Re: [Vo]:Freire et al., Preliminary survey on cold fusion

[Axil Axil]

The indications against the "REACTION" having a nuclear origin is the issue
that no nuclear or particle radiation is ever detected. Also all reaction
products and transmutation are stable. No one has ever produced or even
attempted a theory that explains the nuclear origin of the radiationless
nuclear reaction.

   -
   



On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 9:02 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Preliminary survey on cold fusion: It’s not pathological science and may 
> require
> revision of nuclear theory.
>
>
> Discussion and copy of paper here:
>
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6714-brazil-joins-the-party-a-survey-of-the-lenr-field/
>

[Vo]:Freire et al., Preliminary survey on cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Preliminary survey on cold fusion: It’s not pathological science and
may require
revision of nuclear theory.


Discussion and copy of paper here:


https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6714-brazil-joins-the-party-a-survey-of-the-lenr-field/

RE: [Vo]:From Atomic Clocks to Nulcear Clocks

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Harry—


Are increments quantized or associated with some observable repeatable natural 
event. For example, the rotation of an electron’s magnetic field on a toroidal 
surface?

Jurg  WYYTTENBACH   considers  a similar proton model   in his SO(4) PHYSICS  
evaluations.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows

From: H LV
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2021 8:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:From Atomic Clocks to Nulcear Clocks

Nature article from Feb. 2021:
The thorium-229 low-energy isomer and the nuclear clock.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-021-00286-6
abstract
The 229Th nucleus has an isomeric state at an energy of about 8 eV
above the ground state, several orders of magnitude lower than typical
nuclear excitation energies. This has inspired the development of a
field of low-energy nuclear physics in which nuclear transition rates
are influenced by the electron shell. The low energy makes the 229Th
isomer accessible to resonant laser excitation. Observed in
laser-cooled trapped thorium ions or with thorium dopant ions in a
transparent solid, the nuclear resonance may serve as the reference
for an optical clock of very high accuracy. Precision frequency
comparisons between such a nuclear clock and conventional atomic
clocks will provide sensitivity to the effects of hypothetical new
physics beyond the standard model. Although laser excitation of 229Th
remains an unsolved challenge, recent experiments have provided
essential information on the transition energy and relevant nuclear
properties, advancing the field.
--
<>
video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCQUZW_sxJI


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Are OU Techs Inadvertently the 'Great Filter'?

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:43 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
 https://i.ibb.co/KjRJ4f8/isitsafe.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a8/9e/0e/a89e0e869356ee09bcd3fc364d52be0b.jpg

Re: [Vo]:Electron capture acceleration via NMR ?

[Bill Antoni]

On 2021-12-03 02:51, Robin wrote:

If you put your detector in a well grounded Faraday cage, it may eliminate most 
radio interference produced by sparking.
Use metal (not nylon) fly wire for the Faraday cage (or at least for a window 
if you prefer the whole cage be made of
metal sheet). The space between the wires is small enough to shield most EM 
below about 150 GHz, but alpha, beta, or
gamma should get through easily. I suggest you add a little credit card sized 
microprocessor to the detector, that can
run on batteries for a few hours, and can easily be included in the Faraday 
cage, with no protruding wires. The
microprocessor can log the counts, and the time, and store it on a microSD card 
for later use.
(Protruding wires would act as an antenna, for the EM, defeating the purpose of 
the Faraday cage.)

BTW to eliminate the Radon, just make the experiment portable, and take it 
elsewhere. Also let the detector run for a
while before the experiment starts, so that you get a good indication of 
average background radiation.


My Geiger detector was apparently immune to the sparking and it never 
showed anything that could be attributed to that. On the other hand, it 
seemed sensitive to radioactive dust and one time I managed increase the 
already somewhat high background signal by 3 times by just putting it in 
front of a 120mm fan in a closed room. I never saw anything with it 
during the tests after enclosing it in a sealed plastic box. I don't 
have the Geiger counter anymore, in any case.


The CMOS/CCD webcam detector could possibly benefit from being put in a 
sealed box inside a Faraday cage; whether it would be able to see much 
more than background radiation is the question. The low sensitivity 
(counts per unit of time) is a problem. Variations due to temperature 
are also an issue. When it did not malfunction, proximity to the plasma 
electrolysis cell increased the amount of false detections due to sensor 
noise).


I thought in the past about using a Faraday cage, but in the end also 
due to the very low budget nature of the tests I just "embraced" such 
emissions and tried finding conditions that maximized them. Generally 
this simply meant using higher voltages (typically up to 72V in my case, 
which is unsustainable for more than short periods with KOH at or close 
to saturation at room temperature due to the violent reaction), although 
other parameters also have an effect as mentioned earlier. It seems for 
example that the hotter the cathode, the higher the emissions, which 
appears to make sense on an intuitive level (stronger thermionic 
emission). Cathode materials that do not oxidize easily also seemed to 
work better.


Some authors have suggested that the electromagnetic emission itself is 
the result of novel processes occurring in the plasma/spark reaction, so 
just measuring the EMI seemed like it would be a very simple strategy to 
maximize them. Thus my tests were mostly focused on lowering the voltage 
from which the plasma reaction could start and increasing the amount of 
EMI generated.


I never tried seriously measuring excess heat. Evaporation calorimetry 
is not straightforward because much of the electrolyte is efficiently 
aerosolized from the cathode region, which may give the impression of 
much larger heat generated than in reality. Measuring the temperature in 
one single point may also give false results due to heat stratification 
or heat gradients in the electrolyte (highly likely for cathodic plasma 
electrolysis).


Cheers, BA