the atom ecology and resulting behaviours including fusion is more 
complex than can be semantically dumbed down to one moniker is what is 
described in this paper. Theorists will always look for brain numbing debates 
over minutia while pioneering technologists are happy with helping hints of in 
what general direction one might choose to go next.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:35 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do with 
fusion:

 

Holmlid writes:

 

Quote

The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to 
time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even 
the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this 
assumption [ 

 21– 

 23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest 
energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons 
with 14.7 MeV [ 

 57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, 
which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced 
D+D fusion study in D(0) [ 

 14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present 
experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle 
velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the 
laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs  

 4,  

 6 and  

 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent 
that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than 
ordinary fusion.

 

Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of fusion as 
the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words, the primary 
reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons. Kaon production 
points to a amplified weak force decay process working to decay protons and 
neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga electron volts per 
reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted to mesons. There is a 
huge amount of energy consumed in meson production, and a trifling amount to 
heat.

 

As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion fusion 
occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.

 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

 

This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to earlier 
work. There had been an open question about the necessity of deuterium, as 
opposed to protium - but now that is answered.

Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in LENR. 
This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger of ICF 
hot fusion with cold fusion.

However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and 
meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the 
proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with 
protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.

Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by 
laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion 
processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a relatively 
weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear fusion in D(0) 
gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15 

 ]. END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above 
breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium is 
implied.

Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen. But 
with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the mesons, and this 
provides the excess heat, which is not the case with protons. The 24 MeV gamma 
is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 20 MeV indicating that 4 
deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? That is reminiscent of Takahasi's 
tetrahedral theory. 

However, ordinary D+D fusion 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Jones Beene says:

The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite the
massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from the
reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay
hundreds of meters away on average.

If the sub atomic particles(muons) are still entangled in the LENR reaction
 condensate then distance away from that condinsate does not matter because
entanglement is not affected by distance. The muon catalyzed fusion will
still be shared by the condinsate that produced the sub atomic particle
shower. This entanglement with the BEC is why there is no gammas produced
 by the muon and pion fusion. This fusion energy is shared over kilometers
with the BEC through super-absorption.


On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do
> with fusion:
>
> Holmlid writes:
>
> Quote
>
> The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be
> due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the
> collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found
> with this assumption [21
> 
> –23
> ]
> is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest
> energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and
> protons with 14.7 MeV [57
> ].
> The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step,
> which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our
> laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14
> ].
> Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments.
> Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities.
> Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the
> laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4
> 
> , 6
> 
>  and 7
> 
>  etc,
> where no ordinary fusion process can take place. *Thus, it is apparent
> that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes
> than ordinary fusion.*
>
>
> Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of
> fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words,
> the primary reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons.
> Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to
> decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga
> electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted
> to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production,
> and a trifling amount to heat.
>
>
> As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion
> fusion occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to
>> earlier work. There had been an open question about the necessity of
>> deuterium, as opposed to protium - but now that is answered.
>>
>> Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in
>> LENR. This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger
>> of ICF hot fusion with cold fusion.
>>
>> However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and
>> meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the
>> proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with
>> protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.
>>
>> Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by
>> laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion
>> processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a
>> relatively weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear
>> fusion in D(0) gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15
>> ].
>> END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above
>> breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium
>> is implied.
>>
>> Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen.
>> But with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The first reaction to occure is meson production which as nothing to do
with fusion:

Holmlid writes:

Quote

The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due
to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the
collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found
with this assumption [21

–23
]
is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest
energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and
protons with 14.7 MeV [57
].
The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which
is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced
D+D fusion study in D(0) [14
].
Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments.
Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities.
Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the
laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4

, 6

 and 7

etc,
where no ordinary fusion process can take place. *Thus, it is apparent that
the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than
ordinary fusion.*


Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of
fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words,
the primary reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons.
Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to
decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga
electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted
to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production,
and a trifling amount to heat.


As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion
fusion occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.




On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to earlier
> work. There had been an open question about the necessity of deuterium, as
> opposed to protium - but now that is answered.
>
> Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced in
> LENR. This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a merger
> of ICF hot fusion with cold fusion.
>
> However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and
> meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the
> proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy with
> protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.
>
> Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by
> laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion
> processes giving 4He and 3He ions were shown to be initiated by a
> relatively weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced nuclear
> fusion in D(0) gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. [15
> ].
> END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat above
> breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack with protium
> is implied.
>
> Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are seen.
> But with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the mesons, and
> this provides the excess heat, which is not the case with protons. The 24
> MeV gamma is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 20 MeV indicating
> that 4 deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? That is reminiscent of
> Takahasi's tetrahedral theory.
>
> However, ordinary D+D fusion reactions only give an energy up to 3.0 MeV
> in the first reaction step, and up to 14.7 MeV in the second step of the
> reactions and this apparently avoids the 24 MeV gamma. Thus, nuclear
> processes take place with deuterium which are indeed a new version of hot
> fusion --with a new kind of multi-particle branching where gammas do not
> occur.
>
> The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite
> the massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from
> the reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay
> hundreds of meters away on average.
>
> Jones
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

This is an extremely important paper, even if it is incremental to 
earlier work. There had been an open question about the necessity of 
deuterium, as opposed to protium - but now that is answered.


Holmlid's body of work going back a decade is by far the most advanced 
in LENR. This is the future of the field, and it looks very much like a 
merger of ICF hot fusion with cold fusion.


However, we must recognize that Holmlid does show both hot fusion and 
meson/muon production processes with Deuterium - so essentially only the 
proton-based reactions are non-fusion. By implication the net energy 
with protons is far less - and he only claims net gain with deuterium.


Here is the relevant quote for that: "MeV particles are ejected by 
laser-induced processes in both D(0) and p(0). Also, normal D+D fusion 
processes giving ^4 He and ^3 He ions were shown to be initiated by a 
relatively weak pulsed laser [using deuterium fuel]. Laser-induced 
nuclear fusion in D(0) gives heat above break-even, as reported in Ref. 
[15 
]. 
END = note that Holmlid does NOT say that protium does not give heat 
above breakeven, only that deuterium does provide it -- but the lack 
with protium is implied.


Thus we can summarize by saying that in both cases mesons/muons are 
seen. But with deuterium there is also hot fusion, in addition to the 
mesons, and this provides the excess heat, which is not the case with 
protons. The 24 MeV gamma is replaced by a particle flux in the range of 
20 MeV indicating that 4 deuterons fuse into 2 alphas. Sound familiar? 
That is reminiscent of Takahasi's tetrahedral theory.


However, ordinary D+D fusion reactions only give an energy up to 3.0 MeV 
in the first reaction step, and up to 14.7 MeV in the second step of the 
reactions and this apparently avoids the 24 MeV gamma. Thus, nuclear 
processes take place with deuterium which are indeed a new version of 
hot fusion --with a new kind of multi-particle branching where gammas do 
not occur.


The (possible) reason the proton reaction is comparatively weak despite 
the massive decay energy of mesons is that decay occurs so far away from 
the reactor that the energy cannot be captured. The particles can decay 
hundreds of meters away on average.


Jones

Axil Axil wrote:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895


  Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a 
fusion based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are 
far to great. I respect a man that can change his mind under the 
weight of experimental evidence.


The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Holy Cow Batman, this stunning comprehensive paper reports the unambiguous
observation of unusual DD fusion with both 4He a 3He pathways. The 4He path
occurs with only 3Mev, the 3He with 14Mev. Further the muons are expelled at
500 Mev. The magic being ultra-dense hydrogen, both deuterium and protium,
which forms in a hydrogen loaded metal which is the laser target. 75% of the
particles emitted are of a mysterious neutral character which the author
muses might be a 'quasi-neutron', clearly such unusual neutron-like particle
are behaving in what some might describe as a 'crazy' manner, aka a
mischugenon as Edward Teller once referred. The energy balance is indeed
interesting with a COP of 450 (this groups vernacular) inferred from the
very high quality measurements. The paper surely offers some practical
guidance to a few of us working on 'cold fusion' technologies, now where did
I put my ray gun. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:58 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

 


Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


 

A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great. I
respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
evidence.

 

The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.

[Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)

A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great.
I respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
evidence.

The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.

Re: [Vo]:Squeezed frequencies and quantum cooling

[Axil Axil]

The momentum distance uncertainty principle is the effect that cools the
hydrogen that gets trapped in a nanocavity to created ultra dense hydrogen.

The distance gets squeezed and the momentum of the hydrogen atom goes up,
but the transition metal of the lattice that surrounds the hydrogen removes
that increased energy atom by atom from the hydrogen like a refrigerator.
Eventually the compressed hydrogen becomes very cooled and reaches a
superconductor state inside the cavity,





On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> https://phys.org/news/2017-01-quantum-vacuum-traffic-space.html
>
> This article explains how light can be squeezed rather than just a
> selected frequency of light.
>
> the time/energy uncertainty principle drives the energy way up when the
> time is compressed or squeezed.
>
> here is the associated theory paper
>
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1611/1611.06773.pdf
>
> Subcycle Quantum Electrodynamics
>
> C. Riek1 , P. Sulzer1 , M. Seeger1 , A. S. Moskalenko1 , G. Burkard1 , D.
> V. Seletskiy1 , and A. Leitenstorfer1
>
> 1 Department of Physics and Center for Applied Photonics, University of
> Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> "Anomalous cooling" is a neglected subject with a contentious history
>> since it implies that anomalous positive energy is available elsewhere in
>> the system in which the cooling is seem. One does not expect to see 600
>> volts pulsing through a large copper coil at the same time its temperature
>> drops below ambient, unless there is a corresponding opposing effect of
>> some kind to balance it out. It is the balancing which is contentious.
>>
>> There is a well-known magnetocaloric effect (BTW this was discovered with
>> nickel), but the thermodynamics are completely explained in the case of
>> magnetocalorics. In fact, there seem to have been a number of cooling
>> anomalies in years past which were somewhat tainted by the reputation of
>> the inventor, no matter how convincing the experiment and that is the case
>> of Naudin's experiment below. Here is the experiment which was performed
>> well and has been replicated by several others. It makes no claim for
>> excess net energy. You may remember this one from almost 20 years back.
>>
>> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac0709.htm
>>
>> Anyway - all of the above rambling is a preface to the new study from
>> NIST which could add a level of understanding of some alternative energy
>> and LERN experiments past and present.
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7636/full/nature20604.html
>>
>> "Sideband cooling beyond the quantum backaction limit with squeezed
>> light"Jeremy B. Clark, et al NIST
>>  Nature  541,191–195 (12 January 2017)
>>
>> Quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic vacuum produce measurable
>> physical effects such as Casimir forces and the Lamb shift1. They also
>> impose an observable limit—known as the quantum backaction limit—on the
>> lowest temperatures that can be reached using conventional laser cooling
>> techniques2, 3. As laser cooling experiments continue to bring massive
>> mechanical systems to unprecedentedly low temperatures4, 5, this seemingly
>> fundamental limit is increasingly important in the laboratory. Fortunately,
>> vacuum fluctuations are not immutable and can be ‘squeezed’, reducing
>> amplitude fluctuations at the expense of phase fluctuations. Here we
>> propose and experimentally demonstrate that squeezed light can be used to
>> cool the motion of a macroscopic mechanical object below the quantum
>> backaction limit. We first cool a microwave cavity optomechanical system
>> using a coherent state of light to within 15 per cent of this limit. We
>> then cool the system to more than two decibels below the quantum backaction
>> limit using a squeezed microwave field generated by a Josephson parametric
>> amplifier. From heterodyne spectroscopy of the mechanical sidebands, we
>> measure a minimum thermal occupancy of 0.19 ± 0.01 phonons. With our
>> technique, even low-frequency mechanical oscillators can in principle be
>> cooled arbitrarily close to the motional ground state, enabling the
>> exploration of quantum physics in larger, more massive systems.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Squeezed frequencies and quantum cooling

[Axil Axil]

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-quantum-vacuum-traffic-space.html

This article explains how light can be squeezed rather than just a selected
frequency of light.

the time/energy uncertainty principle drives the energy way up when the
time is compressed or squeezed.

here is the associated theory paper

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1611/1611.06773.pdf

Subcycle Quantum Electrodynamics

C. Riek1 , P. Sulzer1 , M. Seeger1 , A. S. Moskalenko1 , G. Burkard1 , D.
V. Seletskiy1 , and A. Leitenstorfer1

1 Department of Physics and Center for Applied Photonics, University of
Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> "Anomalous cooling" is a neglected subject with a contentious history
> since it implies that anomalous positive energy is available elsewhere in
> the system in which the cooling is seem. One does not expect to see 600
> volts pulsing through a large copper coil at the same time its temperature
> drops below ambient, unless there is a corresponding opposing effect of
> some kind to balance it out. It is the balancing which is contentious.
>
> There is a well-known magnetocaloric effect (BTW this was discovered with
> nickel), but the thermodynamics are completely explained in the case of
> magnetocalorics. In fact, there seem to have been a number of cooling
> anomalies in years past which were somewhat tainted by the reputation of
> the inventor, no matter how convincing the experiment and that is the case
> of Naudin's experiment below. Here is the experiment which was performed
> well and has been replicated by several others. It makes no claim for
> excess net energy. You may remember this one from almost 20 years back.
>
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac0709.htm
>
> Anyway - all of the above rambling is a preface to the new study from NIST
> which could add a level of understanding of some alternative energy and
> LERN experiments past and present.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7636/full/nature20604.html
>
> "Sideband cooling beyond the quantum backaction limit with squeezed
> light"Jeremy B. Clark, et al NIST
>  Nature  541,191–195 (12 January 2017)
>
> Quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic vacuum produce measurable
> physical effects such as Casimir forces and the Lamb shift1. They also
> impose an observable limit—known as the quantum backaction limit—on the
> lowest temperatures that can be reached using conventional laser cooling
> techniques2, 3. As laser cooling experiments continue to bring massive
> mechanical systems to unprecedentedly low temperatures4, 5, this seemingly
> fundamental limit is increasingly important in the laboratory. Fortunately,
> vacuum fluctuations are not immutable and can be ‘squeezed’, reducing
> amplitude fluctuations at the expense of phase fluctuations. Here we
> propose and experimentally demonstrate that squeezed light can be used to
> cool the motion of a macroscopic mechanical object below the quantum
> backaction limit. We first cool a microwave cavity optomechanical system
> using a coherent state of light to within 15 per cent of this limit. We
> then cool the system to more than two decibels below the quantum backaction
> limit using a squeezed microwave field generated by a Josephson parametric
> amplifier. From heterodyne spectroscopy of the mechanical sidebands, we
> measure a minimum thermal occupancy of 0.19 ± 0.01 phonons. With our
> technique, even low-frequency mechanical oscillators can in principle be
> cooled arbitrarily close to the motional ground state, enabling the
> exploration of quantum physics in larger, more massive systems.
>
>