Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jack Cole's message of Tue, 04 Apr 2017 01:25:43 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/

Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement the
model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:got a 5 star review and I am now running number 1

[Frank Znidarsic]

I got a 5 star review and I am now running number 1 globally in pets and 
animals at Google.





https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/mobile-apps/9408731011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_mas_1_3_last




Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Jack Cole]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/

[Vo]:LENR INFO ONLY

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-3-2017-lenr-only-some-info.html
Please read my blog associate's posting:"A manager's mirrorr (II)" too..
peter

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

Re: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

[Axil Axil]

I suggest that the ultra dense hydrogen based  quasiparticle might be
considered the hydrino.  But not only hydrogen can form the ultra dense
form. Water can also assume the ultra dence from as produced in cavitation.

The water crystal discovered by Mark Leclair gives cavitation the ability
to erode any substance even including diamond because of the unsurpassed
hardness of the water crystal's impenetrable spin wave shield that
surrounds and protects this UD crystal.

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> My dear friend Jones, Let me beat this horse one more time with Naudts
> suggestion that the hydrino and by extension, dense hydrogen,  are all
> relativistic forms of hydrogen and your trepidation about suggesting time
> dilation is the only single effect that explains all the anomalies from the
> EM drive to modified half lives of radioactive gas when catalyzed ...As for
> below absolute zero temperatures this goes away if the observation is not
> in the same frame as the UDD.. I may be extending Naudts claims to the
> limit but would suggest the temp never goes below absolute zero for the
> local nano observer collocated in the same frame as the UDD.
>
> Fran
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 9:58 AM
> To: Vortex List 
> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"
>
> Dense hydrogen is nothing if not cold. Its deflated electron, its sole
> contact with the world, has lost most of its angular momentum. How cold
> is UDD or UDH, and can it remain cold on contact with adjacent warm
> matter? That is the start of a house of cards - to be presented below.
>
> Last year a thread here touched on the reality of temperatures "below
> absolute zero" and the early experimental evidence for such:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146
>
> ...where it was stated in a prestigious journal that a peculiarity of
> the below-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy,' the
> putative anti-gravity force which pushes Universal expansion against the
> inward pull of gravity. This leads to an interconnection between dark
> matter and dark energy - both being ostensibly cold.
>
> Curiously, achieving ultracold involves laser cooling (aka Doppler
> cooling) using coherent photons which are very hot. Several ironies
> place the Holmlid experiments within the realm of ultracold (whether he
> rejects the concept or not). Another slant on negative temperatures
> which fits his situation is the realm of Casimir dimensions (few nm
> range): "Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in
> Quantum Vacuum"- Quantum Temperatures Below Zero Kelvin" by Calvet.
>
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm
>
> Dense hydrogen could be the key to opening an unexplored world of
> quantum temperatures below zero K, along with time dilation in a model
> that agrees with cosmology and recent findings on a Universal scale.
> Moving on to "frangibility"... for those not familiar with the term - it
> connotes the failure mechanism of ultracold, like thin ice. The end
> result of ultracold dynamics is not fusion, decay or immediate
> annihilation of protons into energy, but the quark–gluon plasma (aka
> quark soup) which is a state of matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
> that can take on the various identities, including that of its longest
> lived component - muons.
>
> There is a semantics issue relative to any experiment having a
> persistent "coldness" (zone composed of dense hydrogen) existing in a
> relatively hot reactor, yet "refusing" to heat up - seemingly violating
> common sense and laws of thermodynamics. The implication is that dense
> hydrogen is both cold and experiencing time dilation. Dark energy would
> be suspected to exhibit an altered time property (Feynman).
> Unfortunately, it may be necessary to invoke both of these far-out
> notions in order to explain the muons of Holmlid... but an adequate
> explanation from less controversial physics has not been forthcoming and
> probably never can be.
>
> Can dense hydrogen, irradiated by a weak laser beam, really be so
> fragile that it fractures into subatomic debris... even assuming it was
> "frozen" in the ultracold realm by its own deflated electron? The result
> is as if being blasted by a TeV beam. An exponential increase in
> magnetic interaction is a factor (from Calvet) which would help to
> explain the Holmlid effect– at least when the magnetic field interferes
> with QCD color exchange. Importantly, consider the slides of Chernodub:
> physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf.
>
> ... which can be understood to provide the mechanism we are looking for
> - for proton frangibility via QCD color exchange in a magnetic field.
> The fact that there is a geometric region within iron-oxide catalyst of
> Casimir dimensions may b

Re: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

[Jones Beene]

Fran,

It is difficult to reconcile dense hydrogen with a relativistic 
electron. In rereading Naudts paper just now, it seems as if he could be 
describing the initial redundant ground state of Mills, as if there were 
only one level, and not deeper levels.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm0LGJAvqlA8ud47yUQ-TK3j7BYALA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

... it seems like Naudts is more focused on a whiteboard quest to find a 
workable solution to the Klein-Gordon equation than to model the reality 
of what Holmlid seems to have found at extreme densities, or Mayer and 
others have solved for more moderate densities. There is a solution 
which has a low-lying eigenstate which Naudts (not necessarily Mills) 
calls the hydrino state, as if there was only one, but with no square 
integrable wavefunction. Not sure how that could relate to an extremely 
dense state, other than one might suspect that UDH is almost synonymous 
with wavefunction collapse - and even if Naudts is broader than that - 
how can one reconcile an "energy depleted" electron with a relativistic 
electron ?


Roarty, Francis X wrote:

My dear friend Jones, Let me beat this horse one more time with Naudts 
suggestion that the hydrino and by extension, dense hydrogen, are all 
relativistic forms of hydrogen and your trepidation about suggesting 
time dilation is the only single effect that explains all the 
anomalies from the EM drive to modified half lives of radioactive gas 
when catalyzed ...As for below absolute zero temperatures this goes 
away if the observation is not in the same frame as the UDD.. I may be 
extending Naudts claims to the limit but would suggest the temp never 
goes below absolute zero for the local nano observer collocated in the 
same frame as the UDD. Fran -Original Message-

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Axil Axil]

Muon radiation is not immediately deadly. We all have muons passing through
our bodies produced by cosmic rays. These muons contribute to 12% more or
less of the total background radiation loading that exist in the
background.

[image: Inline image 1]

Muons hardly react with the elements in our bodies. But muon reaction rates
increase greatly in heavy elements like lead.

When the production of muons increases by a billion times, the background
radiation loading that we are exposed to will increase accordingly.

A 100 watt LENR reactor does not increase this background reaction loading
very much because most of those muons pass right through the body. But if
10 gigawatts of LENR is produced within a limited urban area like Atlanta,
The background radiation rate that exists in the greater Atlanta city
limits will increase in proportion to the power generation rate in that
city.

Living in that LENR powered Atlanta is like living in outer space where
exposure to muon radiation is most intense.

Working near a single 100 watt LENR reactor will produce a similar
background radiation loading that one would be exposed to in a cross
country airline fight.

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

"The Earth and all living things on it are constantly bombarded by
radiation from outer space. This radiation primarily consists of positively
charged ions from protons to iron and larger nuclei derived sources outside
our solar system. This radiation interacts with atoms in the atmosphere to
create an air shower of secondary radiation, including X-rays, muons,
protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons. The immediate
dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and electrons,
and this dose varies in different parts of the world based largely on the
geomagnetic field and altitude. For example, the city of Denver in the
United States (at 1650 meters elevation) receives a cosmic ray dose roughly
twice that of a location at sea level. This radiation is much more intense
in the upper troposphere, around 10 km altitude, and is thus of particular
concern for airline crews and frequent passengers, who spend many hours per
year in this environment. During their flights airline crews typically get
an extra dose on the order of 2.2 mSv (220 mrem) per year."



On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>
>> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
 tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation 
 exposure.

>>>
>>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>>
>>
>
>
> I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
>> Rossi has😉.
>>
>
> Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose
> I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W.
> If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of
> radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced
> plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.
>
> If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
> cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
> the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year
> test. The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the
> Penon report (Exhibit 197-03)
>
> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/
> 01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
>
> It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Peter Gluck]

yes

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0194.09_Exhibit_9.pdf

and some e-mails by him etc.

peter

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

>
> Was Penon deposed?  He is the central figure in the trial. Has he answered
> questions under oath?
>
> If not, why not?
>
> The ERV is moot without his sworn testimony under fear of jepoardy.
>
> --
> *From:* Peter Gluck 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 3, 2017 10:15 AM
> *To:* VORTEX
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
>
> Jed,
> you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian
> negative
> revelation of nothingness.
> I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you
> agree with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful
> test?
>
> The data presented in the report are based on many raw measurements.
>
> peter
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
> tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation 
> exposure.
>

 If that were true, I would be dead.

>>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable
>>> amounts...like Rossi has😉.
>>>
>>
>> Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake.
>> Suppose I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to
>> 100 W. If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal
>> doses of radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was
>> announced plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.
>>
>> If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
>> cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
>> the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.
>>
>> In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year
>> test. The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the
>> Penon report (Exhibit 197-03)
>>
>> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
>> 0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
>>
>> It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Brian Ahern]

Was Penon deposed?  He is the central figure in the trial. Has he answered 
questions under oath?

If not, why not?

The ERV is moot without his sworn testimony under fear of jepoardy.


From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 10:15 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Jed,
you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian negative
revelation of nothingness.
I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you agree 
with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful test?

The data presented in the report are based on many raw measurements.

peter

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce tons of 
all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure.

If that were true, I would be dead.



I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like 
Rossi has😉.

Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose I 
have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W. If you 
are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of radiation. As 
I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced plasma fusion 
scientists pointed this out.

If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of cold 
fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at the 
levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year test. The 
test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the Penon report 
(Exhibit 197-03)

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.

- Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:

This is a fun discussion, Jones, but an important aspect of this 
troubles me.  You are likening UDD, UDH with sub-ground-state 
hydrogen; and the way Holmlid defines UDD/UDH, they are unrelated 
phenomena.


Bob,

Yes - for the sake of brevity in an already too-long post, all of the 
various forms of dense hydrogen were conflated under the title of UDH or 
dense hydrogen. I would not say they are all "unrelated" however.


In fact, I do not subscribe to the details of Holmlid's version, nor to 
Rydberg matter. There are better models than his, based on Mayer and 
others - but in any case, extreme densification should present as 
"coldness"...


I suppose it could be called "virtual coldness"...

RE: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

[Roarty, Francis X]

My dear friend Jones, Let me beat this horse one more time with Naudts 
suggestion that the hydrino and by extension, dense hydrogen,  are all 
relativistic forms of hydrogen and your trepidation about suggesting time 
dilation is the only single effect that explains all the anomalies from the EM 
drive to modified half lives of radioactive gas when catalyzed ...As for below 
absolute zero temperatures this goes away if the observation is not in the same 
frame as the UDD.. I may be extending Naudts claims to the limit but would 
suggest the temp never goes below absolute zero for the local nano observer 
collocated in the same frame as the UDD.

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 9:58 AM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

Dense hydrogen is nothing if not cold. Its deflated electron, its sole 
contact with the world, has lost most of its angular momentum. How cold 
is UDD or UDH, and can it remain cold on contact with adjacent warm 
matter? That is the start of a house of cards - to be presented below.

Last year a thread here touched on the reality of temperatures "below 
absolute zero" and the early experimental evidence for such:

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146

...where it was stated in a prestigious journal that a peculiarity of 
the below-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy,' the 
putative anti-gravity force which pushes Universal expansion against the 
inward pull of gravity. This leads to an interconnection between dark 
matter and dark energy - both being ostensibly cold.

Curiously, achieving ultracold involves laser cooling (aka Doppler 
cooling) using coherent photons which are very hot. Several ironies 
place the Holmlid experiments within the realm of ultracold (whether he 
rejects the concept or not). Another slant on negative temperatures 
which fits his situation is the realm of Casimir dimensions (few nm 
range): "Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in 
Quantum Vacuum"- Quantum Temperatures Below Zero Kelvin" by Calvet.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm

Dense hydrogen could be the key to opening an unexplored world of 
quantum temperatures below zero K, along with time dilation in a model 
that agrees with cosmology and recent findings on a Universal scale. 
Moving on to "frangibility"... for those not familiar with the term - it 
connotes the failure mechanism of ultracold, like thin ice. The end 
result of ultracold dynamics is not fusion, decay or immediate 
annihilation of protons into energy, but the quark–gluon plasma (aka 
quark soup) which is a state of matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) 
that can take on the various identities, including that of its longest 
lived component - muons.

There is a semantics issue relative to any experiment having a 
persistent "coldness" (zone composed of dense hydrogen) existing in a 
relatively hot reactor, yet "refusing" to heat up - seemingly violating 
common sense and laws of thermodynamics. The implication is that dense 
hydrogen is both cold and experiencing time dilation. Dark energy would 
be suspected to exhibit an altered time property (Feynman). 
Unfortunately, it may be necessary to invoke both of these far-out 
notions in order to explain the muons of Holmlid... but an adequate 
explanation from less controversial physics has not been forthcoming and 
probably never can be.

Can dense hydrogen, irradiated by a weak laser beam, really be so 
fragile that it fractures into subatomic debris... even assuming it was 
"frozen" in the ultracold realm by its own deflated electron? The result 
is as if being blasted by a TeV beam. An exponential increase in 
magnetic interaction is a factor (from Calvet) which would help to 
explain the Holmlid effect– at least when the magnetic field interferes 
with QCD color exchange. Importantly, consider the slides of Chernodub:
physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf.

... which can be understood to provide the mechanism we are looking for 
- for proton frangibility via QCD color exchange in a magnetic field. 
The fact that there is a geometric region within iron-oxide catalyst of 
Casimir dimensions may be no accident, even if prior attempts to utilize 
nano-porosity (without laser irradiation) have failed (e.g. Cool Essence 
LLC).

This is admittedly a house of cards, but as of now - it could be the 
only game in town to explain the appearance of muons. If Casimir 
geometry is accurately modeled as a fourth power relationship in the 
context of local magnetism, the combined effect with laser could push 
the field strength at the focal point into the region where nucleon 
disintegration is possible from QCD color exchange disruption. That 
would be the working definition of "proton ultracold frangibility."

A final note. Unfortunately, it is likely t

Re: [Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

[Bob Higgins]

This is a fun discussion, Jones, but an important aspect of this troubles
me.  You are likening UDD, UDH with sub-ground-state hydrogen; and the way
Holmlid defines UDD/UDH, they are unrelated phenomena.  Holmlid describes
UDD/UDH as forming (near reversably) from Rydberg matter, a well above
ground state quasi-molecule or condensed matter particle of hydrogen.  In
fact, each of the atoms in this Rydberg matter are on the verge of
ionization!  So, the overall Hamiltonian for this Rydberg matter is just
slightly lower than for the same number of atoms each in a Rydberg state -
that's why the Rydberg matter is meta-stable, because there is a local
minimum of the Hamiltonian.  Yet Holmlid goes on to say that the Rydberg
matter can spontaneously switch (approximately reverse-ably) to the UDD/UDH
compact form, implying that the Hamiltonian for the compact form is nearly
equivalent to that of the high energy Rydberg matter form.  Now, compare
this to the Hamiltonian for a sub-ground-state hydrogen atom (hydrino or
Maly/Vavra, Meulenberg, Paillet... shrunken hydrogen).  The shrunken
hydrogen will have a much smaller Hamiltonian than the UDD/UDH
Rydberg-related matter.  In fact, the shrunken hydrogen has an energy
deficit below the hydrogen ground state that is greater than the excited
energy of the Rydberg state above the ground state.  Rydberg matter does
have enough angular momentum to have a photon exchange where, as SVJ has
said (I remembered), there is not enough angular momentum in the shrunken
hydrogen to exchange a photon.  UDD/UDH and shrunken hydrogen are two
completely different hypothetical things.

While the shrunken hydrogen has insufficient angular momentum for photon
exchange, I would be interested to hear discussion on whether shrunken
hydrogen can interact with phonons.  Would it require shrunken hydrogen
condensed matter to interact with phonons?  Can shrunken hydrogen condensed
matter interact with phonons in ordinary condensed matter?  Would that
phonon coupling be evanescent?

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Dense hydrogen is nothing if not cold. Its deflated electron, its sole
> contact with the world, has lost most of its angular momentum. How cold is
> UDD or UDH, and can it remain cold on contact with adjacent warm matter?
> That is the start of a house of cards - to be presented below.
>
> Last year a thread here touched on the reality of temperatures "below
> absolute zero" and the early experimental evidence for such:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146
>
> ...where it was stated in a prestigious journal that a peculiarity of the
> below-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy,' the putative
> anti-gravity force which pushes Universal expansion against the inward pull
> of gravity. This leads to an interconnection between dark matter and dark
> energy - both being ostensibly cold.
>
> Curiously, achieving ultracold involves laser cooling (aka Doppler
> cooling) using coherent photons which are very hot. Several ironies place
> the Holmlid experiments within the realm of ultracold (whether he rejects
> the concept or not). Another slant on negative temperatures which fits his
> situation is the realm of Casimir dimensions (few nm range): "Evidence for
> the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in Quantum Vacuum"- Quantum
> Temperatures Below Zero Kelvin" by Calvet.
>
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm
>
> Dense hydrogen could be the key to opening an unexplored world of quantum
> temperatures below zero K, along with time dilation in a model that agrees
> with cosmology and recent findings on a Universal scale. Moving on to
> "frangibility"... for those not familiar with the term - it connotes the
> failure mechanism of ultracold, like thin ice. The end result of ultracold
> dynamics is not fusion, decay or immediate annihilation of protons into
> energy, but the quark–gluon plasma (aka quark soup) which is a state of
> matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) that can take on the various
> identities, including that of its longest lived component - muons.
>
> There is a semantics issue relative to any experiment having a persistent
> "coldness" (zone composed of dense hydrogen) existing in a relatively hot
> reactor, yet "refusing" to heat up - seemingly violating common sense and
> laws of thermodynamics. The implication is that dense hydrogen is both cold
> and experiencing time dilation. Dark energy would be suspected to exhibit
> an altered time property (Feynman). Unfortunately, it may be necessary to
> invoke both of these far-out notions in order to explain the muons of
> Holmlid... but an adequate explanation from less controversial physics has
> not been forthcoming and probably never can be.
>
> Can dense hydrogen, irradiated by a weak laser beam, really be so fragile
> that it fractures into subatomic debris... even assuming it was "frozen" in
> the ultracold realm by its

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,
you suggest anyone reading the Penon report will have a Rothwellian negative
revelation of nothingness.
I may ask all our colleagues from this relatively inactive forum,: do you
agree with Jed, or on the contrary they have the intuition of a successful
test?

The data presented in the report are based on many raw measurements.

peter

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>
>> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
 tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation 
 exposure.

>>>
>>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>>
>>
>
>
> I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
>> Rossi has😉.
>>
>
> Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose
> I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W.
> If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of
> radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced
> plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.
>
> If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
> cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
> the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year
> test. The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the
> Penon report (Exhibit 197-03)
>
> http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/
> 01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf
>
> It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Daniel Rocha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vBB8SgHazs

2017-04-03 0:05 GMT-03:00 Che :

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> > As an ideologue, remember to alway keep your feet planted firmly on the
> solid foundation of realism.
>
>
>
> Frankly, I'll take an ideological stance over crass, money-grubbing
> commercialism, any day.
> Look where that's got us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Frangibility, Holmlid and "below absolute zero"

[Jones Beene]

Dense hydrogen is nothing if not cold. Its deflated electron, its sole 
contact with the world, has lost most of its angular momentum. How cold 
is UDD or UDH, and can it remain cold on contact with adjacent warm 
matter? That is the start of a house of cards - to be presented below.


Last year a thread here touched on the reality of temperatures "below 
absolute zero" and the early experimental evidence for such:


http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146

...where it was stated in a prestigious journal that a peculiarity of 
the below-absolute-zero gas is that it mimics 'dark energy,' the 
putative anti-gravity force which pushes Universal expansion against the 
inward pull of gravity. This leads to an interconnection between dark 
matter and dark energy - both being ostensibly cold.


Curiously, achieving ultracold involves laser cooling (aka Doppler 
cooling) using coherent photons which are very hot. Several ironies 
place the Holmlid experiments within the realm of ultracold (whether he 
rejects the concept or not). Another slant on negative temperatures 
which fits his situation is the realm of Casimir dimensions (few nm 
range): "Evidence for the Existence of 5 Real Spatial Dimensions in 
Quantum Vacuum"- Quantum Temperatures Below Zero Kelvin" by Calvet.


http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/calvet-final.htm

Dense hydrogen could be the key to opening an unexplored world of 
quantum temperatures below zero K, along with time dilation in a model 
that agrees with cosmology and recent findings on a Universal scale. 
Moving on to "frangibility"... for those not familiar with the term - it 
connotes the failure mechanism of ultracold, like thin ice. The end 
result of ultracold dynamics is not fusion, decay or immediate 
annihilation of protons into energy, but the quark–gluon plasma (aka 
quark soup) which is a state of matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) 
that can take on the various identities, including that of its longest 
lived component - muons.


There is a semantics issue relative to any experiment having a 
persistent "coldness" (zone composed of dense hydrogen) existing in a 
relatively hot reactor, yet "refusing" to heat up - seemingly violating 
common sense and laws of thermodynamics. The implication is that dense 
hydrogen is both cold and experiencing time dilation. Dark energy would 
be suspected to exhibit an altered time property (Feynman). 
Unfortunately, it may be necessary to invoke both of these far-out 
notions in order to explain the muons of Holmlid... but an adequate 
explanation from less controversial physics has not been forthcoming and 
probably never can be.


Can dense hydrogen, irradiated by a weak laser beam, really be so 
fragile that it fractures into subatomic debris... even assuming it was 
"frozen" in the ultracold realm by its own deflated electron? The result 
is as if being blasted by a TeV beam. An exponential increase in 
magnetic interaction is a factor (from Calvet) which would help to 
explain the Holmlid effect– at least when the magnetic field interferes 
with QCD color exchange. Importantly, consider the slides of Chernodub:

physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf.

... which can be understood to provide the mechanism we are looking for 
- for proton frangibility via QCD color exchange in a magnetic field. 
The fact that there is a geometric region within iron-oxide catalyst of 
Casimir dimensions may be no accident, even if prior attempts to utilize 
nano-porosity (without laser irradiation) have failed (e.g. Cool Essence 
LLC).


This is admittedly a house of cards, but as of now - it could be the 
only game in town to explain the appearance of muons. If Casimir 
geometry is accurately modeled as a fourth power relationship in the 
context of local magnetism, the combined effect with laser could push 
the field strength at the focal point into the region where nucleon 
disintegration is possible from QCD color exchange disruption. That 
would be the working definition of "proton ultracold frangibility."


A final note. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Holmlid effect, at 
least as presented above, will not scale up to higher power. It will be 
a pity if the efforts to duplicate Holmlid start out with a scaled up 
system which fails. The good news is that even the low power system can 
be useful. To power a robot, for instance, to human levels of activity 
only requires about 100 watts.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:



> If LENR produces tons of energy in the aggregate, it will also produce
>>> tons of all pervasive and highly penetrating meson based radiation exposure.
>>>
>>
>> If that were true, I would be dead.
>>
>


I doubt that you have seen LENR, at least in any measurable amounts...like
> Rossi has😉.
>

Either you missed the point or you are arguing for arguments sake. Suppose
I have not seen LENR. Many other people have, at power levels up to 100 W.
If you are correct, even a fraction of 1 W would generate fatal doses of
radiation. As I am sure you know, the day after cold fusion was announced
plasma fusion scientists pointed this out.

If you believe that Rossi has seen kilowatt levels and megawatt levels of
cold fusion, then surely you understand it cannot be producing radiation at
the levels you describe. He would be dead. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, Rossi did not see any cold fusion effect during the one-year test.
The test was a fraud; the data was fake, as anyone can see from the Penon
report (Exhibit 197-03)

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

It is possible he saw some effect previously, but I doubt it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[a.ashfield]

You are right.  It was Jones Beene.  My apologies.
AA

On 4/3/2017 5:41 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Once again - mistaken identity. I made no such pledge.




*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:23 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.
Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA

On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:



Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


*From:* Che 
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.



Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.







AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken
seriously here on vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM




Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume
the emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus
lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the
antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the right of the
equation, so that the law is respected. You could say
that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact,
but…it is, albeit without this trick the Standard Model
would brutally crack down: realistically, between a
crack and a trick is better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

[Brian Ahern]

Once again - mistaken identity. I made no such pledge.



From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 9:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA

On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


From: Che 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.



On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.


Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.








AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:

Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here on 
vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning up on 
atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more expert 
than me, will comment.


  1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 
PM

Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear physics 
equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the respect of the leptons 
conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives one proton, 
one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron 
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you have one lepton and 
this would be against the leptons number conservation law: therefore you have 
to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton ( the 
electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the 
right of the equation, so that the law is respected. You could say that this 
sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit without this 
trick the Standard Model would brutally crack down: realistically, between a 
crack and a trick is better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.