Re: [Vo]:This could be an indication of "dense hydrogen" from solarorigin

[Russ George]

I am imagining a magnetic monopole as a cluster of UDD. Behaving in some
ways but not all ways like a neutron.

The purely magnetic nature might allow aggregation and dissemination of
energy.

A solar source of these would be a convenient fit to the data.

Russ

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 9:49 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> One early and very detailed model of Aringazin:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0202049
>
> Jürg
> On 13.06.2019 02:01, JonesBeene wrote:
>
>
>
> How low can you go?
>
>
>
> Picometers are so passe’…
>
>
>
> The $64 question… what is the densest of the dense?
>
>
>
> Has anyone ever put together a table which lists the various theories of
> dense hydrogen and also lists the diameter of the densest species supported
> by the theory?
>
>
>
> This could be an opportune time to start such a table.
>
>
>
> Here are some names that come to find who have written specifically on
> dense hydrogen with size estimates. Please provide corrections and
> additions.
>
>
>
> It is fully realized that a few of these researchers have provided far
> more effort and insight than others, not to mention many more publications.
>
>
>
> But this is not a contest, yet it is intriguing to me that most of this is
> high quality work – yet still snubbed by the mainstream.
>
>
>
>
>
> Randell Mills
>
> A.O Barut
>
> Leif Holmlid
>
> Nabil Lawandy
>
> Jerry Vavra
>
> Yoshiaki Arata
>
> Friedwardt Winterberg
>
> Cerofolini
>
> Andrew Meulenberg
>
> F.J. Mayer
>
> George Miley
>
> Jacque Dufour
>
> Horace Heffner
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> Jürg Wyttenbach
>
>
>
> And others to be added///
>
>
>
> The next column would be the  smallest version of proton bound to an
> electron in picometers/femtometers.
>
>
>
> Other relevant columns should be added.
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter andexplains the EM drive

[Russ George]

Pray tell as one of the few real cold fusion experimentalists what
associations might have come to your mind connecting nanoparticles lasing
and cold fusion. Any ideas on how coherent lasing domains might assist in
mediating those pesky gammas?

On Feb 6, 2018 12:16 PM, "Brian Ahern"  wrote:

> This nanometric laser was developed in 1996 under an AF SBIR Phase II
> contract. I was the  contract monitor. Prof. Nabil Lawandy developed LASER
> PAINT. It incorporated nanopowders that scattered light and resulted in
> stimulated emission  It is widely used today.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Russ 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:05 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark
> matter andexplains the EM drive
>
>
> McCulloch’s QI concept readily conforms to observed real cold fusion data
> and is far superior to the armchair speculations that so commonly  eschew
> the real data. The first miracle of cold fusion is that something gives a
> ‘fusing nudge’ to the reactants, D+D in their native ecological domain, the
> highly loaded metallic lattice. At the dimensions well known to be that in
> which prodigious 4He is produced by DD fusion, mere nanometers, the QI
> notion fits very well. In that dimensional realm McCulloch’s QI Unrah
> effects might easily offer the nudge to start the cold fusion cascade. Such
> cold fusion cascades are clearly evident in the data that shows vast
> numbers of 4He producing cold fusion events deep inside such nanometric
> metal domains (not on the surface).
>
>
>
> Once the QI Unrah environment becomes established it might also provide
> the means to satisfy the second miracle of cold fusion that being the
> suppression of energetic emissions, that danged missing gamma. The QI Unrah
> nanometric environment (horizons) it would seem captures and moderates
> those pesky gammas leaking them into local materials as phonons thus
> suppression of the expected gammas.
>
>
>
> Now the question is whether the QI Unrah environment can also serve to
> induce nanometric masing of those cold fusion powered phonons. That of
> course leads to the obvious technological device, the phaser
>
>
>
> This paper just published 4 Jan 2018  speaks of the use of nanometric
> mirrors to produce masing effects. Seems to be clearly in McCulloch’s QI
> dimensions that his maths show are appropriate for said Unrah effects. The
> atom-ecology that is characteristic of active cold fusion materials easily
> fits here.  Just beam over to the Journal Nature to read more….
>
>
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat5065.epdf?shared_
> access_token=Clp7obKDCjyTay7_Ubjz-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PR2ms4N9B
> dyqGfEocfLrVaFTzgJ5vZ5NbrtbWqBzcVlTXQEagaHDIXskwMPwuHb4O9qcz
> 8k9_B-S9us2vcHllZ3Xt2Lwx-pu0qrjDJ_ycXFQ%3D%3D
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 5, 2018 10:41 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark
> matter andexplains the EM drive
>
>
>
> Jones—
>
>
>
> I had the same idea about DH and QI together answering the galactic
> rotation problem.   The Mills spectrum of DH surely warrants a comparative
> review with the observed spectrum from the Milky Way or other near by
> galaxies.
>
>
>
> Maybe Mills has already done this comparison; if not, he should IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From: *JonesBeene 
> *Sent: *Monday, February 5, 2018 10:14 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark
> matter andexplains the EM drive
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a new study from NASA on dark matter/ dark energy and the
> reinterpretation of the Chandra findings WRT the mystery radiation
> signature at 3.5 keV.
>
>
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/a-new-
> twist-in-the-dark-matter-tale.html
> 
>
>
>
> CERN has a new report on DM as well. The informed opinion on dark matter
> swings back and forth but for sure, whatever  it is, is no longer dark and
> this is compatible with a version of quantized inertia.
>
>
>
> At best, McCulloch’s 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

[Russ George]

Rossi knows how to feed gadflies

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 7:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

 

Rossi has always used demos to drum up investor interest. Rossi is at a pause 
point in the engineering of the QX and is desirous of a manufacturing deal.

 

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Adrian Ashfield  > wrote:

 

the demo served no net purpose 

1.  Andrea Rossi 

November 29, 2017 at 4:32 PM 
  

Italo R.:
Several days after the Stockholm demo we made a very important agreement, that 
will make faster the start of a massive industrial production. These few days 
have been momentous.
Warm regards,
A.R.

On the lenrforum, moderator Alan Smith said he talked to seven investors, some 
existing.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:UDH, wimps, and dark matter

[Russ George]

Just why this insistence on holding on to quark couples or karasses go on is 
puzzling, when a simple bag model for quarks offers the simpler solution. No 
need for melting quarks if their natural ecological state is melted. It’s just 
about how they decide to emerge into our world where and when the energy and 
matter balance make things interesting for us.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 5:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:UDH, wimps, and dark matter

 

But why would such large particles be weakly interacting?

 

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:14 AM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

Recently there have been a flurry of News articles about the lack of success in 
finding DM - but the favored candidate is still the WIMP

 

AFAIK there is no satisfactory definition for WIMPS {after all they are dark 
and hard to observe} other than

 

1.  Weakly interacting to an extreme but massive
2.  Mass-energy of between 50 and 100 GeV fits into current theory
3.  Suspiciously close to the Higgs in mass and other features

 

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

 

Since they are weakly interacting to a spectacular degree, they could and 
probably do exist primarily in another dimension or as part of the Higgs field. 
One possible decay channel would be for the Higgs boson to decay to two WIMPs, 
each having a rest mass energy of half of the 126 GeV Higgs or about 63 GeV for 
the WIMP. A putative buckyball of UDH would have about the same mass equal to 
60 atoms of UDH as in the carbon model.

 

This is the candidate for WIMPS not yet considered – and in effect it is UDH in 
the form of a bound H60 buckyball – perhaps hidden in the Higgs field which 
itself is another dimension.

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Russ George]

Yes the paper does help. I like the pilot wave convention as surely something 
of that sort is required to explain the cold fusion process which I have been 
working on for so many years. It takes some doing to convert deuterium to 4He 
and even 3He but that surely is irrefutable. 

 

It is curious that the EM drive which is so far ‘outside of the box’ of 
classical physics seems to be close to ‘cold fusion’ I presume we have simply 
expanded the ‘box’ and are thus able to see the relationships. 

 

Thanks for the paper. I am eagerly awaiting some super cooled EM drive data. 

 

Russ 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 7:37 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece 
That Explains How The EM Drive Works

 

Russ,

 

Does this paper help?

 

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120

 

 

 

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Alas once again the world of vulture science has placed this seemingly 
interesting paper behind a paywall. We need a grand inquisitor to take on the 
world of science again but this time to apply the screws to those in science 
who put knowledge behind paywalls. The world cannot afford nor should it 
tolerate this sort of perverse capitalism. Science trolls greedily guarding the 
bridges to knowledge need to be eliminated.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 8:23 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece 
That Explains How The EM Drive Works

 

What the pilot wave theory applied to the EM drive does not explicitly say is 
that a coherent wave pattern acts like a large particle. The Em drive becomes a 
large particle. It goes to reason if the EM drive where made coherent then the 
EM drive would be very much more powerful because the coherent resonant pilot 
wave would coherently coupled with the EM drive making everything a single 
giant particle.  A superconductive EM drive would do that.

 

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com 
<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com> > wrote:

This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM 
Drive Works

http://flip.it/R11OHO

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works

[Russ George]

Alas once again the world of vulture science has placed this seemingly 
interesting paper behind a paywall. We need a grand inquisitor to take on the 
world of science again but this time to apply the screws to those in science 
who put knowledge behind paywalls. The world cannot afford nor should it 
tolerate this sort of perverse capitalism. Science trolls greedily guarding the 
bridges to knowledge need to be eliminated.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2017 8:23 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article: This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece 
That Explains How The EM Drive Works

 

What the pilot wave theory applied to the EM drive does not explicitly say is 
that a coherent wave pattern acts like a large particle. The Em drive becomes a 
large particle. It goes to reason if the EM drive where made coherent then the 
EM drive would be very much more powerful because the coherent resonant pilot 
wave would coherently coupled with the EM drive making everything a single 
giant particle.  A superconductive EM drive would do that.

 

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Jack Cole  > wrote:

This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM 
Drive Works

http://flip.it/R11OHO

 

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno latest

[Russ George]

Bob,

 

One can sputter the daylight with Pd in a simple D2 plasma under very simple 
conditions!

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 11:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Mizuno latest

 

Jed,  can I make a request?  Acknowledging your fluency in Japanese and 
relationship with Mizuno ...

In Mizuno's paper, he describes the deposition the preparation of the Ni and 
the Pd with a good deal of text, but in the final part of the preparation (page 
8, figure 10) he describes heating the ceramic heater wrapped in Pd wire to 
700-800°C for 10-20 hours to deposit Pd on the Ni surface.  This may be the 
most important part of the process, yet he only spent 1 small paragraph 
describing the deposition.  

The melting point of Pd is 1550°C and the boiling point of Pd is 2960°C.  
Clearly, at the specified temperature of the ceramic heater, the vapor pressure 
of the Pd is very, very low.  So, without plasma, it is hard to understand how 
any Pd is deposited at all.  Mizuno only describes D2 as being in the chamber - 
there is no Ar that is normally used in sputtering (energetic Ar ions are used 
in sputtering to have a better probability of knocking off atoms of the metal 
due to the high mass of Ar).  Mizuno doesn't describe a DC plasma condition 
that would have been used for striking a glow near the ceramic heater with Pd 
wire for deposition.

Can you ask Mizuno if he can provide an explanation of the mechanism of Pd 
deposition used in conjunction with the ceramic heater wound with the Pd wire?  
Was it an evaporation process, sputtering, or ion plating technique?  Was a 
plasma active during the Pd deposition?  Was it a deuterium plasma?  Was there 
a DC voltage applied between the heated Pd wire and the cathode?

Also, Mizuno shows SEM photos of the Ni mesh cathode surface before and after 
the treatment.  The after photo shows micron scale bulbous growth that I 
surmise from his deposition method cannot be all Pd.  It appears that the 
surface morphology of the Ni has been vastly altered, and probably has only a 
small film thickness of Pd on top of that.  His Ni mesh cathode has a lot of 
area, and he only has a small amount of Pd wire on the ceramic heater.

Can you ask Mizuno what he believes is the thickness of Pd that he has 
deposited by his final deposition process?  I.E. in Figure 32, how thick is the 
Pd film on top of the Ni? 

 

Regards - Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:Thermionic LENR patent 20170213611

[Russ George]

I recall talking with a guy who helped build the first plutonium
thermoelectric device. He told of using thermocouples which were the same
used in refrigerators of the day and bundling them around the plutonium
core. He took it to President Eisenhower's oval office and placed it on the
president's desk and attached a light bulb to it to show it was generating
electricity. Ike approved and a great many were made. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 3:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thermionic LENR patent 20170213611

 

Kevin-

 

That's a great link and indications of things to come. 

 

A higher temperature application may use high temperature thermocouples to
achieve higher efficiencies than thermionic or thermo-tunneling technology.
I believe that space craft use the high temperature provided by Pu-238 decay
to generate electricity via thermos- couple 

Technology.  It is old hat technology from the 1960's ! 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Kevin O'Malley  
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 11:54 PM
To: vortex-l  
Subject: [Vo]:Thermionic LENR patent 20170213611

 

Openly mentions LENR and Andrea Rossi...


METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR HIGH EFFICIENCY ELECTRICITY GENERATION USING LOW
ENERGY THERMAL HEAT GENERATION AND THERMIONIC DEVICES
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent Application 20170213611 Kind Code: A1

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0213611.html

Abstract:
A system and method are provided for generating electric power from
relatively low temperature energy sources at efficiency levels not
previously available. The present system and method employ recent
advances in low energy nuclear reaction technology and
thermionic/thermotunneling device technology first to generate heat
and then to convert a substantial portion of the heat generated to
usable electrical power. Heat may be generated by a LENR system
employing nuclear reactions that occur in readily available materials
at ambient temperatures without a high energy input requirement and do
not produce radioactive byproducts. The heat generated by the LENR
system may be transferred through one or more thermionic converter
devices in heat transfer relationship with the LENR system to generate
electric power.




Inventors:
Cox, Rodney T. (North Plains, OR, US)
Walitzki, Hans (Portland, OR, US)
Application Number:
13/893318
Publication Date:
07/27/2017
Filing Date:
05/13/2013
View Patent Images:
Download PDF 20170213611 PDF help
Export Citation:
Click for automatic bibliography generation
Assignee:
Borealis Technical Limited (London, GB)
International Classes:
G21D7/04; G21D1/00; G21G1/02; H01J45/00
Attorney, Agent or Firm:
BOREALIS TECHNICAL LIMITED (23545 NW SKYLINE BLVD NORTH PLAINS OR 971339204)
Claims:
1. A high efficiency electric power generating system comprising one
or more low energy nuclear reaction generating means for producing a
reliable source of heat and one or more thermionic converter means in
heat transfer relationship with said low energy nuclear reaction
generating means for receiving said reliable source of heat, wherein
said thermionic converter means is configured to efficiently generate
electric power from said reliable source of heat at an efficiency
within the range from about 10% of Carnot to about 80% of Carnot
efficiency.

2. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said low
energy nuclear power reaction generating means is designed to use low
cost reactants to safely produce a heat generating reaction.

3. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said
thermionic converter means comprises at least a pair of electrodes
separated by a gap, and each one of said pair of spaced electrodes has
an Avto metal surface configuration on a surface of said electrode
facing said gap.

4. The electric power generating system of claim 3, wherein said
thermionic converter means further comprises a first active area in
thermal contact between said low energy nuclear reaction generating
means and one of said electrodes and a second active area in thermal
and electrical contact between another of said electrodes and electric
power destination means.

5. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said
source of heat comprises a heat transfer fluid selected from heat
transfer fluids comprising liquids and gasses.

6. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein said low
energy nuclear reaction generating means comprises barrier means
designed and positioned to contain any radioactivity produced when
said source of heat is produced.

7. The electric power generating system of claim 1, comprising a
plurality of low energy nuclear reaction generating means positioned
to be in heat transfer relationship with said one or more thermionic
converter means.

8. The electric power generating system of claim 1, wherein a
plurality of 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Once in a while a tidbit of real value makes it through the vortex. The Ralph 
Waldo Emerson quote on the Hobgoblins of little minds is one such tidbit, 
Thanks!

 

From: Che [mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 1:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 



On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern   > wrote:
>
> There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> impossible.
>
> ***Someone should tell the guys who are working towards that goal.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room-temperature_superconductor


I think the problem with this sort of thinking, is that the assumption is to 
assume we need only be looking at essentially 'known' states of matter -- 
whilst totally overlooking the HUGE (essentially INFINITE) 'phase space' of 
possibilities which 'emergent' physical relations hand us.

Someone is not 'thinking outside the box'...



“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little 
statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has 
simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the 
wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what 
to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said 
to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, 
to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and 
Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit 
that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”


― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Brian's words are very true. The amount of experimental based wisdom found
here is very rare indeed while there is a super abundance of pundiprophecy,
aka bullshit. Alas this is not a matter of witch doctors who often had some
basis in observational experimental results they work from, rather what
Brian calls 'witch doctoring' is far more akin to the selling of snake oil. 

 

Brian is however also subject to having drunk to much of his own snake oil
in spite of being a good experimentalist. Wherein he has not been able to
show an excess of 1 watt and would insist that no one else has either. There
he's showing his perfectly tuned blind eye as many demonstrations of cold
fusion far in excess of that single watt have been demonstrated for decades.
The folks who have succeeded at doing so just haven't been willing to share
their hard won know how with every lazy lowlife that demands their teaching
for free. 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:46 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

 

Axil's pronouncements seem to indicate well established experimental
evidence.  There is none.  

 

Inviting superconductivity into LENR has no more validity than bringing in a
witch doctor to lead the discussion.

 

The sad reality is that nobody has succeeded in producing 1.0 watts of
excess energy with a COP > 1.5 on a repeatable and demonstrated platform.

  _  

From: Axil Axil  >
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:14 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled 

 

When the meissner effect associated with Hole superconductivity goes away
during the shutdown of the LENR reaction, all the electrons that were pushed
out of the positive superconductive core fall back into that core. This
movement of electrons produce bremsstrahlung radiation when the LENR
reaction deactivates. 

 

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:50 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
   > wrote:

Axil-

 

With the loss of a magneticfield the resonant conditions providing
coupling of a nucleus  to the lattice electrons are eliminated; however,
with the transient magnetic field short lived resonances are established
that allow nuclear isomers or other unstable isotopes that decay or react
with production of gammas or the 0.51 Mev EM radiation associated with the
reaction of a electron and a positron.  

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Gamma's were also seen at reaction shutdown. What produces those gammas?

 

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:

I believe gammas are generated and then absorbed into the BEC, sliced
and diced into X rays.   That is, the vast majority of the gammas.
Some poke their heads through, especially in the initial phase where
it's an endothermic reaction starting the whole thing.   That's why
Celani saw Gammas at Rossi's demo, but only at the outset.


On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  >
wrote:
> Gamma rays are not generated in LENR reactions because the reaction energy
> is completely drained by the entanglement of the SPP BEC that is in place
> on the nanoparticles that produce the LENR reaction.
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley  >
> wrote:
>
>> I have thought for a long time that there have been multiple LENR
>> reactions.   When you let loose a gamma inside a lattice and it hits
>> those other nickel (or palladium) atoms, it generates fission
>> reactions.   The ash analysis results have been all over the board.
>>
>> On 7/11/17, Axil Axil  >
wrote:
>> > I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example,
>> > Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it
>> > in
>> > the yearlong IH test. The mechanism for this type of LENR reaction is
>> based
>> > on magnetic flux line focusing by the hexagonal based lattice of mica.
>> This
>> > reaction mechanism follows along the lines that was shown to be
>> > effective
>> > in the Golden Balls of D. Cravins where the magnetic flux lines of a
>> SmCo5
>> > magnet is focused by the hexagonal based lattice of graphite.
>> >
>> > See
>> >
>> > https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16184
>> >
>> > This article explains how magnetism can be focused into skyrmion
>> > magnetic
>> > textures involving topological, non-topological and instanton droplets
>> > driven by spin-transfer torque in materials with perpendicular magnetic
>> > anisotropy and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Interaction
>> >
>> > During the year long test, Rossi has stumbled on the 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Obscenity is also the endless spewing of hate that comes from your mouth. Your 
hate mongering is amongst the most obscene that takes place on Vortex. And of 
your take or leave it advice that is classic troll-speak that has always been 
the pitiful recourse of those who do nothing but pontificate from their arm 
chairs. Get a real life. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:37 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

This endless trollification by the unflushable malcontents that did not get 
their free feed in the trial are festering into a terrible stench. Give it a 
f*ckng break or at least go see your doctors and get some new meds, there are 
remarkably good meds for senile agitation these days.

 

Obscenity is uncalled for. No one is forcing you to read messages here. If you 
do not wish to read a message, you can ignore it or delete it. If you do not 
wish to see anything from an author, you can block him.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Russ George]

Doesn’t someone here have a toilet plunger to help the damned vortex flush out 
all the turds that are stuck here. This endless trollification by the 
unflushable malcontents that did not get their free feed in the trial are 
festering into a terrible stench. Give it a f*ckng break or at least go see 
your doctors and get some new meds, there are remarkably good meds for senile 
agitation these days. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

 

Kevin O'Malley  > wrote:

 

The report was credible enough for IH not to move forward on their case.

 

Unless you took part in the lawyers' negotiations, you do not know that is the 
reason. It might be because they determined Rossi has no more money. There is 
no point to suing someone who cannot pay. Here is another possible reason. 
Lawyers tell me that it was mainly a contract dispute, and I.H.'s counter-suit 
regarding the contract was weak.

 

I myself have no idea why they settled. However, I am sure the Penon report is 
not "credible" in this universe according to our laws of physics. It was a 
gross violation of thermodynamics, as Smith pointed out. Also because Florida 
is not located in a vacuum in outer space. I am pretty sure of that.

 

Perhaps the people at I.H. worried that a jury might be as gullible as you are, 
and the jury might think the Florida could be in a vacuum, because what do 
those scientists know, anyway? They are a bunch of elitist know-it-alls with 
their "laws" of "physics." They are so sure of themselves, they think that when 
you take photo of a 15,000 pound machine with pipes running to the ceiling, the 
image has to show up in the camera! Why can't it be invisible??? Huh? You tell 
me! And it was equipped with an anti-gravity machine which is why the mezzanine 
didn't collapse. You didn't think of THAT, did you, Mr. Elite Scientist.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

[Russ George]

Here here… the comment about the bogus candles of the Hot Fusion cabals for 
decades utterly outshines even ‘brilliant light’ illumination.

 

What transpires here in this whirling vortex is mostly ever dimming 
‘gaslighting’ by the usual suspects.

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Bob Higgins; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

Bob—

 

Mills and Rossi do not hold a candle to the hype made by the hot fusion 
community over the years and the golden eggs they have accumulated.

 

Bob Cook

 

Sent from Mail   for Windows 10

 

From: Bob Higgins  
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

 

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made even 1W of 
excess heat from any of his devices.  The one quick bomb calorimetry demo done 
was very crude calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not published 
on it.  If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible 
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time period 
(at least twelve hours).  He should describe the experiment in detail, and 
provide data and analysis.  He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is 
inside his black box.  He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to 
make this measurement.  He could establish credibility with one such paper.  If 
he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with some measure of 
confidence.  There must be a reason he hasn't established his credibility this 
way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class of 
pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.  He shows pretty stuff, 
but the data is never published, and then he moves on to something else.

 

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield  > wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.  Mills says he will 
demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required photovoltaics 
are developed and in pace - later this year.  Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof.  I have 
trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! 
What was the question?"  Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly  related see.  
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

AA

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

 

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

 

[Vo]:Vital Dust

[Russ George]

It turns out that universal chemistry has produced some entirely unexpected 
dusty trails to explaining the answer to the question of life, the universe, 
and everything… http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/03/25/3788/ 

RE: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

[Russ George]

This link might help with the flurry of nonsense in the Vortex 
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dementia/agitation-elderly 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:47 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fukushima much worse than imagined

 

Jones Beene  > wrote:

 

The Fukushima nuclear plant is missing 600 tons of highly radioactive, melted 
uranium. That is no exaggeration. Google it.

Yup, way over a million pounds. A small warhead requires around 50 pounds.

 

That's a different isotope. That's U-235. There are not a million pounds of 
U-235 in basement of the plant, and what there is mixed in with U-238. You 
can't just walk in and take the U-235. For one thing, you would be dead in a 
few minutes. For another, you need massive separation plants which have not be 
built in decades, because nuclear bombs use Pu, not U.

 

 

For instance, the W54 warhead weighed 50 pounds and was deployed until 1975 by 
the US. Thus there is the equivalent of 20,000+ warheads - depending on how 
much fertile U is converted to fissile Plutonium...

 

Again, you can't take the Pu because it is mixed in with U-235 and many other 
radioactive elements, and you would need a giant factory to separate out the Pu.

 

This accident caused many problems, but weapons proliferation is not among 
them. The stuff is 100% theft-proof. It would be far harder to steal than the 
Pu deployed in U.S. and Russian warheads.

 

 

and this ad hoc arsenal is an unknown distance under the site ...

 

No, it is right there. Except for the material blown into the air and the 
surroundings by the hydrogen explosions, and the material being washed into the 
ocean by groundwater.

 

 

melting its way down relentlessly . . .

 

It is NOT melting down anywhere. The temperature stabilized soon after the 
accident. It is being washed out by groundwater, which the ice wall was 
supposed to stop. Japanese press reports are unclear about how well the wall is 
working.

 

 

The full China Syndrome breach never happened at Chernobyl.

 

Actually, it was worse. More than 90 of the radioactive materials were blown 
into the sky, and the fine powder circled the globe several times before 
settling out with rain and weather. The sarcophagus closed the barn door long 
after the horse left.

 

 

Nor did radioactivity ever increase drastically over time.

 

Radioactivity did not increase from Chernobyl because the radioactive material 
was dispersed world-wide, mainly to northern Europe. It has increased at 
Fukushima only because the walls crumbled and groundwater washed the material 
out into areas where it can be detected.

 

 

Even if the total damage in Ukraine was overestimated and constituted 
"fear-mongering" by the tree-huggers, the same does not apply to Fukushima 
which could be much worse.

 

Not if the groundwater problem can be fixed. That remains to be seen.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See below.

[Russ George]

Yikes!!!

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:44 AM
To: Jed Rothwell; Vortex
Cc: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug marker; Dr.
Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff
aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley;
Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park;
Valerio Ciampoli; vlad
Subject: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very
exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See
below.

 

The data sheet is a testament to the engineer's competence and pride. He
mixes metric units with English units, such as kg/day for a flow rate
instead of grams/second. This shows a lack of training that is not expected
from a senior engineer. We can bring some competence to this data.

Lets examine one day. I choose April 1 for obvious reasons.  Power input =
10.29 Kilowatts

The next column is in units of kWHr/day  . This is mixing units, but
dividing247000  by 24 hours gets us back t 10.29 kW input.

 

The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1 day/84,600
sec/day = 425.5 G/sec 

The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature  rise
of34.8 degrees C.

Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C

The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:

Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat capacity of
water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)

425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second =
62,191watts 

 

The COP is 62.191/10.29 = 6.04That is outstanding! It is far from a
megawatt output, but it would be worth billions if it could be reproduced.
Rossi does not need higher COPs.

However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows where that
came from?

 

 

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell  >
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:36 PM
To: Vortex
Cc: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett;
doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko
Lietz; jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter
Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski;
Sunwon Park; Valerio Ciampoli; vlad
Subject: Re: [Vo]:asking for short opinion papers 

 

Peter Gluck  > wrote:

 

I would publish with great pleasure your opinion

papers re the ERV Daily Valuation Report of the 1MW 1 year test.

 

You did not describe what data you mean. It is here, in document 128-01 -
Exhibit 1.pdf :

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

 

This data is complete bullshit. It describes physically impossible
phenomena, such as a factory in a perfect vacuum with a pressure 0.0 bar,
and water that is exactly the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree
every day for weeks. The instruments used to collect this data were
completely wrong for the task, and the configuration made it impossible to
use any instruments properly. The major problems were described in Exhibit 5
at the above website:

 

124-06 - Exhibit 5.pdf

 

This data proves beyond question that the 1-year test was fraud. It was
inept fraud, which anyone with a half a brain can see at a glance. People
such as Peter Gluck are incapable of seeing it because they are mesmerized
by Rossi, and deluded by wishful thinking.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:LENR OUTLAST

[Russ George]

Timely news in science if ever there were. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/29/matter-made-with-an-extra-dimension-time-crystals/
 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 12:31 PM
To: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug 
marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; 
jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley; 
Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park; 
Valerio Ciampoli; vlad; VORTEX
Subject: [Vo]:LENR OUTLAST

 




http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-29-2017-in-lenr-you-must-out-f-f.html

 

 

peter

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Time crystals, aka quantum matter

[Russ George]

>From the paper, "The discovery might sound pretty abstract, but it heralds
in a whole new era in physics - for decades we've been studying matter
that's defined as being 'in equilibrium', such as metals and insulators.

But it's been predicted that there are many more strange types of matter out
there in the Universe that aren't in equilibrium that we haven't even begun
to look into, including time crystals. And now we know they're real." 

Seems like a useful point of view.

 

 

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Time crystals, aka quantum matter

 

It seems that the creation and detailed observation of 'time crystals' is
another shoe falling on the head of physics dogma. That such crystals can be
created is evidence that states of matter that are deeply connection in
here-to-fore quantum domains where they share energy is some of what the
doctor ordered, Dr. Schwinger that is, to diagnose the 'cold fusion' of
Fleischmann and Pons. Clearly there is more to the Cheshire cat than his
grin.
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-
of-matter-time-crystals?perpetual=yes
<http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form
-of-matter-time-crystals?perpetual=yes=1> =1 

[Vo]:Time crystals, aka quantum matter

[Russ George]

It seems that the creation and detailed observation of 'time crystals' is
another shoe falling on the head of physics dogma. That such crystals can be
created is evidence that states of matter that are deeply connection in
here-to-fore quantum domains where they share energy is some of what the
doctor ordered, Dr. Schwinger that is, to diagnose the 'cold fusion' of
Fleischmann and Pons. Clearly there is more to the Cheshire cat than his
grin.
http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-just-announced-a-brand-new-form-
of-matter-time-crystals?perpetual=yes
 =1 

RE: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Russ George]

Way way south!

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:24 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

 

Mark LeClair's credibility is somewhere South of Rossi.  He has made no
demonstrations in over four years.

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 1:49 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area 

 

Mark LeClair has characterized this water crystal which includes its
isolation and photograph. Believe it or not.

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Cavitating bubble collapse doesn't produce metalized water. Long before the
density has risen to such levels the atoms within the collapsing bubble are
very hot, upwards of tens of thousands of degrees, more than sufficient to
be ionized hence the bubble if not filled with water rather ionized species
that are being compressed. The hydrogen therein easily reaches a ultra-dense
plasma state and it is more or less separated from the oxygen. In asymmetric
bubble collapse that I have for 25 years worked with as a tool to create and
inject this ultra-dense hydrogen, or rather deuterium, into various metals
this state of ultra-dense deuterium becomes obviously useful and results in
prodigious cold fusion and production of 4He. Matching work with ordinary
hydrogen does NOT produce anomalous results. Studies on my materials using
x-ray diffraction and other means in  top national labs have revealed very
stable ultra-dense hydrogen stored inside the metal subject material. Very
potent explosive compression of said materials by those accustomed to such
trades in the dark world have NOT resulted in more conventional nuclear
reactions, or so they said. Depending on the metals used an array of
isotopic ratio shifts of interesting nuclei appears that reveals some
expected and unexpected pathways. The technological development path is
hindered by the tremendous efficiency of such sono-fusion which far too
often leads to thermal destruction of the experiment. Technology development
of this method of cold fusion is clearly possible but requires a degree of
sophistication and resources that are beyond my Palo Alto garage tech.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

 

Not only hydrogen can be metalized, so can water. The collapse of the
cavitation bubble can produce pressor high enough to form the metalized
water. IMHO, it is this metalized water that produces the erosion of the
target material seen in cavitation. This metalized water can erode diamond.
This indicates that this as well as all metalized material is protested by a
SHIELD of EMF that keeps it from decomposition. 

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Axil,

Seeing this reference to bubble fusion brings up the memory of Impulse
Devices, Inc and Ross Tessien, the inventor who used to post here on Vortex
a decade ago when it looked like acoustic cavitation was on the verge of
success. 

They were located in Grass Valley CA - and even offered a sonofusion reactor
for sale. Not many were sold. Ross and Impulse Devices owned many patents,
which are listed on the citation below - deriving from Flynn's work, which
also collapsed, so to speak. I checked on a few of them: Expired due to
failure to pay maintenance fee

Sad but true. This indicates that the company saw so little future in their
IP that they let the patent expire rather than pay the fee to keep it in
force. However, in this case the company sold out and the new owners are
pursuing sonochemistry instead of sonofusion. They are called Burst
Laboratories, Inc and have been fairly successful, I have heard. I am not
sure if Ross still follows LENR or not.

I guess one could say even though the sonofusion bubble burst, there was a
silver lining ...

 

 Axil Axil wrote:

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and
reactor therefor 
US 4333796 A

ABSTRACT

Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed.

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Russ George]

Cavitating bubble collapse doesn’t produce metalized water. Long before the 
density has risen to such levels the atoms within the collapsing bubble are 
very hot, upwards of tens of thousands of degrees, more than sufficient to be 
ionized hence the bubble if not filled with water rather ionized species that 
are being compressed. The hydrogen therein easily reaches a ultra-dense plasma 
state and it is more or less separated from the oxygen. In asymmetric bubble 
collapse that I have for 25 years worked with as a tool to create and inject 
this ultra-dense hydrogen, or rather deuterium, into various metals this state 
of ultra-dense deuterium becomes obviously useful and results in prodigious 
cold fusion and production of 4He. Matching work with ordinary hydrogen does 
NOT produce anomalous results. Studies on my materials using x-ray diffraction 
and other means in  top national labs have revealed very stable ultra-dense 
hydrogen stored inside the metal subject material. Very potent explosive 
compression of said materials by those accustomed to such trades in the dark 
world have NOT resulted in more conventional nuclear reactions, or so they 
said. Depending on the metals used an array of isotopic ratio shifts of 
interesting nuclei appears that reveals some expected and unexpected pathways. 
The technological development path is hindered by the tremendous efficiency of 
such sono-fusion which far too often leads to thermal destruction of the 
experiment. Technology development of this method of cold fusion is clearly 
possible but requires a degree of sophistication and resources that are beyond 
my Palo Alto garage tech.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

 

Not only hydrogen can be metalized, so can water. The collapse of the 
cavitation bubble can produce pressor high enough to form the metalized water. 
IMHO, it is this metalized water that produces the erosion of the target 
material seen in cavitation. This metalized water can erode diamond. This 
indicates that this as well as all metalized material is protested by a SHIELD 
of EMF that keeps it from decomposition. 

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Axil,

Seeing this reference to bubble fusion brings up the memory of Impulse Devices, 
Inc and Ross Tessien, the inventor who used to post here on Vortex a decade ago 
when it looked like acoustic cavitation was on the verge of success. 

They were located in Grass Valley CA - and even offered a sonofusion reactor 
for sale. Not many were sold. Ross and Impulse Devices owned many patents, 
which are listed on the citation below - deriving from Flynn's work, which also 
collapsed, so to speak. I checked on a few of them: Expired due to failure to 
pay maintenance fee

Sad but true. This indicates that the company saw so little future in their IP 
that they let the patent expire rather than pay the fee to keep it in force. 
However, in this case the company sold out and the new owners are pursuing 
sonochemistry instead of sonofusion. They are called Burst Laboratories, Inc 
and have been fairly successful, I have heard. I am not sure if Ross still 
follows LENR or not.

I guess one could say even though the sonofusion bubble burst, there was a 
silver lining ...

 

 Axil Axil wrote:

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and 
reactor therefor 
US 4333796 A

ABSTRACT

Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Energy balance paper on AIP

[Russ George]

I am awaiting Holmlid's test of this same experiment while using a thick walled 
cylinder made of gadolinium. Or indeed tests made with a variety of other 
interesting metals with obvious characteristics. Clearly the technological 
methods to improve upon this simple, yet breakthrough, experiment are obvious 
to many. There are more than a few technological paths to follow that offer 
multiplier effects. The 'coincidental' similarities with many of the lessor 
known 'cold fusion' works and this work are likely to result in a unification 
of the two fields albeit most likely in the form of a line not a point.  

While Vortex had some good members it really is a 'peanut gallery' which makes 
it difficult at times. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:21 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:Energy balance paper on AIP

http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4928572

This is perhaps the most interesting and controversial of Holmlid's papers. He 
documents a measured gain above breakeven in a copper cylinder, despite 
systemic losses, and suggests that 20:1 gain would be possible in a more 
sophisticated version.

Contrast that with NIF - the National Ignition Facility at Livermore - where 
after at least $25 billion down the tubes, they have not achieved real 
breakeven and probably never will unless they add a step to make UDD for the 
target.

It is a bit of a surprise that the Holmlid paper even appears on AIP since one 
can imagine that the editors have received pressure to have it removed.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Russ George]

Holmlid’s mechanism is more likely a means to make ‘spillover’ hydrogen which 
is ready to become ultra-dense in a conveniently adjacent hydrogen loving 
lattice.  The laser stimulation helps condense the spillover hydrogen into that 
ultra-dense hydrogen form which has a significant character of being stable. 
That unexpected ‘cold fusion ready’ dense hydrogen stability has been 
uncommonly reported by the best cold fusioneers since 1989. 

 

The US Navy definitively described this phenomenal dense hydrogen ‘stability’ 
lasting weeks many years ago in studies of my highly reactive cold fusion 
materials which their scientists collected from my experiments with their own 
hands while I was required to stand aside so that no ‘magician’s trickery’ 
could be possible. They brought their own palladium to my lab, loaded it 
themselves in my apparatus, and removed their palladium when it had clearly 
begun to show massive anomalous heat (hundreds of watts not milliwatts) and 
took it back to their lab for thorough study.  Those who think this field of 
cold fusion is all about truth and justice and good scientific behavior are 
fooling themselves, it is and has been a down and dirty fight over what form of 
energy is allowed in society and simple low cost transformative energy 
technology is fought tooth and claw with ‘alternative facts’ by those with 
established energy to sell and protect.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

 

Re: "Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?"

The experiments of Holmlid explains how these nanoparticles work. IMHO in the 
Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of 
hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection 
foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What 
this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a 
special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green 
laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This 
generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled 
combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin 
wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge 
amounts of energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. 
This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions 
as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of 
the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, 
the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not 
recharge with more nuclear energy.

Holmlid has said that when the collection foil containing this rydberg matter 
is exposed to room light, the production of muons increase dramatically.

These production of muons continues for hours after the light is removed and 
gradually stops over an extended time.

It seems to me, that the UDH is capable of long term energy storage that 
defuses gradually over time. When that energy loss is replensihed by the action 
of applied light, the storage limit is reached and the UDH begines to produce 
muons again.

 

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:55 PM,  > wrote:

Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser source 
IMHO.  

 

Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?

As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to produce 
much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface reaction 
Holmild suggests..  

 

Does anyone know what the reaction of a anti-proton/proton annihilation 
produces—are there typically muons observed or only energetic photons, back to 
back?

 

( The following description from Wikipedia does not seem to apply since the 
input energy is to low—

“ When a   proton encounters its  
 antiparticle (and more generally, if 
any species of   baryon encounters the 
corresponding   antibaryon), the 
reaction is not as simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an 
electron, a proton is a  
 composite 
particle consisting of three   
"valence quarks" and an indeterminate number of  
 "sea quarks" bound by  
 gluons. Thus, when a proton encounters an 
antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may 
annihilate with an   antiquark (which 
more rarely could be a sea quark) to produce a gluon, after which the 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

While I was ‘lobbing insults’ you were not the target. I have found your ideas 
and criticisms well thought out. Some others n Vortex-l not so. 

 

There is still the issue of Holmlid’s work being so very similar to some of the 
cold fusion work in terms of experimental design and operation. That he has 
some hits with similar data is intriguing and very suggestive. I for one read 
Holmlid’s papers with an eye for serendipity not profound independent proof. I 
forgive most for putting forth their ideas as to ‘theory’ especially when such 
ideas come from experimentalists. I have much less regard, often verging on 
utter disregard, for the theories of the armchair crowd though I do read such 
ideas. 

 

It is ‘troll-ism’ to hold single papers in a person’s decades of work to 
scathing critiques most especially when bathed in semantics. As Thomas 
Jefferson once said, “ I have no respect for a man who can spell a word only 
one way.” The same is even more true with scientific semantics. 

 

Progress in made more by active explorers following what seem to be good leads 
and not by those shooting down poor leads. This is why pioneers cross many 
bridges in the light of day and why trolls live festering in the dark and damp 
under said bridges. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's previous 
publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't consider), I 
have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back through his papers 
to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going back to the more solidly 
based work on RM.  I am not questioning his experimental data, just his 
interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he presumes that a solid case for 
the existence of H(0) has already been made.   

For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid 
regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his 
fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or Millsian 
classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after the fact.  
His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion explanation for 
the energy in the particles he measures and how close two protons would have to 
be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his calculation.  Coulombic energy would 
have to be a potential energy (like a compressed spring) that would have to be 
ADDED to get that much energy in an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater 
spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a 
lower Hamiltonian energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  
The foundation for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a 
ridiculous, contradictory case has been made for it.

 

Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That is 
entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the surface 
of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we 
should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his 
data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick layer of 
RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a laser?  How would 
plasmons form in layered structure comprised of dielectric, atom-thick 
superconductive film, and normally conductive metal?  What would be the 
consequences of polaritons in such a system?

Think before lobbing insults.

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinki

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Thanks Eric please do add me to your kill file, nothing could please me more.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.

 

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed and 
close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.  Unfortunately 
the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard to call up.

 

Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog.

 

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here 
they might apply to:

 

1b. Noun 

A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members 
of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous 
disagreements, sex, status, ect. 

A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who 
flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread. 

 

1c. Noun 

A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. 
Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather 
continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member 
of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple 
names to circumvent getting banned. 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

 

But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from the 
lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l often 
digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to add 
you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it is only 
to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of substance, rather 
than being detained in addressing further ad hominem attacks.

 

All the best,

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced. This 
makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming contradiction 
between some of his works.

 

Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old stuff 
from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of some 
reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states a 
different case.

 

Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works and 
theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

 

In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:

.

"They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [ 

 2]. This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [ 

 7]."

 

 J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that 
contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".

 

There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

 

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

 

You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole 
superconductivity,

 

IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills alternative science. 
It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and effort. With all its 
complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy to take on. Holmlid needs 
more validation before people will feel sanguine in investing the time and 
effort to take his science seriously.

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a statement, 
and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go through the string 
of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of faith, but not logical 
support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems to still rely entirely on 
the particle velocities whose measured energy has come entirely from an 
improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".  Coloumbic potential energy 
would have to be stored in the system - I.E. placed there by some process of 
squeezing the atoms into some metastable state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is 
being portrayed as having lower Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one 
would expect ordinary H2 gas as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - 
even more than H(0) since H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to 
Holmlid (see his figure in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other 
works).

Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These 
condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been 
thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just the 
opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2, making the 
local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.  There have been 
molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra computed and matched to 
observed spectra.  The basis and characterization of RM is very strong.  
Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong basis for RM onto his 
conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be only hand-waving - and 
hand-waving with contradictory claims.

H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen 
condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM - though 
Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's description 
of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right angles which form a 
tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.  Evidence is claimed for 
matching rotational 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

 life) of 
the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, 
the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not 
recharge with more nuclear energy.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com 
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Proton proton involves the creation of charmed and strange quarks(the 
D-meson?). When you figure out how those guys work, explain it simply so that 
both me and your grandmother can understand it.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:40 PM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com 
<mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I would question why a neutral Kaon can not decay into 2 neutral muons?  If the 
data on normal Kaon decay is from high energy 2-body reactions, then resonant 
stimulation of D and p by EM may result in entirely different results 
statistically—i.e., 2 neutral kaons instead of a + and – pair being likely.

 

Again, whatever the nature of the neutral particles, how they get their kinetic 
energy/momentum is a key question for Holmild.

 

Another question involves the balancing of quarks available and whether the 
standard theory is at risk?  I’ll take a look at this issue myself and report 
back on the results expected for a meson-pion-muon series of events, if I can 
figure it out. 

 

Bob Cook

 

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows 10

 

From: Russ George <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of 
detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which we 
cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that distribution. 
This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson beasties which 
presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear reaction rate, aka cold 
fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for worse. For the capture of 
crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it seems a combined 
intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to scintillation detector, aka GMT, 
works just fine provided the reaction rate is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  
more is better remember we are out on a limb here. Any ideas about what might 
‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium as it is the best neutron reflector. Such 
reflectors might improve the containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties 
stay close enough for detection. 

 

Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have our 
di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a transparent 
beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s wrong with this 
computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you are 
saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the 
reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many 
are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his reactor.  The 
decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some probability of a 
decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see mesons -> 
muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more further away from the 
reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path from 
the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged and 
likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting 
photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons 
are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and scintillators basically 
means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They may not be produced in 
Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading the paper to understand the 
case he is claiming.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

Bob Higgins wrote:

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 


Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to u

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The vital question is about the rate vs. distance for the emergence of 
detectable muons. Surely there is a distribution bell curve regarding which we 
cold fusioneers are most interested in the nearest limb of that distribution. 
This then speaks to the reaction rate producing the meson beasties which 
presumably is directly related to the anomalous nuclear reaction rate, aka cold 
fusion as that’s been the moniker for good or for worse. For the capture of 
crazy meson/muons and resulting in detection it seems a combined 
intercepting/converting metal foil coupled to scintillation detector, aka GMT, 
works just fine provided the reaction rate is sufficient, aka > joules/sec …  
more is better remember we are out on a limb here. Any ideas about what might 
‘reflect’ a meson, perhaps beryllium as it is the best neutron reflector. Such 
reflectors might improve the containment and hence time the meson/muon beasties 
stay close enough for detection. 

 

Just for fun maybe it’s worth building a beryllium frustrum and thus have our 
di-lithium crystal warp drive. Computer draw me the wee specs for a transparent 
beryllium frustrum. Computer. Computer…. I dunna know what’s wrong with this 
computer it cannae do what I am asking it to do.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 2:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you are 
saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from the 
reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein many 
are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his reactor.  The 
decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some probability of a 
decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see mesons -> 
muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more further away from the 
reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path from 
the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged and 
likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting 
photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons 
are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and scintillators basically 
means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They may not be produced in 
Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading the paper to understand the 
case he is claiming.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Bob Higgins wrote:

The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces a high 
muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be very 
similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux of 
charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. 


Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has been 
addressed. 

As I understand it, the muons which are detected do not exist until the meson, 
which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This makes the lack of 
containment of muons very simple to understand. 

At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged (see the 
reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at that time, 
due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not muons.

As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one 
positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the muon 
but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the particles are 
tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. Thus the reactor is 
transparent to the progenitor particle.

This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then 
calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of muons 
which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a large sphere. 
However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are usable, since they 
start out as a neutral meson.

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Amongst the thousands of scientists who work with CERN most are still driven by 
true scientific curiosity, the holiest of holy's. Alas many are simply 
avaricious testosterone mutants, those sorts of personalities all to often 
float to the top where they are noticeable by all three senses.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 12:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

When you think about it - why would CERN want to test Holmlid's device ?

Isn't it lose, lose, lose for them... if the test is successful? 
Hundreds of lucrative jobs could be lost. Prestige is a stake. Big science is 
at stake. Where is the silver lining for CERN?

Of course, the "science" alone should be the main concern of all scientists, 
but it seldom is.

Mel Brooks tells it like it pretty much like it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

No insinuation by me I simply don’t trust anyone who stands by Huizenga!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Huizenga being the lying conniving troll that he was reneged on his commitment. 
Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a credible person is either a complete fool or 
a disreputable troll.

 

Perhaps you're insinuating something that wasn't suggested or intended?

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

That’s good to hear that Holmlid is using bubble detectors, they are superb for 
this sort of measurement. It’s of course all about how many activations might 
take place.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:30 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid uses bubble detectors to check for neutrons and no bubbles have ever 
been seen.

 

The production of quack soup through heavy element ion collisions that they do 
at CERN have to produce some neutrons.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics 
experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to risk 
the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known without some 
preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated detector to study my 
mischugenon producing technology which is very very similar to Holmlid's tech. 
But minutes before testing I had second thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I 
spent some hours talking over the test and possibilities once again with the 
builders of the instrument who had been so gracious as to loan it to me. We 
collectively decided that if indeed what my data had shown in previous 
instruments were repeated it was very likely it would cause instantaneous 
irreparable damage to the instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved 
somewhat like neutrons which if even a trace were present might produce neutron 
activation. Even the slightest creation of activated species would give a 
signal for the history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was 
many orders of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even 
though I was one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> ]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay:
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at 
once...


Axil Axil wrote:
> Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that
> that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the
> particle physics at CERN.



 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Some of us in the cold fusion experimentalist world offered in public in front 
of witnesses to demonstrate cold fusion to Huizenga, who agreed though insisted 
he’d do so only in a lab of his choosing, the lab agreed, independent 
scientists volunteered to witness. Huizenga being the lying conniving troll 
that he was reneged on his commitment. Anyone who stands by Huizenga as a 
credible person is either a complete fool or a disreputable troll. 

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Eric Walker; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Eric---

 

You would think so that the high energy folks at CERN would comment, unless 
they are concerned about their future at CERN.

 

I would pick others to give reputable reports on muons.  

 

I would look to the comments of retired high energy physicists that worked on 
the super collider in Texas or at the Standard Linear Accelerator.   Better 
yet, someone not affiliated with big time physics experiments and/or 
development such as CERN AND  ITER. 

 

   “It’s as dead as ever,” Dr.  

 Huizenga told The New York Times in an interview. “It’s quite unbelievable 
that the thing has gone on for 10 years.”

 

I hope you are not reading from a page out of Huizinga’s debunk book. 

 

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker  
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:

 

Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their experiment 
inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that that detector will be 
ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the particle physics at CERN.

 

Good to know.  It will be interesting to hear what the particle physicists at 
CERN report (in contrast to another report from Holmlid or Holmlid and 
Olafsson).

 

Eric

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Not so fast! It's hardly so simple as just putting an unknown physics 
experiment next to a valuable detector. No one would be foolish enough to risk 
the trying to catch the unknown in such a rare net of the known without some 
preliminary tests. I once was lent a very sophisticated detector to study my 
mischugenon producing technology which is very very similar to Holmlid's tech. 
But minutes before testing I had second thoughts. Instead of forging ahead I 
spent some hours talking over the test and possibilities once again with the 
builders of the instrument who had been so gracious as to loan it to me. We 
collectively decided that if indeed what my data had shown in previous 
instruments were repeated it was very likely it would cause instantaneous 
irreparable damage to the instrument as clearly the 'mischugenon's' behaved 
somewhat like neutrons which if even a trace were present might produce neutron 
activation. Even the slightest creation of activated species would give a 
signal for the history books but forever ruin the detector. Alas my budget was 
many orders of magnitude away from being able to pay for such damage. Even 
though I was one flip of a switch away I never threw that switch. Ces't la vie.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

Here is an image of ATLAS.

http://www.atlasexperiment.org/photos/atlas_photos/selected-photos/full-detector/0511013_02-A4-at-144-dpi.jpg

The guy standing in the bottom/center gives an idea of the Scale.

Heck LH doesn't need a miniature version - that is an unnecessary delay: 
the version that is known to work should be shipped trucked down there at 
once...


Axil Axil wrote:
> Holmlid et al are planning to put a miniaturized version of their 
> experiment inside a full scale particle detector. My guess is that 
> that detector will be ATLAS since Holmlid is in contact with the 
> particle physics at CERN.

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Might you provide a ref or few to the comment. " It is well known that when
you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a bench top GeV particle
accelerator."  Are the necessary conditions present in Holmlid's experiment?


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to  Russ George's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 15:29:37 -0800:
Hi Russ,
[snip]
>The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack 
>the ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the
puzzle.

I agree, however before I accept it, I would prefer to know exactly how the
speed measurements were done. I have a feeling (and it's nothing more than
that), that the response times of the electronics may not properly have been
taken into consideration.

The other point that I would make is to repeat something I said back in 2015
when we first looked at Holmlid. 

It is well known that when you shine a laser through a plasma, you get a
bench top GeV particle accelerator.
So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Holmlid's energetic particles
were the result of such a process. In short "mundane", not extraordinary,
and not indicative of new physics.
Nevertheless, if such a process turns out to be a very efficient means of
creating muons, then it might form the basis of a useful energy source
anyway.
(Through D-D fusion).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

The point being that either 'speed' is more than sufficient to whack the
ball out of the ballpark which is a most interesting piece of the puzzle.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 3:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:44:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

I was hoping someone here would show me the error of my ways, before I made
a complete fool of myself in public. (yes, I know I have already done that.)
:)

I think I may have found either my mistake or Einstein's. ;)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

it looks like the Pythagorean relationship, which would seem to imply that
we are looking at perpendicular vectors. However both energy and energy
squared are scalars, so something is wrong. Note also that all the terms
have the dimension of energy squared, implying that the "vectors" have the
dimension of energy.

Note that if Einstein is correct, then Ek is not p*c, which would be where I
made my mistake here below (in my previous email). 

Consider this:-

Et = Ek + Ep (where Et is total energy, Ek is kinetic energy, Ep is
potential
energy)

=> Et^2 = (Ek + Ep)^2 = Ek^2 + 2EpEk + Ep^2

Now compare this to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

It looks very similar except that the term "2EpEk" is missing. That missing
term is exactly what would happen if Ep and Ek were perpendicular vectors,
forming the sides of a right triangle, and Et was the hypotenuse. In which
case according to Pythagoras we get Et^2 = Ek^2 + Ep^2. Now this looks just
like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

The only problem is that Ek & Ep are not vectors, they are scalarsunless
there is some dimension I am ignoring in which energy is the magnitude of a
vector quantity??


>The is a comment section in the PLOS/1 format where a reader can submit 
>corrections as required for evaluation by the author. Why not submit 
>this proposed correction through this comment method.
>
>On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:58:00 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.016
>> >9895
>>
>> I think Holmlid made a mistake in his velocity calculation. (Either 
>> that, or I did).
>>
>> He equates 500*MeV/u to 0.75 c.
>>
>> I think this derives from the formula:-
>>
>> (sqrt(500*MeV/u))/c = 0.733 which is close to 0.75 C.
>>
>> where u is the standard atomic mass unit. (i.e. mass of Carbon12 / 12).
>>
>> However I think the formula is incorrect, see the following derivation.
>>
>> From Einstein we get:-
>>
>> Kinetic energy (Ek) = p*c (where p is the momentum).
>>
>> p = m * v where m is relativistic mass, and v is the velocity.
>>
>> => Ek = m*v*c
>> => Ek/m = v*c
>> => Ek/(mc) = v
>>
>> 500 Mev /amu has the dimension of energy/unit mass, i.e. Ek/m,
>>
>> So
>>
>> 500 MeV / u = Ek/m = v*c
>>
>> => v = 500 MeV / (u*c) = 1.609E8 m/s or, as a fraction of c,
>>
>> 500 MeV / (u*c^2) = 0.537 (not 0.733)
>>
>> 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.

[Russ George]

The devil is in the details. The presence of helium but absence of tritium
if ‘muon catalyzed fusion’ is present is a puzzling. Unless the channel is
potently redirected to 4He which coherent behavior might allow for.



As for “proton annihilation” Holmlid only says that the experiment does
not exhibit evidence of ‘positron annihilation’. That comment seems to be
about some similar paper from a parallel universe.



From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:43 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.



Regarding:



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



The weak force must be amplified because all radioactive isotopes produced
by the reactions are instantaneously stabilized including tritium from DD
fusion.



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.

[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.

[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.

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

[Russ George]

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.’ 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

 

RE: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

[Russ George]

I don’t think anyone is really speaking of “target” nuclei in cold fusion. 
That’s been off the table since the beginning. It’s just semantics as to how to 
describe the ‘many bodies.’  Most assuredly there are moving reactive/fusing 
‘particles’ the evidence for that is clear. Those particles are moving in as 
yet an ill-defined fashion. 

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:24 PM
To: mix...@bigpond.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

 

Robin—

 

I think it’s a mistake to consider a coherent system with target nuclei.

 

Target nuclei make sense in two or three body reactions, but not in a solid 
state coherent system with many bodies coupled together with a single energy 
and spin state at any given instant.  

 

Bob Cook

 

  

Sent from Mail   for Windows 10

 

From: mix...@bigpond.com  
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

 

In reply to  Russ George's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:22:23 -0800:

Hi,

>Something smelts here.

 

:) 

 

Yes, I guess Al might have been lost through vaporization, but K increased 3

fold.

 

Since they used two separate bulbs, any differences could also be a simple

result of variance in manufacture.

Also creation of a plasma in the bulb could result in migration of elements due

to temperature gradients, resulting in localized concentrations.

 

> 

>-Original Message-

>From: mix...@bigpond.com   
>[mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 

>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:12 PM

>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  

>Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

> 

>In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:15:42 -0500:

>Hi,

>[snip]

>>Microwave Induced Nuclear Transmutation in Compact Flourescent Lamps 

>>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WUlh4c3dJWlh5Rjg/view

>> 

>> From MFMP facebook.

> 

>They talk a lot about the minor changes in P, Si, S, but make no mention of

>the large change in K, Al.

> 

>Regards,

> 

>Robin van Spaandonk

> 

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

> 

Regards,

 

Robin van Spaandonk

 

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

 

 

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

[Russ George]

Mischugenons however unlike 'hydrinos' do produce irrefutable isotopic
shifts in recipient nuclei, though the quantity of shifted isotopes is much
lower 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

RE: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

[Russ George]

Something smelts here.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 6:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:15:42 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Microwave Induced Nuclear Transmutation in Compact Flourescent Lamps 
>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WUlh4c3dJWlh5Rjg/view
>
> From MFMP facebook.

They talk a lot about the minor changes in P, Si, S, but make no mention of
the large change in K, Al.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Speaking of Two Miracles - Knock knock knockin on heaven's door

[Russ George]

When one needs more than one miracle you might need divine assistance.
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/39 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:27 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 07:50:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Indeed where is the neutron activation, lots of nuclei in the 
>neighborhood yet neither activation nor knock on's is very odd. One 
>miracle to a customer, getting neutrons out of nuclei is the 'one miracle'.

The second is absorbing neutrons without creating any gammas.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

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/ 

l Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:27 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 07:50:11 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Indeed where is the neutron activation, lots of nuclei in the 
>neighborhood yet neither activation nor knock on's is very odd. One 
>miracle to a customer, getting neutrons out of nuclei is the 'one miracle'.

The second is absorbing neutrons without creating any gammas.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Russ George]

As for scientific theory and theoreticians Mark Twain said it best, "There is 
something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of 
conjecture out of such trifling investment of fact."

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren 
– nuclear spallation and resonance

 

Hello George,

I am sure you are a more experienced guy in regards to LENR than I am. Probably 
a better sailor. If it only comes down to years I am rather close or just a 
tack ahead (67 years).

I am not drawing any conclusions, I just try to evaluate the circumstances. Not 
always do you need to find a . port, sometimes staying at sea is more 
advantageous.

I do think positive about indications and fair winds is better than no wind. 
Taking advantage of the wind is the crux. Unfortunately the predictions are 
very diverse. Now one can decide to be optimistic and I hope my optimistic 
conclusion is correct but if it is no wind than I just need to wait. Of course 
if it is a storm I have to ride t out.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> 
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Lennart, the old adage ‘any old port in a storm’ is simply not practical. We’ve 
been weathering the storm against cold fusion for nigh unto 30 years. We don’t 
need any old port/theory, some of us have chosen to just weather the storm and 
lumber on. 

 

How Long Have You Been a Sailor ?

 

All my bloomin' life. 

Me mother was a mermaid. 

Me father was King Neptune. 

I was born on the crest of a wave 

And rocked in the cradle of the deep. 

Seaweed and barnacles are me clothes, 

Every tooth in me head is a marlinspike,

The hair on me head is hemp, 

Every bone in me body's a spar, 

And when I spits, I spits tar. 

I'se hard, I is, I am, I are.

 

--- an Old Answer to an Old Question

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com 
<mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear 
spallation and resonance

 

Hello Mats,

I think this is interesting. I understand the critic from Jones and Russ but at 
least it is a theory and it is based on the result of Lugano. Maybe it was not 
such a flawed demo just made so it has too many openings for critic. This also 
enhances the profile of Rossi. He has support from scientists with a lot too 
lose (prestige) if Rossi is a scam as has been indicated here. I cannot wait 
for the next report from Rossi and hopefully a up to date experimental report 
from Lundin / Lidgren. Sounds to me we are slowly progressing towaa realization 
of lenr, keeping essential business secrets until the last  minute before 
market.)Looks good.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> 
+1 916 436 1899 <tel:(916)%20436-1899> 

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Mats Lewan <m...@matslewan.se 
<mailto:m...@matslewan.se> > wrote:

The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog post:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/

 

is now public here:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP 
<https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP=3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP>
 =3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com <http://www.animpossibleinvention.com> 

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Russ George]

Lennart, the old adage ‘any old port in a storm’ is simply not practical. We’ve 
been weathering the storm against cold fusion for nigh unto 30 years. We don’t 
need any old port/theory, some of us have chosen to just weather the storm and 
lumber on. 

 

How Long Have You Been a Sailor ?

 

All my bloomin' life. 

Me mother was a mermaid. 

Me father was King Neptune. 

I was born on the crest of a wave 

And rocked in the cradle of the deep. 

Seaweed and barnacles are me clothes, 

Every tooth in me head is a marlinspike,

The hair on me head is hemp, 

Every bone in me body's a spar, 

And when I spits, I spits tar. 

I'se hard, I is, I am, I are.

 

--- an Old Answer to an Old Question

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear 
spallation and resonance

 

Hello Mats,

I think this is interesting. I understand the critic from Jones and Russ but at 
least it is a theory and it is based on the result of Lugano. Maybe it was not 
such a flawed demo just made so it has too many openings for critic. This also 
enhances the profile of Rossi. He has support from scientists with a lot too 
lose (prestige) if Rossi is a scam as has been indicated here. I cannot wait 
for the next report from Rossi and hopefully a up to date experimental report 
from Lundin / Lidgren. Sounds to me we are slowly progressing towaa realization 
of lenr, keeping essential business secrets until the last  minute before 
market.)Looks good.




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com  
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Mats Lewan  > wrote:

The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog post:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/

 

is now public here:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP 

 =3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com  

 

 

 

 

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

[Russ George]

Indeed where is the neutron activation, lots of nuclei in the neighborhood
yet neither activation nor knock on's is very odd. One miracle to a
customer, getting neutrons out of nuclei is the 'one miracle'. 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 7:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren - nuclear
spallation and resonance

 

OK they have a patent application now - after almost two years - but where
is the experimental data?

When this was first announced in 2015, my comment then was the same then as
it is now:

"The theory looks a lot like a mashup of W-L cold neutrons and Hagelstein's 
neutron hopping, neither of which have a shread of physical evidence. The do

not show neutron activation which needs to be shown for any such theory to 
work. They accept the flawed Lugano report as accurate and apparently do not

have an accurate understanding of nuclear spallation."
 
In short - this looks like a rather weak effort to me - until they show
neutron activation. 
The patent disclosure seems essentially worthless as it stands now.
 
If and when a reproducible experiment demonstrates substantial neutron
activation of the reactor, then we have something to get excited about.



Mats Lewan wrote:



The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog
post: 

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-e
xplanation-break-through/

 

is now public here:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP

=3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com  

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Memory Alpha, come dip yourself in magic waters

[Russ George]

AI already provides the means for eternal life. The simple choices are
merely about the level of conversation required, that is simply a matter of
the character of the memory and CPU, these are all choices about money as
eternal AI life is surely less costly than a retirement home!
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/16/welcome-to-memory-alpha-and-et
ernal-life/   Perhaps you can forward this to Ray Kurzweil for his
consideration. he can easily afford the 'Wonderland' Memory Alpha Estate.

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Memory Alpha, come dip yourself in magic waters

 

Very clever. Has Ray Kurzweil signed up yet?

BTW - for anyone needing a laugh, here's a bit of parody at the expense of
the guru of google and that Brit who gets way too much airtime ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqaEsEApSE
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqaEsEApSE=1> =1

 

Russ George wrote:

If you don't know whether there is a heaven or hell or anything after life
you've come to the right place. You can reserve your ultrafast quantum
memory real estate on our 'exclusive secure redundant brain server' at
Memory Alpha.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/16/welcome-to-memory-alpha-and-et
ernal-life/ 

 

[Vo]:Memory Alpha, come dip yourself in magic waters

[Russ George]

If you don't know whether there is a heaven or hell or anything after life
you've come to the right place. You can reserve your ultrafast quantum
memory real estate on our 'exclusive secure redundant brain server' at
Memory Alpha.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/16/welcome-to-memory-alpha-and-et
ernal-life/ 

[Vo]:Quantum limits

[Russ George]

In this new paper a NIST lab has cooled a thin metal membrane to below the
predicted quantum limits, on its way to reaching absolute zero. This
experiment might be performed with a deuterated metal membrane with
interesting results depending on the deuteron saturation. I think it likely
that  Ubaldo Mastromatteo of ST Micro might well have the lab to do this in
relatively short order as from the looks of the NIST experiment it's not far
from his cold fusion experiment designs. Could be a way to study some of the
quantum and coherence hypotheses that keep being batted around in this
field. Explosive results might be revealed.
http://phys.org/news/2017-01-physicists-cool-microscopic-quantum-limit.html 

RE: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Russ George]

There is ALWAYS room for error is tiny signals, a few watts IS nothing more 
than a tiny signal!  SRI is simply milking consulting fees as they have always 
done, that is exclusively what they do!

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

 

Jack Cole  > wrote:

 

The input power being mis-measured is one possibility that has not been 
discussed in sufficient detail to know if they have ruled this out.

 

This is not a detailed report. I expect they have ruled it out, by methods not 
described here.

 

 

  Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), that the electrical 
power measurement is bullet-proof.

 

This report describes work done at SRI, mainly by Francis Tanzella, I think. He 
knows what he is doing. I am not saying he couldn't have made a mistake, but he 
is knowledgeable and careful, so I would not worry too much that he measured 
input power incorrectly.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get ;)

[Russ George]

Well my ‘ready kilowatt cold fusion’ system is near to hand, and not being such 
a nervous pussy as to worry about being grabbed that I substitute LENR for the 
term ‘cold fusion’ that’s the better moniker… even with President Trump amongst 
us. Of course you know that the only real way to understand science is to 
adhere to the admonition “data speak to me.” That speaking data always confides 
to anyone listening about IP.  I am far less of a mercurial professor than 
Martin Fleischman, but the older I get the more I am beginning to understand 
his POV.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 12:13 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know 
what you are going to get ;)

 

Russ,

 

I am excited to hear that you are on the verge of developing a high powered 
LERN system that might show the generation of muons as a reaction byproduct. If 
it is not an imposition on your good nature, could you try to detect and verify 
these muons by placing a sheet of silver or other metal over the geiger counter 
as you have described doing in previous posts. A report back to vortex about 
the results of such a test would be great if the report does not violate your 
IP position.

 

Also wishing huge well deserved success in this and all you do. 

Axil

 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Peter,

 

You are always most welcome to echo my blog posts. The New Year has begun and 
after being in hibernation for the past month or so I am beginning to be 
reinvigorated. There is too much to do to deliver several ocean pasture 
restorations this year and get my danged ‘dusty plasma ready kilowatt’ heater 
into production. Only a few bugs left to squash. By the way you’ll be 
interested to know that hot gas phase NiD, aka Quarks, make 4He as do similar 
AgD devices, aka Millquarks!

 

Cold Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net <http://Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net> 

 

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com> 
] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 11:42 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know 
what you are going to get ;)

 

it is my pleasure to sif=gnal your fine paper.

Bob is my good friend too like you, no problem if you have different opinions.

best wishes,

Peter

 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Bob Cook and I disagree about the reality of ‘quarks’, having had the good 
fortune of being tutored many times on quarks by a dear friend who won the 
Nobel Prize for their discovery I favour their existence, Bob does not. They 
are very convenient in understanding the ecology of cold fusion. Now whether 
nucleons exist or not and where is another question. Here’s my post on the 
topic http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/05/quark-gazpacho/ 





 

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

 

RE: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get ;)

[Russ George]

Peter,

 

You are always most welcome to echo my blog posts. The New Year has begun and 
after being in hibernation for the past month or so I am beginning to be 
reinvigorated. There is too much to do to deliver several ocean pasture 
restorations this year and get my danged ‘dusty plasma ready kilowatt’ heater 
into production. Only a few bugs left to squash. By the way you’ll be 
interested to know that hot gas phase NiD, aka Quarks, make 4He as do similar 
AgD devices, aka Millquarks!

 

Cold Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

 

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 11:42 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know 
what you are going to get ;)

 

it is my pleasure to sif=gnal your fine paper.

Bob is my good friend too like you, no problem if you have different opinions.

best wishes,

Peter

 

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Bob Cook and I disagree about the reality of ‘quarks’, having had the good 
fortune of being tutored many times on quarks by a dear friend who won the 
Nobel Prize for their discovery I favour their existence, Bob does not. They 
are very convenient in understanding the ecology of cold fusion. Now whether 
nucleons exist or not and where is another question. Here’s my post on the 
topic http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/05/quark-gazpacho/ 





 

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Quark soup life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get ;)

[Russ George]

Bob Cook and I disagree about the reality of 'quarks', having had the good
fortune of being tutored many times on quarks by a dear friend who won the
Nobel Prize for their discovery I favour their existence, Bob does not. They
are very convenient in understanding the ecology of cold fusion. Now whether
nucleons exist or not and where is another question. Here's my post on the
topic http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/05/quark-gazpacho/ 

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Gravity waves are indeed the means for SETI communication as they travel at e8 
times the speed of light as Tom van Flandern showed the speed was at least 
2xe10 c or more! While the usual suspects heaped dogmatic howls on Tom, his 
friend and mine J P Vigier was a staunch supporter of his conclusion as am I. 
Alas both Tom and Jean Pierre are passed but their ideas and wisdom have not.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 8:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

 

There is a more far fetched possibility - that of communications via 
gravitational waves.  There have been a number of papers talking about the 
conversion of EM waves into gravitational waves in certain types of 
superconductors.  If that ever proves to be possible, it would open a whole new 
spectrum - one that could harbor SETI communications.

 

Because gravity appears to have infinite range, assuming there are gravitons, 
they are expected to be massless.  This means they will travel at the speed of 
light.  From this PhysicsForums post [1], I infer that for masses under human 
control which would serve as the source of the gravitons, they will have very 
large wavelengths.  Is there a way to send lots of information over a signal 
with a very low frequency?

 

Gravitons aside, if the alien signal is spread across a spectrum, as you 
mention, I suppose it might be very difficult to detect.  If the transmitted 
signal further involves intentionally taking the background noise and making 
small adjustments to it, you would probably have to be looking for this kind of 
pattern specifically to determine that there was a signal at all.

 

Eric

 

 

[1] 
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/graviton-energy-and-frequency-wavelength.242145/#post-1780881

 

[Vo]:More mass in universe in black holes than stars!

[Russ George]

Curiosity got the best of me and looking at the ratio of stars to black
holes, stars are ~1000 times more common. But black holes contain vast
numbers of 'star equivalent mass', it looks like too close to call as to
whether there is more mass in stars or black holes. Are black holes made up
of 'dark matter'? Does the matter inside a black hole exist as atoms or is
it merely quark soup, the latter it seems. That led to an interesting new
paper that shows that there is a low temperature, aka constrained motion,
boundary between nucleons and quark soup.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170104145736.htm 

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Cold fusion is a piss poor cousin in the enrichment game with fissionable 
species to paths with abundant neutrons.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:55 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 

The real problem with LENR is the LENR reaction's preference for the even 
isotopes U238, U232 of the odd isotopes. That make LENR a transuranic element  
enrichment risk.

 

>From my reference:

 

" It was found that the activity of both U isotopes decreased with respect to 
that of Cs. However, the activity of the 238U isotope decreases to a greater 
extent. Thus, the ratio of 235U to 238U becomes bigger than unity. Prior to 
these experiments, we made sure that the specific activity of 137Cs does not 
change noticeably. The real situation is more complicated [3] but this is a 
topic of a separate report. For us, it is important that the transformation can 
also take place outside the plasma channel. This is a rather “unpleasant 
surprise,” because, probably, within several years, when the low-temperature 
transmutation will be studied in more detail, it would be rather easy to devise 
a facile and inexpensive process to enrich uranium. In view of the growth of 
terrorism all over the world, this outcome seems deplorable."

 

It seen that muon fission likes even isotopes more that odd ones.

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:



Whoa -  an observer must possess a great deal of blind hope to imagine that 
weaponization of LENR is impossible simply because neutrons are lacking. In 
fact, dense hydrogen is physically similar to the neutron.

Most importantly, the number of documented runaway LENR reactions makes the 
statement of "impossibility" almost silly, based on experience. It has 
happened. As for slow ramp up - Holmlid shows us the gain can happen in 
nanoseconds.

Let's back track a bit. Neutrons are required for one kind of chain reaction, 
but the modality is broader. A chain reaction is any self-expanding sequence of 
reactions where a reactive product (by-product or emission) causes additional 
reactions to take place. 

The prototypical chain reaction is actually combustion in an internal 
combustion engine, initiated by a spark or by compression. Fission is another 
but there are more including, of course, the domino effect. The key to all 
chain reactions is positive feedback. Positive feedback leads to a 
self-amplifying chain of events. in a number of physical systems including 
these:

1) Chemical reactions of many kinds, esp. combustion
2) The neutron chain reaction of nuclear physics
3) The avalanche cascade - breakdown in gases
4) The avalanche breakdown in semiconductors
5) Population inversion - lasing
6) QM entangled systems of many kinds 
7) Domino effect and meme effect
8) Audio feedback loop
9) Mossbauer effect

Even if neutrons were required for the most energetic kind of weaponization, 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to the neutron that it could substitute -- and 
in the case of Holmlid - exceed by orders of magnitude the gain from the 
nuclear fission chain reaction. 



 Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Most researchers think that a runaway reaction or explosion is impossible for 
three reasons:

 

1. Cold fusion only works with an intact metal lattice.

2. It ramps up relatively slowly, so it would destroy the lattice before it 
could increase to high levels.

3. It is not a chain reaction. In a uranium fission chain reaction, one event 
directly triggers two or more others, and the reaction can increase 
exponentially over a very short time (80 generations in 1 microsecond).

 

I hope that is right.

 

- Jed

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

[Russ George]

Most assuredly definitive Ag transmutation isotope shift data is in hand, no 
dispute possible in that! One path is clearly the insertion of a deuteron into 
some relatively high Z nuclei. Surely that has a coherent pathway. As for prior 
art (rigged patent system nonsense) there is more than one way to skin that 
Mills-Cat. I am OK with sitting back to watch and learn from what Mill’s 
presents, (Rossi as well in that regard). With a few days of laying hands on 
materials (a few milligrams) from either M or E ‘cats’ the definitive isotope 
studies will be complete and reveal all! No question that we know how to do 
that work very well and have well worn paths to follow.  The real problem with 
cold fusion, aka lenr for those faint of heart or soul, is and always has been 
the twin problem of guarded inventors and god awful gawkers (both with innocent 
and avaricious intent).  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:34 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

 

If you patented your work, you may has a prior art claim on your technology 
over Mills. Transmutation occurring in your system will show that you have the 
goods in terms of theory(LENR) as opposed to Mills(hydrino) with no 
transmutation theoretical basis.

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Axil, The titanium experiment you suggest has been done, by me, while Ti is a 
useful cold fusion material it has a far lower NAE cross-section and while this 
is useful in limiting thermal destruction it works against the vitality of the 
technology. Lots of work required down that trail. I am with Mill’s, in my 
experience, silver is by far the most active material, thus it provides the 
most fruitful paths to technology development. Both Mill’s dusty plasma tech 
and my own dusty plasma ‘compact fluorescent simple kilowatt’ tech offer a 
clear path to producing readily and inexpensive to produce and harvestable 
useful cold fusion energy. While theoretical thinking can be useful nothing 
substitutes for real world experimentation!

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto: <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

 

As the SunCell R moves forward over the coming months, certain hard to 
understand problems will develop in that effort that will show that the SunCell 
is really a LENR based system. As a foreshadowing of these development 
problems, I will make a prediction about how the SunCell works as a LENR system 
which if realized will disprove the Hydrino theory as a central mover in the 
way the SunCell functions. This production and its expansion will demonstrate 
how LENR works in the plasma state as a process centered on transition metal 
nanowire production as a condensate from the vapor state.

As background to develop and explain this issue, the boiling point of silver is 
2435 K (2162 °C, 3924 °F). If the high temperature of the plasma inside the 
SunCell keeps the silver vapor from condensing into nanoparticles than the 
dusty plasma based LENR reaction will stop. The SunCell will flicker around the 
boiling point of silver and the plasma temperature will stabilize and hover at 
the 2162C boiling point of silver.

R. Mills has shown two SunCell distinct architectures that have demonstrated 
two separate capiblities, first: high power density, second: long duration and 
self-sustained ignition.

There is a major differences between the full power SunCell unit that has used 
a tungsten electrode and the lower temperature long reaction endurance unit 
used to show self-sustained mode.

In the full power test, Mills used tungsten whose boiling point is 6203 K (5930 
°C, 10,706 °F). There is no temperature limitation problem with nanoparticle 
formation here. In the low power endurance test, the temperature of the plasma 
produced was far below the full power test because the test reactor containment 
structure was stainless steel.

I predict that the Mills SunCell will not work at full power where the 
temperature needs to reach 3000C using the silver liquid electrodes because the 
plasma at that temperature requirement will get far too hot for silver 
condensation. The temperature cap is 2162 °C using silver, its vaporization 
temperature.

As a goldilocks solution, Mills might try a possible high temperature 
replacement for silver: Titanium, boiling point 3560 K (3287 °C, 5949 °F).

I also believe that the shape of the nanoparticle is important. The 
nanoparticle in dusty plasma might need to be reformed into nanowires. Silver 
can produce nanowires and so can titanium.

Titanium has been shown the capability to do this dusty plasma LENR reaction 
function nicely in the exploding foil experiments described here:

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
Georges Lochak, Leonid 

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Whoa indeed, nanoseconds are way to slow for fission!

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 



Whoa -  an observer must possess a great deal of blind hope to imagine that 
weaponization of LENR is impossible simply because neutrons are lacking. In 
fact, dense hydrogen is physically similar to the neutron.

Most importantly, the number of documented runaway LENR reactions makes the 
statement of "impossibility" almost silly, based on experience. It has 
happened. As for slow ramp up - Holmlid shows us the gain can happen in 
nanoseconds.

Let's back track a bit. Neutrons are required for one kind of chain reaction, 
but the modality is broader. A chain reaction is any self-expanding sequence of 
reactions where a reactive product (by-product or emission) causes additional 
reactions to take place. 

The prototypical chain reaction is actually combustion in an internal 
combustion engine, initiated by a spark or by compression. Fission is another 
but there are more including, of course, the domino effect. The key to all 
chain reactions is positive feedback. Positive feedback leads to a 
self-amplifying chain of events. in a number of physical systems including 
these:

1) Chemical reactions of many kinds, esp. combustion
2) The neutron chain reaction of nuclear physics
3) The avalanche cascade - breakdown in gases
4) The avalanche breakdown in semiconductors
5) Population inversion - lasing
6) QM entangled systems of many kinds 
7) Domino effect and meme effect
8) Audio feedback loop
9) Mossbauer effect

Even if neutrons were required for the most energetic kind of weaponization, 
dense hydrogen is similar enough to the neutron that it could substitute -- and 
in the case of Holmlid - exceed by orders of magnitude the gain from the 
nuclear fission chain reaction. 



 Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Most researchers think that a runaway reaction or explosion is impossible for 
three reasons:

 

1. Cold fusion only works with an intact metal lattice.

2. It ramps up relatively slowly, so it would destroy the lattice before it 
could increase to high levels.

3. It is not a chain reaction. In a uranium fission chain reaction, one event 
directly triggers two or more others, and the reaction can increase 
exponentially over a very short time (80 generations in 1 microsecond).

 

I hope that is right.

 

- Jed

 

 

RE: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

[Russ George]

Axil, The titanium experiment you suggest has been done, by me, while Ti is a 
useful cold fusion material it has a far lower NAE cross-section and while this 
is useful in limiting thermal destruction it works against the vitality of the 
technology. Lots of work required down that trail. I am with Mill’s, in my 
experience, silver is by far the most active material, thus it provides the 
most fruitful paths to technology development. Both Mill’s dusty plasma tech 
and my own dusty plasma ‘compact fluorescent simple kilowatt’ tech offer a 
clear path to producing readily and inexpensive to produce and harvestable 
useful cold fusion energy. While theoretical thinking can be useful nothing 
substitutes for real world experimentation!

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:06 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The SunCell is a LENR system

 

As the SunCell R moves forward over the coming months, certain hard to 
understand problems will develop in that effort that will show that the SunCell 
is really a LENR based system. As a foreshadowing of these development 
problems, I will make a prediction about how the SunCell works as a LENR system 
which if realized will disprove the Hydrino theory as a central mover in the 
way the SunCell functions. This production and its expansion will demonstrate 
how LENR works in the plasma state as a process centered on transition metal 
nanowire production as a condensate from the vapor state.

As background to develop and explain this issue, the boiling point of silver is 
2435 K (2162 °C, 3924 °F). If the high temperature of the plasma inside the 
SunCell keeps the silver vapor from condensing into nanoparticles than the 
dusty plasma based LENR reaction will stop. The SunCell will flicker around the 
boiling point of silver and the plasma temperature will stabilize and hover at 
the 2162C boiling point of silver.

R. Mills has shown two SunCell distinct architectures that have demonstrated 
two separate capiblities, first: high power density, second: long duration and 
self-sustained ignition.

There is a major differences between the full power SunCell unit that has used 
a tungsten electrode and the lower temperature long reaction endurance unit 
used to show self-sustained mode.

In the full power test, Mills used tungsten whose boiling point is 6203 K (5930 
°C, 10,706 °F). There is no temperature limitation problem with nanoparticle 
formation here. In the low power endurance test, the temperature of the plasma 
produced was far below the full power test because the test reactor containment 
structure was stainless steel.

I predict that the Mills SunCell will not work at full power where the 
temperature needs to reach 3000C using the silver liquid electrodes because the 
plasma at that temperature requirement will get far too hot for silver 
condensation. The temperature cap is 2162 °C using silver, its vaporization 
temperature.

As a goldilocks solution, Mills might try a possible high temperature 
replacement for silver: Titanium, boiling point 3560 K (3287 °C, 5949 °F).

I also believe that the shape of the nanoparticle is important. The 
nanoparticle in dusty plasma might need to be reformed into nanowires. Silver 
can produce nanowires and so can titanium.

Titanium has been shown the capability to do this dusty plasma LENR reaction 
function nicely in the exploding foil experiments described here:

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev 

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf 
 

These exploding foil experiments vaporize titanium and then produce LENR 
reactions such as fusion, fission and transmutation. This type of experiment 
provides support from my belief that the SunCell is really based on the LENR 
reaction rather than this hydrino myth.

The number exploding wire experiments done in Russia has been extensive, so 
much so that a computer program has been written based on these experimental 
results that predict what the transmutation results will be based on the type 
of material used in the exploding wire or foil. 

There are other SunCell like LENR experiments that have demonstrated solid 
transmutation results. Proton 21 is one.

  
rexresearch.com/adamenko/adamenko.htm

This bring up and interesting question. Is the Proton 21 patent application 
prior art that supersedes the SunCell patent application?

The bottom line, the SunCell is just a variant of these exploding foil dusty 
plasma based experiments.



Silver nanowire

RE: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

[Russ George]

Conflating nuclear chain reaction energy release with cold fusion mechanisms
is what leads to silly speculation, aka trolling, over weaponization of cold
fusion. It is the far reaching neutron chain reaction process that is common
to fission/fusion weapons that makes them so potent. In cold fusion this
long range stimulated chain reaction mechanism does not exist! In fact cold
fusion reactions are inherently clearly self-limited as when the reaction
condition becomes more and more prevalent the heat released promptly
destroys the NAE through rather mundane melting and vapourization of the
active matrix and surroundings. The challenge in cold fusion is producing
materials that contain NAE's where those NAE's are small enough to limit the
number of adjacent cold fusion reactions so as to limit the amount of
heating. Cold fusion heat is produced in incredibly fast nuclear time frames
but as heat it only moves away from its' birthplace at the speed of
chemistry. There are only a few of we experimentalists who have had the good
fortune to struggle with this heat transfer/melting problem. I believe most
of us who remain active are making good progress in developing technological
skills to manage it.  That there is a perfect linkage/control in effect due
to the commonly known chemical/thermal properties of matter is very well
established.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 8:44 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The dark side of dense hydrogen

 

The explosive potential of the cold fusion reaction is centered on the
percentage of energy that is produce by the LENR reaction in the various
energy releases format. 

 

By energy formats I mean the place where the output energy goes such as sub
atomic particle production, heat, light, and/or RF.

 

If a large percentage of the energy format goes toward muon production, then
the muons might catalyze a large amount of fusion and fission. 

 

I have a fear that a runaway LENR reaction might generate a huge amount of
muons where only a small fraction of the output energy goes toward the
production of EMF such as heat and light.

 

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

This is not a repeat of the suggestion that dense hydrogen is the same
species as "dark matter" ... but there is a good case for that proposition.

It is about "dark" as in evil. If there is a foreseeable downside to LENR,
it is the possibility of weaponization. Not just that - it is the easy
weaponization of commonly available materials, which makes it much scarier
than nukes.

In the past, observers of the LENR scene - who delve into almost every
remote possibility for anomalous energy - have not wanted to talk about the
possibility of a cold-fusion bomb. Even when P reported their amazing
meltdown, the implications were minimized. It is an uncomfortable topic
since for one thing, weaponization could provide Federal regulators with a
ready made excuse, should they want to limit research into the field at the
behest of the fossil fuel industry, for instance.

However, the reality of our technological world - which is fed by the WWW
and knows no boundaries - is that there is no field of human endeavor which
benefits from intentional neglect: the ostrich meme - buying one's head in
the sand. The worst possible approach for any Nation is to look the other
way and ignore the dark side. If there is any likelihood that LENR can do
harm, it is better that we (e.g. the free world) discover it first - so as
to better prepare for the eventual situation where our enemies, or former
friends, will consider the NiH bomb to be a golden opportunity for their own
purposes.

If Holmlid is correct to the extent that irradiating the dense allotrope of
deuterium - UDD - using a small laser - can result in the "quark soup"
disintegration of the target particle into muons, in addition to nuclear
fusion, then the potential to do immense harm cannot be over-estimated. The
destructiveness of the small laser reaction increases by orders of magnitude
over the fissionable nukes - from MeV to GeV. The same situation exists if a
"critical mass" level exists.

Over the years, at least 6 more reports and likely more, have emerged of a
runaway reaction in LENR like the one P reported, or in one case even more
impressive. Any runaway reaction would point to the existence of a
critical-mass parameter.

The suitcase nuke, scary enough but achievable, then evolves into the
water-bottle size, or pen size (laser pointer size) - which is deliverable
by drone and feasible to the wealthy investor of almost any country.



 

RE: [Vo]:RE: Gaslighting

[Russ George]

It is a doubtful verging on histrionic notion that cold fusion ‘muons’ will be 
an issue, the observational evidence by those with data clearly does not 
support such hypothesized fears. Clearly the emission/numbers properties of 
cold fusion are both very much less than conventional physics might suggest and 
further the emissions are at the very least ‘strange’ and not at all typical 
muons, rather being mysterious mischugenons.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2017 5:17 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Gaslighting

 

Perfection can only be realized in heaven, there is always a fly in the 
ointment. IMHO, LENR produces muons. A few muons does not hurt anything. A few 
muons is like a flight across the country in a high flying jet, One cross 
country air trip is not impactful, nothing to think about, but if you spend 
much of your time in the clouds, you might get yourself into trouble.

 

When LENR really gets going full blast and gigawatts are generated in cars, 
trains, planes, boats, houses, everywhere in everything, the muon loading will 
get into the terawatt levels. Muons flowing down the streets will be so thick, 
you can cut them with a knife. And muons are a bitch to shield against. 

 

LENR might need to be confined inside a leakproof  magnetic bottle inside huge 
ITER like reactors to protect the environment from ubiquitous muons. Like CO2, 
muons will need to be sequestered. Moderation in all things except energy 
production. If moderation is not in the plans, then shielding is a must.

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

New Year for clean new energy will surprise you. Decades of old fossil 
'gaslighting' goes dark in a brilliant 'cold fusion' flash as reported on CNN!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/01/2017-the-end-of-the-beginning-energy-breakout/
 

 

[Vo]:RE: Gaslighting

[Russ George]

New Year for clean new energy will surprise you. Decades of old fossil 
'gaslighting' goes dark in a brilliant 'cold fusion' flash as reported on CNN!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/01/2017-the-end-of-the-beginning-energy-breakout/
 

RE: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

[Russ George]

No, Putin is his partner in this, surely you know that.

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 3:00 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Revelation of Donald Trump’s personal secret funding of cold fusion will create 
an international political firestorm as OPEC announces dire sanctions imposed 
upon him.

 

That would be hilarious!

 

Still, it would mean the end of his bromance with Putin. Sad!

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

[Russ George]

Revelation of Donald Trump’s personal secret funding of cold fusion will create 
an international political firestorm as OPEC announces dire sanctions imposed 
upon him. 

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM EGO OUT!

 

Happy New Year,  Predictions anyone.



Frank Znidarsic 

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Russ George]

There is a report that the Chinese CAST version of the EM drive is a stacked 
series of drives…. Does this mean that the Chinese have seen a multiplier 
effect when directing the ‘thrust’ as feed into a second drive? Or is it just a 
convenient means to conserve space?

 

From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 11:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

 

That's interesting.  That would resolve the conservation violations.

On 12/28/2016 01:54 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

I've seen some calculations showing that there is a toroidal electric field 
within the device. I wonder if the movement is due the pull of the magnetic 
field of the Earth.

 

2016-12-28 16:43 GMT-02:00 Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com 
<mailto:sa...@pobox.com> >:

Just to point something out -- the EM drive obviously doesn't need to be 
outside the craft to work, since it doesn't eject mass.

Furthermore (and consequently), it violates conservation of momentum, 
conservation of angular momentum, conservation of energy, and conservation of 
mass.  While data trumps theory, this doesn't seem like the most likely 
explanation of the effect to me.

Gedanken:  Put an EM drive in a box.  Attach it to a wire.  Attach the other 
end of the wire to a pivot (like one of those old gas powered toy planes people 
used to have before the days of radio control).  Let the box with the EM drive 
go.  It will accelerate in a circle, around the pivot point.

Power consumption inside the box is presumably constant.  Power generated 
varies in proportion to the speed of the box (power = force * velocity).  So, 
at some point it'll be generating more power than it's consuming.  And there's 
the violation of CoE.  (With a bit of cleverness you can turn it into a Type I 
perpetual motion machine.)

Meanwhile it's going lickety split around the pivot, with increasing angular 
momentum; with no mass ejection there's no compensating decrease anywhere else. 
 There's the violation of conservation of angular momentum.

And as its velocity increases, its mass increases as gamma*m.  There's the 
violation of conservation of mass.

And violation of linear momentum is obvious.

On the other hand if it doesn't work, then all that's being violated is the 
assumption that the handful of extremely delicate high precision experiments 
that have been done to show the effect were not somehow botched.

I'm not holding my breath on this one. 

 

On 12/28/2016 02:02 AM, David Roberson wrote:

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive on their 
space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  Finally, is that 
device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the orientation 
required for the station?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George  <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

 





 

-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ 

danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com> 

 

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Russ George]

That ‘secondhand news’ from the NASA forum is clearly described as completely 
unsubstantiated speculation…. But then that’s what social media trolling is all 
about. ALL that has been reported to have been said by the Chinese is that the 
test “is not smooth” with no explanation as to what “smooth” means. Let the 
definition of ‘smooth’ games begin!

 

From: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 3:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

 

Dave,

 

The secondhand news is that it is not working in space FWIW.

 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623141#msg1623141

 

Jack

 

 

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:08 AM David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote:

Russ,

Can you verify that the Chinese actually have a functioning EM drive on their 
space station.  Also, how much thrust are they claiming?  Finally, is that 
device or group of devices capable of maintaining all of the orientation 
required for the station?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> >
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: [Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

[Vo]:EM Drive need not be outside the spacecraft

[Russ George]

A curious facet of the EM drive, such as the one now operating on the Chinese 
space station is that it need not be on the outside of the spacecraft, it’s 
thrust is independent of the position and surrounding matter. This enables all 
manner of interesting spacecraft geometries.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Reason why there are no dead grad students...

[Russ George]

A more plausible model for matter is needed. Working to conform our present 
politically correct notions to the observations just results in more 
compromises in terms of behavior of the ‘particles’ we assume make up atomic to 
molecular scale matter. It’s far more likely that the ecology of atoms consists 
of bits that don’t conform to our present particular view. I rather like the 
view of real matter in its native state being squishy bags of quark soup with 
indiscriminate boundaries. Therein the utility of special harmonic states 
clearly provides for sufficiently rapid distribution of energy to accommodate 
the list of out of the box observations that is ever growing as we gain the 
ability to see. The real problem with humanity as made so clear by ‘social 
media’ is so very few choose to do what it takes to ‘see’ while the vast 
majority sit back and only read. (Yes, Mr. Sulu, there is a difference between 
real and reading -   https://youtu.be/NaxOfpqcCig 
.) Amongst the few real vs. imaginary explorers, seeing is believing. 
Technology is not about knowing perfectly the why and how things work but 
rather how to reproduce an ‘ecological’ effect that is good enough to be 
useful. Only dogma requires the more ‘perfect’, aka politically acceptable, 
‘sociological’ explanation.

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 9:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Re: Reason why there are no dead grad students...

 

 

 

 

Whatever mechanism is needed to transfer nuclear energy via phonons vs photons 
must be able to move a great deal of such energy over a considerable distance 
to ‘cool’ the NAE. 





To do this without radiation requires that the range of the nuclear force be 
extended beyond that of the electromagnetic.  It like stepping over a speed 
bump.  An extension of the static nuclear force would crush matter out of 
existence. 

 

 

Magnetic forces are not conserved.  The range of the strong nuclear spin orbit 
force can be extended without crushing matter out of existence.Soft iron 
increases the range of magnetic component of the electrical force.

A vibrating Bose condensate is the soft iron equivalent for the nuclear 
magnetic spin orbit force.

 

The constants of the motion (magnetic forces are of the motion) tend toward the 
electromagnetic (have a strong long long range magnetic component; magnetic 
,spin orbit, and gravitomagnetic) in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at a 
dimensional frequency (Jed came up with word dimensional frequency) of 
1,094,000 hertz-meters.

 

 

Another way of saying this is that the permeability of the electrical  magnetic 
force increases greatly soft iron.  The magnetic moment of the electron is 
measured in hundreds of Fermi meters.  The magnetic moment of an inductor is 
measured in meters.  This effect powers our economy.

 

The gravitomagnetic field is 10 exp 39 power weaker than the electrical 
magnetic field.  The range of the nuclear spin orbit force is measured in 10 of 
Fermi meters. In a vibrating Bose condensate these ranges and strengths change 
by a factor of 10 exp 39 power.  The effect is similar to what happens to the 
electrical magnetic force in soft iron but the effect extents across all of the 
force fields.  This exploration of this effect can extend man's control of the 
natural forces beyond the electromagnetic and to all of the forces.  There is 
much more to the NDA than expected.

 

 

I have been saying this since the late 1990's.  IE published an article by me 
which I  described the effect at something like ( 39 / the length of the Bose 
condensate in inches).  At ANS 2000 I refined the result and the new result was 
published in terms of one megahertz-meter.  Today I can get the result in many 
significant digits as:

 

(c / 2 alpha)

 

 

Frank Z

RE: [Vo]:Re: Reason why there are no dead grad students...

[Russ George]

Cold fusion reactions in well performing systems frequently amount to thousands 
to millions of adjacent nucleon pair fusions taking place in short order. 
Whatever mechanism is needed to transfer nuclear energy via phonons vs photons 
must be able to move a great deal of such energy over a considerable distance 
to ‘cool’ the NAE. When the energy distribution system is inadequate eruptive 
‘volcanic-like’ events become obvious. So a mechanism able to manage only 1 or 
2 energy ‘packets’ is insufficient.

 

From: bobcook39...@gmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2016 3:47 PM
To: Axil Axil; vortex-l
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Reason why there are no dead grad students...

 

Axil and Mark—

 

I do not believe superconductivity as such is important in LENR.  As you and 
others have suggested the importance of the generation of plasmons  SPP’s with 
their  intense local B magnetic fields is the key effect IMHO.  The resonant 
coupling created by the varying B field at the NAE metal lattice allows nuclear 
potential energy of a small number of nuclei—maybe only 1 or 2—to be 
transferred as phonic kinetic energy of the metal lattice.  (No energetic EM or 
particles result since there is only conservation of angular momentum, spin 
energy, involved in the reaction. ) 

 

It may be that the “new physics” of LENR is the transfer of potential energy 
associated with then strong force to spin energy of particles forming part of a 
coherent system.  Angular momentum is conserved in the system by the opposite 
polarization of particles forming the coherent system.  This model assumesthe 
common identity of energy  regardless of the form (energy fields) involved in 
its description.   

 

The original  coherent system  nearly survives the reaction with only a minor 
change in one or two of the nuclei.  And the metal lattice of the new  coherent 
system still is sufficient to support additional LENR reactions as the B 
magnetic field changes and creates a new coupling for additional nuclear 
transitions.  IMHO temperature may also cause resonant conditions in a coherent 
system to allow LENR.  The ambient magnetic field is necessary to quench the 
LENR through changing B firlds and corresponding resonant conditions. 

 

The following provides a fairly simple discussion of plasmons.

 

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

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 9:22 PM
To: vortex-l  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Reason why there are no dead grad students...

 

I found another paper on Palladium/hydrogen superconductivity

 

Sorry I am so late

 

http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/464/46434607.pdf

 

Magnetic and Transport Properties of PdH: Intriguing Superconductive 
Observations

 

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Hi Mark,

Your quotes from the citation brings to mind the mystery connection to HTSC 
(high temperature superconductivity). 

Since the early days there was thought to be some kind of vague and undefined 
connection between LENR and HTSC. This is due primarily to the fact that 
palladium hydride is superconductive but palladium isn't. The quote you 
mentioned adds an explanation in the form of lattice vibrations. The problem is 
the transition temperature.

BTW - for those who are not aware of the history of this - Brian Ahern (who was 
a USAF researcher at the time, specializing in SC) independently discovered 
Pd-H superconductivity many years ago - only to find that it had already been 
reported by someone else (and patented). It is still ignored as a factor for 
gain in "cold fusion" due to the aforementioned problem of transition 
temperature. This is probably one of the details that got Brian hooked on LENR 
- even before P and he also discovered that an alloy of nickel and palladium 
performs much better than palladium alone for excess heat.

For the heck of it, I did a quicky search to see if "nickel hydride" has ever 
been reported with SC properties. This begs to be part of the LENR-CANR library 
even if the rationale between LENR and HTSC is foggy. 

As it turns out - W-L also picked up on the cross-connection and found the same 
citation I found:

Superconductivity in the palladium-hydrogen and palladium-nickel-hydrogen 
systems
Authors -  First published: 16 June 1972 by 
T. Skoskiewicz 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pssa.2210110253/abstract

The paper is a poor scan, I am trying to find a digital version. This is almost 
45 years old ! Why is it seldom mentioned?

This is a fine blog article from EM Smith on the situation (which I had read 
but forgot), It is worth a reread.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/widom-larsen-superconducting-hydrides-and-directed-speculation/

 

 MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

Vorts,

 

Haven’t had time to do much sci-surfing in 2016, but as is 

RE: [Vo]:The other "heavy water"

[Russ George]

Few rad detectors show neutrons, mostly they are quite large, the flux might be 
very low hence the need for a time integrating detector, pretty much the only 
available is a bubble detector, they are very inexpensive and idiot proof to 
read, one needs a pair of them one in the inside shirt pocket, they are the 
size of a fountain pen,  one left outside the room, just count the bubbles, if 
more inside there are neutrons afoot. 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 11:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The other "heavy water"

Well, that is a bit too obvious.

There is little doubt that by now someone has hidden and used a radiation 
detector of some kind during a demo, given the circumstances. 
Mills realized this possibility from day one - and has taken precautions

The possible conclusions include:

1) The reaction produces almost no neutrons, even secondary neutrons, even when 
natural deuterium is in the water. This is the preferred scenario from Mills 
perspective.

2) Water is used in the demo which is depleted in deuterium thus no neutrons 
are seen

3) Neutron shielding has been used but is not mentioned by Mills... and it has 
worked

4) The party detecting the radiation has kept quiet about it.


Russ George wrote:

> Easily testable, just have someone attending a Mills demo carry an 
> integrating neutron detector such as a bubble detector.

RE: [Vo]:The other "heavy water"

[Russ George]

Easily testable, just have someone attending a Mills demo carry an integrating 
neutron detector such as a bubble detector. 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 8:46 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:The other "heavy water"

With speculation rampant on the subject of the latest Mills/BrLP miracle device 
- here are a few thoughts from the fringe that most observers have never 
contemplated.

As we know from 75 years of experimentation with heavy water - neutrons are 
hard to avoid and passing an electron beam through deuterium will release 
neutrons in proportion to the power of the discharge. One cannot avoid this 
problem using distilled water, due to small amount of deuterium and the 
statistical energy distribution in electric arcs (Boltzmann's tail). However, 
deuterium-depleted water is available. For a price. It is a bit ironic that to 
avoid the "taint" of nuclear energy, a demo could be required to employ an 
expensive fuel which is depleted of D. Ironic in a way.

The normal water supply water contains about 1 molecule in 3,200 of HDO (one 
hydrogen atom in every 6,400 is in the form of D) but full heavy water 
molecules are much rarer yet are not required for neutron spallation via 
electric discharge. Passing an electric arc through water or steam containing 
HDO will eventually debilitate (activate) any reactor... after a predictable 
time frame. This is due to neutron activation of the most metal components. It 
may require a long time frame but it cannot be ignored. The problem is less 
with lower voltage, but it is always there... at least without using deuterium 
depleted water. This fact severely limits the demonstration time parameter - 
due to liability issues with neutron irradiation... unless depleted water is 
used ... and it is costly.

Thus we can be fairly certain that the SunCell (TM) in these demos uses water 
which has been depleted of HDO... which possibly makes it extremely expensive 
from the start - since it is not available via mass production. Also - 
somewhere BrLPs facilities there is probably a "hot room" but you are unlikely 
to hear this admission at the demo. Mills would argue that depleted water 
should be affordable in the future due to mass production, or in any event the 
neutron activation is less of a problem in an industrial setting - but it is 
somewhat curious that this subject is generally avoided, even on forums. 
Admittedly, this is not a deal-breaker problem - given the realm of other 
risks... but...

OK, to move onto something more useful - the intended subject here is that 
"other" kind of heavy water.

This refers to light water where density increase comes NOT from deuterium  or 
from heavier oxygen isotopes but from a population where one or both of the 
hydrogen atoms is in the redundant orbital state (the hydrino state). This 
happenstance would be planned FROM THE START so that the net gain comes from 
forcing this denser species into an even lower Rydberg orbital. Mills is 
suspected of being disingenuous to claim that the process will not need to 
recapture dense hydrogen and reuse it.

It would be a more expensive proposition to obtain an advanced fuel from the 
start - which is nominally light water in which a natural population of dense 
hydrogen already exists, but it makes sense if Mills is correct on his theory. 
Even if the population of hydrinos is relatively low
(ppm) the energy gain could be well worth the effort... and there is probably a 
natural source in the solar corona.

Of special interest would be a putative fuel (which we can denote as
hydrino-water) which is harvested from the oceans. Think about it - the solar 
corona sends megatons of dense hydrogen to earth in the solar wind daily 
(according to RM) and it ends up in the oceans as it has for billions of years. 
Can this resource not be harvested? Another possible hydrino-water source for 
harvesting is the spent water from nuclear reactors which is also activated but 
that may not matter once Mills gets over his problem of denial of LENR.

In short, it is highly doubtful that this SunCell (TM) device "extracts energy 
from water" in the way that proponents have been lead to believe. 
It is highly likely that neutron activation is a problem. It is highly likely 
that the process is LENR, or stated more succinctly - that LENR and Mills are 
differing aspects of the same phenomenon which at some stage requires the 
densification of hydrogen.

[Vo]:Spin liquids

[Russ George]

An interesting new path opening up all about special quantum states found in 
Nature both in natural crystals and synthetics varieties. Quantum ‘spin 
liquids’ where there is a vast amount of entanglement going on… now of course 
such massive entanglement has always been what cold fusion required as Julian 
Schwinger commented on in 1989!  
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-spooky-sightings-crystal-extremely-rare.html 

RE: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

[Russ George]

Well I guess I stand more with Bob that with Brian on this. As a working
experimentalist in the field (like Brian, god bless him) I have plenty of
things I wish (might demand) that Rossi (and a long list of other
experimentalists) might do to make my life more interesting and exciting and
save me a lot of hard work. but Rossi gets to define Rossi and I am capable
of judging his offerings (or not) on my own. So far he's given me lots of
valued information so he gets my qualified blessing.

 

Within this social media miasma which this Vortex is the condemnation of
Rossi and name calling by nere-do-wells and armchair dilatants, aka trolls,
adds nothing positive to the development of science. Do feisty opinionated
film or fashion critics acting as groupies deliver anything to the
betterment of humankind, I am certain they do not. Do they entertain, yes,
in some perverse way which I suspect I might be asked by St. Peter as to why
I paid attention to such minions and wasted my valuable time therein, and in
doing so might have earned a brush stroke or two of barbecue sauce in limbo.
I trust the real slathering of BBQ sauce is awaiting the worst of those who
persistently direct their slander and hatred in their temper tantrums
against those who won't 'tell all' as they demand. 

 

I am absolutely certain that room on Nature Editor Maddox's spit he
presently shares in hell with more than a few powerful influential anti-cold
fusion jerks (Huizinga, . ) has plenty of room for some minion condiments.

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 10:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

 

See below

 

I also consider that Rossi has been able to improve upon the COP's of the
system by finding compatible combinations of Li, H, Ni nano particle
characteristics, and, primarily control circuit resonance to allow   minimal
energy input and long term self sustaining operations. 

 

"Those non-believers of Rossi's capabilities are akin to  those folks that
believe the Earth is only 6000 years old who live with dogmas and/or a
conflict of interest.  Their idea of fraud is not unlike the fraud they seem
to say God committed on mankind when he also left evidence of dinosaurs  on
the earth."

 

This seems exactly opposite to me!  Equating Rossi doubters with dogged
dogma adherence baffles me. I am so far from being a Rossi supporter that I
must be a trogladite. Wow  I thought they were true believers, but I guess
it is me.

 

 

The non- believers will continue to insist  the E- Cat and Quark-X advanced
performances are merely illusions and the results of Rossi's magical tricks
or fraudulent actions.  

 

Bob Cook

 

They will continue to claim the E- 

 

 


Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 3:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

 

Translated by Bob Higgins. Thanks, Bob!

 

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/1071-ParkhomovPresenta
tion-20161124-English-pdf/

 

 

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

[Russ George]

What a delight to see this new paper. So the Journal Nature has now come around 
from its flagrant condemnation and ridicule of all things cold fusion to 
publishing about it being the source of heat in the inner Earth (and other 
planets of course). I can testify that I engaged in a discussion of this very 
mechanism with Martin Fleischmann at the very first meeting on cold fusion 
while he and Giuliani Preparata and I shared a bottle of wine to cool our 
tempers if not our passion. Here’s a link to my blog post about my late 
friends, 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/09/04/guilliano-martin-john-now-richard/
 . The dastardly pundits at Nature deserve a special place in hell for their 
avaricious dogmatic approach to discovery of the mysteries of Nature. I am 
quite sure Maddox is occupying a well-deserved spit there now. The great 
tragedy of science is that most of the community behave like gentlemen but of 
course being the real substance of the stew of knowledge they are not what 
floats to the top, what floats is the scum and there is no greater repository 
of the scum and shysters of Science than the editors and publishers and owners 
of the Journal Nature. 

 

Within the microcosm of the ecology of atoms the Earthly core conditions 
described in this paper are not at all uncommon. That is why cold fusion is and 
always has and will be a principal part of behavior of hydrogen in nature.

 

From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 8:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in 
Earth’s inner core

 


Q: why don't lighter elements find there way to the centre of the Earth if 
gravity is lowest at the centre?

 

Harry​



New study indicates Earth's inner core was formed 1 - 1.5 billion years ago
October 7, 2015
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-earth-core-billion-years.html

 

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, H LV  > wrote:

Possible generation of heat from nuclear fusion in Earth’s inner core

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740

<>

 

Harry

 

RE: [Vo]:How much helium?

[Russ George]

Why not respond like your fantasy of a scientist? Why, because you are an 
armchair self-serving critic who never does anything but try to raise your own 
worth by trolling worthless comments at the expense of people who do real work 
and have original ideas. The fact that you won’t spend 5 minutes finding the 
answers to your own questions but constantly posture as if those you make 
reasonable demands under the threat and demonstration over years of your 
pressing and persistent insults is ample proof that your interest is 
disingenuous. Saying I sound like Mitch Swartz is the highest compliment I can 
imagine. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 6:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How much helium?

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Yes, of course why would anyone not do so. The methods used were all of the 
usual state of the art methods, just do your reading into the complexities of 
measuring helium in metals and you’ll see how it is done. It’s all at your 
Googling fingertips.

 

You sound like Mitchell Swartz. You went to a lot of trouble to write this 
non-answer. Why not respond like a scientist instead? Tell us what method you 
used, what results you obtained, and where you published.

 

The same goes for your claims about muons. Instead of describing a mystical 
gut-level feeling, tell us what kind of muon detector you used and what the 
results were.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:How much helium?

[Russ George]

Yes, of course why would anyone not do so. The methods used were all of the 
usual state of the art methods, just do your reading into the complexities of 
measuring helium in metals and you’ll see how it is done. It’s all at your 
Googling fingertips. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:How much helium?

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Jed’s senility is showing in his recollection. In my work I have repeatedly 
shown helium bubbles, known as “loop punching” in the proper solid state 
science vernacular. These ‘bubbles’ form inside solid cold fusion metals.

 

Did you confirm the gas in the bubbles was helium? If so, by what method?

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:How much helium?

[Russ George]

Jed’s senility is showing in his recollection. In my work I have repeatedly 
shown helium bubbles, known as “loop punching” in the proper solid state 
science vernacular. These ‘bubbles’ form inside solid cold fusion metals. They 
are perfectly consistent with ‘loop punching’ “bubbles” formed in nuclear 
active metals such as plutonium and californium where alphas are a product of 
abundant nuclear reactions. I confirmed my ‘loop punching’ “bubbles” in several 
of the finest labs in the world whose forte’ was the study of helium in metals 
formed under well-established nuclear processes, such as alpha production, 
helium ion implantation, and tritium decay.  My cold fusion work produced 
prodigious helium released from the metals as well as observed and confirmed by 
multiple top helium labs. Some of that helium released amounted to e16-e17 
atoms of it… do the math on how many joules/kilowatts that is. Jed’s long 
history of being an arrogant opinionated armchair curmudgeon, aka troll, has 
led him to disapprove of me and my work which began many years ago when we were 
in business together, I the inventor he one of the investors, and when the 
times got tough he was the first to begin back stabbing to try to protect his 
paltry investment when the time arrived in the business that is legendary to 
all venture capitalists, known as the “time to shoot the inventor”. If you 
believe anything Jed has to say I have a very nice used bridge near downtown 
NYC I can let you have cheap. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 2:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:How much helium?

 

Years ago, Russ George told me that in one of his experiments he could "see 
helium bubbles." At the time I said that is impossible because if you could see 
the bubbles the reactor would be producing more power than any laboratory 
experiment. However, yesterday I ran the numbers and found I may be wrong about 
that. I have estimated that if the cell was producing ~1 kW, perhaps he could 
see bubbles. This is not to say Russ was right. I do not know how much 
anomalous power he measured. There could be bubbles from some other source. I 
do not know whether he collected the gas and analyzed it. But anyway, here is 
my estimate. I would appreciate it if readers here would check the numbers.

 

Assumptions:

 

This is D + D fusion producing Helium-4.

 

The smallest bubbles you could see are fine ones. I suppose the total volume of 
gas is approximately 1 cubic millimeter per minute. Anything smaller would 
probably not be visible to the naked eye.

 

The gas in the bubbles is at STP. Probably not, but anyway, close to it.

 

D+D fusion produces 245,000 MJ per gram of deuterium. I double checked that 
number with some web sites:

 

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/energy/research_front_page/nuclear_fusion.html

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%205/nuclear_energy.htm (U. 
Tennessee, value given in ergs per gram)

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/

 

Also from U. Tennessee: Efficiency (E/mc2)  Chemical energy 3 x 10E-8%, Fission 
0.002%, Fusion 0.4%. In other words, the mass of helium is almost the same as 
the starting mass of deuterium. I will ignore the lost mass.

 

 

Okay --

 

The volume of any gas at STP is 22.4 L per mole. One mole of helium weighs 4 g. 
So it weighs 0.1786 g/L.

1 mm^3 is 1/1,000,000 of a liter. 1 mm^3 per minute is 0.00016667 L/s. So 
the helium weighs 0.2976 g.

 

Multiply that weight by 345,000 MJ gives 0.001026785714 MJ/s. That's 1,025 J/s 
(watts).

 

That's a lot less power than I thought!

 

 

Cross-check. Mel Miles says fusion produces helium at a rate of 10E11 to 10E12 
atoms per second per watt. Divide Avagadro's number by 10E11 gives 1.66E-12 
moles, or 6.64E-12 g helum, which multiplied by 345,000 MJ/g gives 2.3 W. Close 
enough!

 

Mel Miles measured at most ~400 mW of anomalous power as I recall. That 
produces very little helium, as you see from these numbers. 0.400 J / 3.45E11 J 
= 1.16E-12 g/s (0.0012 nanograms). Right? He collected for 4,400 s, but still 
that's not many nanograms.

 

 

Interesting extrapolation. According to the International Energy Agency (iea) 
"Key world energy statistics" the world primary energy supply in 2015 was 5,269 
Mtoe. An Mtoe is "millions of tons oil equivalent." The conversion factor is 
41,868,000,000 MJ per Mtoe. So that's 2.21E14 MJ. It would take 639 tons of 
deuterium to produce that with cold fusion. As I said, I am ignoring lost mass, 
so that would produce ~639 tons of helium.

 

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/key-world-energy-statistics.html

 

In my book I estimated that you would end up with 1,227 tons of helium, about 
twice as much. I do not know where the discrepancy came in. Perhaps I 
calculated it wrong, or perhaps I was looking at the heat required 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

Suspension of disbelief is the norm. Hey the world refused to believe that
Bernie Madoff could possibly have concocted a Ponzi scheme as vast as the
one he ran for years. In almost all cold fusion and lenr work there is a
mysterious absence of the incredibly available work to identify the nuclear
ash. Doing so is "good, fast, and cheap" and in this world that is a miracle
alone as one usually only gets to choose two or those three elements.
Mostly/likely what has happened is that claimed lenr/cold fusion is of such
minimal consequence that such nuclear ash detective work has been done,
failed, and been kept secret. Alas the other side of the story is that so
many male scientists have so much ego engaged in their work that they cannot
ask for help from others, that's why Mars is so cold. ;) 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; John Wallace
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

The Holmlid discussion seems like the Emperor's New Clothes. We are
speculating wildly about an effect with little or no proof. This allows for
imagining a wild array of particles for which there is no independent data.
We cannot even agree on hon Muons are detected as a function of energy

 

The same can be said for:

 

Rossi's E-CAT

Mills' Sun Cell

Brilliuon's device

 

All four require a suspension of disbelief and invites umbrage from the
gullable audience.

 

  _  

From: Eric Walker  >
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons 

 

Keep in mind as well that Holmlid adduces not only muons, but kaons and
pions as well.  Once we introduce (negative) kaons, we have the following
decays to deal with:

 



 

The neutral pion assures us that there will either be penetrating gammas or
positrons, which lead to 511 keV annihilation photons, a signature that is
easy to pick up and that will pass through thin shielding.  The energy
balance for kaons does not make sense to me; but, then again, neither does
that for pions or muons.

 

If we go along with Holmlid and allow negative kaons, we must either also
allow positive and neutral kaons, or we must come up with a reason for why
they don't occur.  But it doesn't matter; negative kaons are no doubt not
being detected in the first place.  They are a merely means to an end,
explaining, however tenuously, where the muons come from.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons not 
the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well explain two 
mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that very few are 
escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is the dwindling 
remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well explains why so few cold 
fusion experiments have detected any such emanations. The time dilation effect 
that effectively increases the cross-section of materials just works very well 
indeed. 

 

This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable constituent 
in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete electron cloud, 
as such it might well be the best material for engaging with the 
muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in understanding why it 
just happens that I have found silver so useful (as has Mills) it is not the 
neutron cross section of silver it is the muon cross-section!

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.

 

There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly encountered 
muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these energies, the muon 
is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the 
speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay.  Because of 
time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be 
much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 
50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed.

What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is 
a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.  In 
Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the 
velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's report of a measure 
of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is only an approximation 
for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity 
must be invoked in the solution.  Special relativity would reduce the velocity 
from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be 
somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation 
would be experienced.

So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a 
v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters.  
However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the 
particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the 
dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed matter, the greater 
the stopping power for the muon.

If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape 
Mills' reactor vessel.

 

 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested that 
a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be needed… 
therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR fluff, we 
could have a worrisome situation in response to a much longer demo. 

Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s laser 
provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of the 
energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions of 
muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be from 
an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the accurate, 
then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away from the 
reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus far. 

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the effect of 
radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

In many many experiments over the years the mischugnons have made their 
presence irrefutably known. It is a thrilling time just now in cold fusion as 
there are many confirmations and affirmations of the choirs existence, we’ve 
been hearing their voices for nearly 30 years and just now the theatrical smoke 
is beginning to clear just enough that we can see the outlines of the choir, 
it’s a big one. It’s not the single voices that make the music of the choir so 
wonderful it is the combination of them all. Perhaps it is a Gregorian harmony 
they are singing.

 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

Ok.  So you've survived the stinkers and the peanut gallery and the charlatans, 
the high priests, the prelates and the faithful of physics.  In your own 
experiments you've seen muons or mischugenon.

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly even 
when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That’s the benefit of 
longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into an 
understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid’s ‘muons’, there 
are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions to what 
is becoming a choir. 

 

What are those coincidences that lead one inevitably to the conclusion that 
Holmlid is seeing muons, and that he's seeing the same thing you believe you've 
been seeing?  You speak with enough confidence to lead me to believe that 
you've read his work, are quite familiar with it and are able to support your 
position with concrete details.

 

As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have 
neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to do 
and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago, “The 
thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast.”

 

Alas it's not for my edification that you should answer these questions.  It's 
for your own credibility!  You've taken on the position that Holmlid is seeing 
muons or mischugenon.  You should now give support for that position.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

It's a very long walk, I began in earnest on my lab bench the week after the
March 1989 cold fusion press conference, haven't stopped since. Some pauses
to carry on with other important bits of life but still working. Having
counted as working colleagues, defined by I or they standing side by side at
each other's experimental benches I think I can count a dozen or more of the
most successful cold fusion experimentalists amongst my cabal. Alas many are
now passed, RIP. 

 

The one constant over the decades has been the demand for clearly more than
human patience, aka lifetimes. Oh yeah also the endless cat calls from the
peanut gallery unable and unwilling to step onto the playing field, that's
also been a constant and most often unfathomable companion, aka stinkers. So
if you have most of a lifetime to dedicate to your listening there is a wide
variety of data just waiting to speak to you. The real data speaks with
unified and uniform voices and it says not 'eureka' but 'hey that's odd.'
Here's a hint 'odd emanations' are the one constant in working cold fusion
in perhaps all of its many forms. The emanations are odd enough that if you
are not especially diligent in looking outside the ordinary box you will
miss it, or only see the most fleeting hints. 

 

What the cold fusion data is saying is that our world is so much more of a
complex "atom ecology" than what the hide bound schools of physics would
teach to those obedient enough to make the grades. Of course the charlatans,
aka high priests, prelates, & faithful, of physics are sure to proclaim all
interlopers are committing sins. And surely in the cold fusion wilderness
one finds in great abundance all manner of peculiar and disreputable flim
flam spun by those who engage in arbitrage of science spinning bundles of
bullshit like a Lehman Brothers mortgage bundle where a paltry few real
values carry endless amounts of worthless bullshit. What experience conveys
to a few is the ability to see who is bundling the banal. Alas social media
has made every armchair a pulpit so it is truly a challenge, fields pissed
upon so profoundly as cold fusion are awash with distractions. 

 

What is interesting is that the real data has always shone most brightly
even when the signal was incredibly poorly understood. That's the benefit of
longevity and dedication the real shining bits tend to agglomerate into an
understandable thing. Such is the case it seems with Holmlid's 'muons',
there are too many coincidences coming together to ignore his contributions
to what is becoming a choir.  

 

As for being the tutor or free simple sound-bite tour-guide sorry I have
neither the time nor inclination to help the reluctant. There is so much to
do and so little time to do it. As Thomas Edison so aptly put it long ago,
"The thing I lose patience with most is the clock, its hands move too fast."


 

 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or
mischugenon, that is the question.

 

Your previous comments were that they are either muons or mischugenon.  You
didn't explain why you thought they weren't something else, e.g., beta
electrons.  Or electrical noise.

 

Regardless of what they are they are surely there and not one of the common
inside the box beasties. That they behave like muons is simply listening to
the data speak to us.

 

Can you elaborate on why you think they behave like muons?  How is the data
speaking to you and telling you this?  Surely you will have read Holmlid's
papers and come to this conclusion after considering other possibilities.
Walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

My comment already gave my view on what Holmlid is seeing, are they muon or 
mischugenon, that is the question. Regardless of what they are they are surely 
there and not one of the common inside the box beasties. That they behave like 
muons is simply listening to the data speak to us. Just listen carefully, it 
takes a long time, decades and more to hear and understand the story of the 
data that comes from deep within our atoms and ether. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Of course some of the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested 
in making a stink than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst 
bits found in such environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very 
good step in the right direction delivered through very valid experimentation 
and real data not mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in 
the vortex, alas if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner.

 

You are a man of science and of reason.  You will surely give reasons to 
support your suggestion that Holmlid is seeing muons and not something else.  
And you will respond intelligently and without ad hom to rebuttals to those 
reasons.  Please share with us your reasons for thinking that Holmlid has 
successfully ruled out other explanations.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Russ George]

Muons or mischugenon’s that is the question. When I presented my evidence for 
similar mysterious sub-atomic beasties to Edward Teller many years ago his 
interpretation of the data led to him naming my mysterious particles 
“mischugenon’s”, aka crazy particles. Edward and I could really not make heads 
or tails of them, but that they existed was not in question.  Of course some of 
the pundits in this swirling Vortex seem far more interested in making a stink 
than in letting the data speak, such as is common amongst bits found in such 
environments. I happen to fancy Holmlid’s ‘muon’ as a very good step in the 
right direction delivered through very valid experimentation and real data not 
mere brain farts. Let the armchair semantic stinkers twist in the vortex, alas 
if they could only be sinkers they would disappear sooner. 

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

 

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Whoa, Eric. Since when does “logic” contradict experimental results? Where – 
precisely - is this fountain of logic that contradicts Holmlid’s real data? 
Isn’t every scientific breakthrough a contradiction of logic, almost by 
definition”?

I think you missed my point.  I do not deny the validity of experimental 
results, in this case Holmlid's.  I question his conclusion that they're 
explained by muons (and pions, etc.), which is an interpretation of his 
experimental results.  (It is also possible his experimental results are 
mistaken, but I do not have specific reason to doubt them at this point.)  It 
seems to me that muons can be ruled out rather easily for various reasons, in 
the same way that free neutrons can be ruled out as a mechanism in LENR.  If 
one does not believe this is true, ok, then further experiments can and should 
be done to eliminate them as a possibility, done by people other than Holmlid, 
who has invested his reputation in there being muons.

 

I did not intend to criticize you specifically, except to suggest that 
sometimes you explore possibilities without adding qualifications, which can be 
confusing for people who have not read a lot of your posts.  You also often add 
qualifications, so it's not intended as a strong criticism.  My point pertained 
to others who un-self-consciously pursue a pure engineering approach in which 
the claims of one inventor are simply chained together with those of another 
inventor to obtain some far-out result.  With you, at least you're pretty good 
about pointing out that it's just speculation.  With many people, there's no 
clear evidence that they know that they're engaging in speculation, which can 
lead to long threads whose initial premises, many emails back, were doubtful to 
begin with.

I have my doubts about the muon data, like everyone else … mostly because it is 
revolutionary, since it appears to have been done correctly in practice - but 
no one to my knowledge has contradicted by experiment or failed replication, 
the real data of Holmlid; and until then, he should be given benefit of the 
doubt …

I always give inventors and experimentalists the benefit of the doubt with 
regard to the signals that their instruments record.  I start out with great 
skepticism for the interpretations they cook up to make sense of those signals. 
 I suspect that Holmlid may be seeing something LENR-related.  But to my 
knowledge has yet to engage someone with expertise in measuring charged 
particle radiation to validate that he's seeing muons; he continues to insist 
that an oscilloscope can be used to rule out other possibilities; and he 
imagines that it's possible to come up with a new way of detecting low energy 
muons without the benefit of a calibration source of some kind to provide a 
cross check on his results.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??

[Russ George]

Why don’t you do this yourself.  Most experimentalists have their own ‘to do 
lists’ and don’t have the valuable time and money to dedicate work on other 
people’s ideas. As Thomas Edison once said/paraphrased of the countless jaybird 
comments, ‘get out of here, the only rule here is that we’re trying to 
accomplish something.’ 
 
A $100 Muon detector might only cost that it parts but the cost of the time and 
effort and resources necessary to build, refine, understand how to operate, and 
operate under real experimental conditions is a vastly larger sum. And don’t 
forget there is the diversion of effort from tasks already planned and at hand. 
 I am certain that if you offered MFMP $10,000 -$20,000 of up front funding 
they might be delighted to give it a try. Any suggestions of this sort that 
come without an offer to provide the vital ‘grease’ are worth precisely the 
value of the electrons sent gallivanting about to make the suggestion here on 
the net.
 
 
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The return of the original "cold fusion" ??
 
From: Axil Axil 
*   
*   I have been trying to get any replicator or cold fusion experiments to 
test for muon during the last six months. I have concentrated this best effort 
of persuasion on MFMP, but they are highly resistant to the idea. I do not 
understand why.
Possibly in the past, it was cost. But recently, the $100 muon detector story 
has gotten a lot of traction. 
 

 
http://hackaday.com/2016/10/15/dirt-cheap-muon-detector-puts-particle-physics-within-diy-reach/
Unfortunately, it is not quite as simple as shelling out a hundred bucks, but 
surely this lowers the bar and will open up the opportunities for detection.

RE: [Vo]:Article: Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol

[Russ George]

Come on, perhaps this catalyst has merit especially if it can be put onto an 
oaky peaty support ;) 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 2:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Article: Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into 
ethanol

 

Rant of the day:

Oak Ridge needs ever increasing levels of public funding, as does MIT and many 
other Labs that are too big for their own good… they will spend vast sums to 
continue with silly projects that are not grounded in economic sensibility. 
This looks like the same kind of fluff that MIT continually puts out, 
especially Nocera and the water-splitting schemes that have wasted enormous 
sums. 

 

Other money-pit Labs are catching on to the need for this kind of PR, thanks to 
MIT’s lead. When will the tax payer catch on?

 

There is little on the planet which is more brain-dead than burning coal and 
then using twice as much energy as the coal has produced to convert the CO2 to 
ethanol. Someone duped an ignorant journalist at Popular Mechanics into the 
“carbon neural” mantra. LOL. PM should keep their lame level of reporting to 
the garage.

 

 

From: Jack Cole 

 

Researchers accidentally turn carbon dioxide into ethanol

http://flip.it/gybUw4

RE: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

[Russ George]

I would disagree the attacks on Taleyarken by his inquisitors shares in
common the dastardly machismo attacks in many areas of physics, of course
cold fusion is the most prominent of all. The world of physics is clearly
filled with an abundance of evil trolls who gleefully attack others work.
One can only hope that there is a special cold fusion domain in hell for
those miscreants, I am sure Huizinga has been turning on a spit there for
some years now. Surely there is a spit with Taubes name awaiting him. The
list has been kept and regularly updated and sent along with all new
barbecue sauce recipes. As for Wiki surely there can be no debate over its
litany of sins earning it a well-deserved splash of sauce. 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

 

Yes, Taleyarkhan was wronged, and the most unfair thing about that entire
situation is that Wiki perpetuates the error and has not corrected their
entry. 

 

. but that has little to do with the Italian claims.

 

 

From: Russ George 

 

Well since Taleyarkhan was found innocent and truthful and his detractors
were shown to be the evil doers perhaps such criticism speaks highly for
Cardone et al. This new paper appears to be just now published but I don't
have a copy as of yet.

 

From: Jones Beene 

 

There are several papers by Cardone which we discussed here about 5 years
ago which are similar . on the subject of "Piezonuclear neutrons" from the
fracturing of stone and other solids. 

 

The Italian physics establishment have been accusing Cardone and Carpinteri
of incompetency and academic fraud for many years, similar to the situation
of Rusi Taleyarkhan in the USA.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863

 

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

 

Has anyone read this paper, is it experimental evidence or theory? "Energy
spectra and fluence of the neutrons produced in deformed space-time
conditions" Rather astonishing that production of neutrons by 40khz
ultrasound. Might well offer a path to explain how my work demonstrating
sonofusion accompanied by massive heat with commensurate 4He production is
initiated when deuterating metals via ultrasound stimulated asymmetric
cavitation. 

 

Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984916503462

RE: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

[Russ George]

Well since Taleyarkhan was found innocent and truthful and his detractors
were shown to be the evil doers perhaps such criticism speaks highly for
Cardone et al. This new paper appears to be just now published but I don't
have a copy as of yet.

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

 

There are several papers by Cardone which we discussed here about 5 years
ago which are similar . on the subject of "Piezonuclear neutrons" from the
fracturing of stone and other solids. 

 

The Italian physics establishment have been accusing Cardone and Carpinteri
of incompetency and academic fraud for many years, similar to the situation
of Rusi Taleyarkhan in the USA.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863

 

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

 

Has anyone read this paper, is it experimental evidence or theory? "Energy
spectra and fluence of the neutrons produced in deformed space-time
conditions" Rather astonishing that production of neutrons by 40khz
ultrasound. Might well offer a path to explain how my work demonstrating
sonofusion accompanied by massive heat with commensurate 4He production is
initiated when deuterating metals via ultrasound stimulated asymmetric
cavitation. 

 

Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984916503462

[Vo]:Neutrons produced by sonication of metal

[Russ George]

Has anyone read this paper, is it experimental evidence or theory? "Energy
spectra and fluence of the neutrons produced in deformed space-time
conditions" Rather astonishing that production of neutrons by 40khz
ultrasound. Might well offer a path to explain how my work demonstrating
sonofusion accompanied by massive heat with commensurate 4He production is
initiated when deuterating metals via ultrasound stimulated asymmetric
cavitation. 

 

Read More: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984916503462

RE: [Vo]:LENR INFO< VISIT OF ROBERT COOK, 1MEGA-pageviews

[Russ George]

Peter, Your blogging is a good thing as it is a contribution to a larger cause 
not merely for yourself. This is the essence of how we find happiness as 
opposed to satisfaction. By applying oneself to a worthy cause of larger 
proportions than self, one is assured happiness.  Herein lies the lesson taught 
so poignantly by Viktor Frankl  
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/frankl/frankl.html

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2016 10:40 AM
To: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug 
marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; 
jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley; 
Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park; 
Valerio Ciampoli; vlad; VORTEX
Subject: [Vo]:LENR INFO< VISIT OF ROBERT COOK, 1MEGA-pageviews

 




http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-09-2016-visit-of-robert-cook-1.html

 

Very nice and intersting discussion with Robert Cook a nice Vortex colleague 
and friend.My blog had over 1 million pageviews- fine but I know I hve to 
improve it

peter

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Nobel Physics Prize to cold fusion related condensed matter

[Russ George]

Please feel free to do so. I thought this ‘opinion’ might provoke some 
intelligent conversation.

 

From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 3:09 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Nobel Physics Prize to cold fusion related condensed matter

 

Dear Russ,

with your permission I will cite your opinion.

thanks,

peter

 

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physics is preparing the world for the revelation 
that cold fusion, aka condensed matter nano-fusion that is everywhere, is the 
reality that will transform the world like never before. It has been a long 
time coming but perhaps just in time to help save the world from the ravages of 
fossil fuels and the fossil fool oligarchy. It’s been a long fight but the cold 
fusion light bulbs are finally about to illuminate a new age of physics and 
energy. 
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-nobel-prize-physics-20161004-snap-story.html





 

-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Nobel Physics Prize to cold fusion related condensed matter

[Russ George]

This year's Nobel Prize in Physics is preparing the world for the revelation
that cold fusion, aka condensed matter nano-fusion that is everywhere, is
the reality that will transform the world like never before. It has been a
long time coming but perhaps just in time to help save the world from the
ravages of fossil fuels and the fossil fool oligarchy. It's been a long
fight but the cold fusion light bulbs are finally about to illuminate a new
age of physics and energy.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-nobel-prize-physics-2016
1004-snap-story.html

[Vo]:Ah hah.... dark matter internal to common matter

[Russ George]

A new series of observations on the behavior of 153 galaxies defies the
usual dark matter suspect being some mystery rogue fairy particle scampering
about the universe in numbers many times that of common matter yet
unobservable, what a common human mythological fantasy transformed into
"science dogma." 

 

https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-understanding-dark-mat
ter?source=realclearscience.com

 

More plausible it seems is that internal to common matter, inside that
marvelous and mysterious bag of quarks that is everything, there are some
bits that have eluded our mundane/egotistical observational methods which
the collective faithful have steadfastly proclaimed as near perfect. Believe
us they say, we are the learned majority not merely lemmings,  this is the
way it is, and by the way if you would like to buy a nice bridge I can get
you one at a deep discount or perhaps you'd rather a super-conducting super
collider which comes with my pension plan. 

 

There are so many forbidden mysteries are served so well by the notion that
we haven't invented every theory and tool that is possible to invent. 

RE: [Vo]:Abnormal neurological symptoms related to your LENR experiments.

[Russ George]

Actually the cold fusion ‘spooky action at a distance’ effect is only 
apparently producing such spooky psycho effects on cold fusion denialists and 
pundits, the vast majority of the cold fusion experimentalists seem to be quite 
sane and fine.  So if you fancy yourself a cold fusion/lenr pundit either pro 
or con your admonition is especially important that you watch out for that 
voodoo that you do ;)

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:46 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Abnormal neurological symptoms related to your LENR experiments.

 

There have been at least three LENR developers who have noticed intense and 
widespread EMF interference generated from their experiments that in some cases 
have spanned a distance of influence of many tens of meters from the LENR 
reactor. All these LENR experimenters as well as myself all took this 
interference to be related to RF generation in the LENR reaction. But this 
assumption about RF might not be correct but instead be related to some form of 
sub-atomic particle generation via the LENR reaction.

 

This interference could have a disruptive effect on the body, especially, the 
electrical nature and workings of the brain and nervous system. This EMF 
interference has been near impossible to detect using RF meters or to shield 
against including the use of lead, iron, steel plate, electrically charged 
metal, mu metal and faraday screening. If the nature of this EMF interference 
can penetrate deeply and completely into the body and access all the electrical 
activity in the nerves cells throughout the body, unpredictable complications 
might be produced inside the body at a considerable distance from the LENR 
reactor and/or inactive stored used fuel. 

 

Different people might be more susceptible to this type of nerve activity 
interference than others based on the strength of the interference produced by 
any given reactor design. If you are a LENR experimenter, keep a lookout for 
abnormal neurological symptoms related to your LENR experiments.

RE: [Vo]:Dirac's sea, the EM Drive and Weyl fermions

[Russ George]

Bob, you asked my first question on this… that silver exclusion is odd. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 1:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dirac's sea, the EM Drive and Weyl fermions

 

Jones, can you supply a reference or references that show that the Shawer drive 
doesn't work with silver and stainless steel as you state below?

Also, according to Hotson, an epo is massless because of the spinor nature of 
the degenerate orbits shared between the electron and its positron phase-twin.  
Positronium is an orbiting electron and positron that are in normal orbits 
(above degenerate, have not given off the dual 511 keV photons).  Positronium 
has a mass of essentially twice that of the electron.  There are no free 
electrons in the negative Dirac sea - only epos.  So a free electron always has 
mass. 

Also, in this Weyl fermion discussion of electrons not having mass, is the 
description that it has no apparent inertial mass?  No gravitational mass?  
Making gravitational mass dissapear would be a neat trick.  How can inertial 
mass disappear without gravitational mass also disappearing?  Or are we just 
talking about a balance of forces?

 

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

There is a complex web of cross-connections between HTSC (high temperature 
superconductivity), Weyl fermions, an active aether, copper-oxides, and the RF 
resonant cavity thruster of Shawyer et al (the EM drive). The cross-connections 
are ill-defined at present and could be coincidental, but we can take notice of 
the various links and use that information to steer research.

This is especially interesting if we can define an “aether” in such a way that 
it cannot be discredited. One way is via the theory of Don Hotson. The epo or 
BEC is based on Dirac’s equation and theories – as is all of Hotson’s 
“interpretation of Dirac” and this aether-like field consists entirely of 
massless electrons, possibly now defined as Weyl fermions, in the context of 
massless positronium. 

It makes sense to suggest that the Weyl fermion, which has been recently 
confirmed as real, is indeed an outlier of the same aether-species of Hotson. 
Since the BEC (as aether) is fully contained throughout another more basic 
spatial dimension or foundation (which can be “reciprocal space” or 1D) it 
would not be unexpected to find some of these massless electrons escaping into 
our 3-Space, and apparently they are coaxed out of the aether dimension via 
various “semimetals” which are also superconductive oxides. Wheeler’s “quantum 
foam” may be additional evidence of bleed-over from an epo field into 3-space.

The Meissner effect is usually explained as the expulsion of magnetic flux by a 
superconductor in a magnetic field, but that may be a partial understanding. 
The phenomenon would be explained differently if we focus on an aether composed 
of Weyl fermions as Dirac’s sea. This would indicate that Meissner repulsion 
can become (at least partly) a Coulomb’s Law effect - instead of only 
inductive. Probably it is a bit of both and possibly this combined effect 
relates to the tiny thrust of the EM drive, where the cavity asymmetry creates 
a “wake” of virtual Weyl fermions.

A final piece of the puzzle seems to be that only copper works for the frustum 
of the EM drive, which would naturally have a copper oxide coating. Silver and 
stainless steel have been tried and don’t work. Copper oxides can become 
superconductive at high temperature, most often when compounded with other 
elements. However, there is evidence of that a thin copper oxide coating would 
have some properties of HTSC on a transitory basis.

An interesting detail is the implication that CuO could be a Weyl semimetal and 
transient HTSC. CuO possibly only works in a very thin layer which explains why 
some cavities work better than others. 

It would be most intriguing if transient HTSC can be further linked to the Weyl 
fermion and to copper oxide and to reactionless thrust. Don Hotson may have 
posthumously shown us the way.

 

RE: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

[Russ George]

In all of this demented nattering over Rossi and IH no one seems to have 
suggested the obvious, that being that the two parties are in cahoots on all 
this. Using the old but perfect advice, 'follow the money', since IH has 
happily used Rossi to take in scores of millions from investors it showcased 
Rossi's year-long demo repeatedly to they surely have been the ones receiving 
the lion's share of the cash in this saga. Nothing makes for better cover like 
the age old drama of the pot calling the kettle black.  That there is no SEC 
investigation of the affair and money men is revealing and suggests the entire 
thing is fomented by nefarious producers.  

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Jed,
AA  At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a year 
with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until the test is 
over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?

Jed They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and in 
Exhibit 5.  You need to stop making stuff up.

If they knew something was wrong, why didn't they DO something about it?
Exhibit 5 shows the ERV's analysis that indicates the plant was working very 
well.

RE: [Vo]:Neuglu confirmed

[Russ George]

Bzzzt.No chance this explains our observed 4He production as our mass
resolution was way better than needed for such determination, and of course
there is that pesky 3He that shows up as well. Although the shrunken
deuterium molecules might be a precursor for some interesting modalities.
Great tidbit!  By the way there is some curious isotopic data confirming the
utility of mass 110. 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Neuglu confirmed

 

Yesterday, it was announced than another group had tentatively confirmed the
existence of a so-called fifth (or sixth) force. 

 

https://news.uci.edu/research/uci-physicists-confirm-possible-discovery-of-f
ifth-force-of-nature/

When we discussed this discovery back in May on Vortex - following the
initial announcement, this new bosonic force (or particle) was
semi-humorously labeled as "Neuglu" since it binds neutrons and repels
protons, kind of like a quark-selective gluon; plus - there already was a
claimant a fifth force designation, so this one needed a name. 

Hamdi Ucar mentioned a paper which could add another level of understanding
to a magnetically-mediated force which falls between the two stronger
nuclear forces: "Derivation of strong and weak forces from magnetic
interactions in quantum electrodynamics (QED)" by Barut (paywalled).

But the big deal for LENR, almost unmentioned by any other group at the time
is that a putative fifth force (as characterized by neuglu), which acts only
between neutrons -- would be able to bind 2 deuterons within in a metal
matrix, and would bind at a distance *without nuclear fusion* into an
agglomerations of predictable mass (4,6,8 etc) which mimics helium in the
case of mass-4 (if the binding is strong enough) and provides plenty of
excess energy on decay without gammas (like cold fusion) and does not work
with protium. Thus neuglu can fully explain LENR for those who do not accept
the claim that real 4He was seen in the prior testing of the ash of cold
fusion.

The mass-energy of neuglu is about 10 million times greater than chemical
energy. Thus, everything fits . except an understanding of how to engineer a
neuglu formative process, such as in electrolysis. 

It is conceivable that a few neutron-rich isotopes naturally operate like
tiny factories for neuglu. Candidate isotopes for producing the neuglu boson
include Pd-110 and Ni-64. If this happens only in column 10 of the periodic
table, where these isotopes have their outermost electrons only in
d-orbitals with no p-orbital electrons, then platinum-198 would be another
predicted isotope (speculation but testable) which would be a strong
candidate for LENR (but because of high cost has not been singled out
heretofore). 

The best way to falsify or confirm this prediction, and also the validity of
a neuglu modality - would be to obtain palladium which is enriched in 110
and compare against a matrix which is depleted 110. A simple Arata-style
pressure test should be sufficient for confirmation. The platinum
alternative would also work if cost is not problem.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Russ George]

Define senior citizen. senior citizen synonyms, senior citizen pronunciation, 
... curmudgeon - a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn 
ideas. hmmm

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

 

a.ashfield  > wrote:

 

I have maintained from the beginning it was too early to tell the performance 
of the plant until more FACTS were available

 

The facts are now available.

 

 

Saying that you know but it is secret doesn't wash.

 

All of my important secrets were revealed by Exhibit 5. There are only a few 
minor details left. You may doubt that the assertions in Exhibit 5 are correct, 
but I know that they are. If you will assume for the sake of argument this 
document tells the truth, you will see why I say Rossi is lying and his claims 
are nonsense.

 

 

  You were wrong about Vaughn not being emp;poyed by Cherokee.

 

That is not a technical issue. It has no bearing on calorimetry, data, or the 
instruments. I do not know why you are hung up on it, but I suggest you ignore 
it. I suggest you concentrate on facts such the fact that Rossi and Penon 
stuffed their data tables with identical & impossible numbers, and they showed 
excess power on days when Rossi in his blog said the machine was turned off. 
Think about the fact that no heat was detected coming from the pretend customer 
site. If you cannot explain these facts, and they seems to indicate fraud to 
you, that is because it is fraud.

 

Do not tell me these things are lies, or misunderstandings or not true. I 
expect you believe that, but it is not a valid argument to dissuade me. I know 
these things to be true. I have seen proof of various types. There is no point 
to telling me I have not. At best you should say that you are still not 
convinced Rossi actually wrote 36,000 kg in every day, including days when the 
reactor was turned off. You don't believe it. Fine, but don't tell me I should 
not believe it, because I have seen proof.

 

 

  The so called secret things that came out with Exhibit 5 all seem to have 
faded except the half full pipe.

 

Nothing has faded. Every claim is confirmed by Rossi's own data and by other 
eyewitness observers. The fact that Rossi & Penon never responded, even though 
valid answers would have brought them $89 million, proves beyond doubt that the 
claims are real. If there was any way to disprove them, Rossi would have.

 

 

  As I've said before only a diagram of the piping will allow an engineer to 
judge the lightly hood of problems.

 

Nonsense. Half full pipes are common. Anyone can tell a pipe is half full by 
watching the water fall from it, and by various other means.

 

 

  Your second hand info from Murray means nothing.  

 

How do you know it is second hand? Rossi's own data confirms most of it. What 
better source could there be?

 

 

Why should I believe an electronics guy employed by IH over a qualified 
independent expert like Dr. Penon?

 

Because it physically impossible for a flow rate to be EXACTLY 36,000 kg a day 
for months; because the flow meter was obviously unsuited to the task and an 
idiotic choice; because the pipe was half-full; because ambient temperature in 
a Florida warehouse are never EXACTLY the same for days on end . . . and for 
many other reasons. This is not Murray versus Penon, to be judged on their 
professional qualifications. This is case of blatantly fake data and a 
ridiculous travesty of a test. You don't need Murray. You, I, or anyone else 
looking at the data and the facts presented in Exhibit 5 could instantly see it 
was bullshit. I saw that in a few minutes. If you cannot see that, you are not 
a good judge of experiments or engineering.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Russ George]

A prophet doesn't have to have any brains. They are good to have, of course, 
for the ordinary exigencies of life, but they are no use in professional work. 
It is the restfulest vocation there is. When the spirit of prophecy comes upon 
you, you merely cake your intellect and lay it off in a cool place for a rest, 
and unship your jaw and leave it alone; it will work itself: the result is 
Prophecy.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

 

Peter Gluck  > wrote:

 

And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?

 

It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks shows, 
and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than the 
destination (the reservoir).

 

 

Can you tell or is it under NDA?

 

I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi 
instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him, 
unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You will 
reject it and demand more, and more, and more.

 

I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait until 
then. But, since you do not believe what they already published, there is no 
point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi is always 
right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is.

 

- Jed