Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

There is no alpha emission in LENR as we have no kinetic behavior.

Usually the EM energy contained in the 2 x 2 Dimension wobbling D-D pair 
is down-scaled by external magnetic moments, that are able to couple 
with the 2x2D field. At the end kinetic H*/D* are taking over the energy.


There is a lot of experimental evidence for this behavior!

Just to remember you: Hydrogen/H* gets added to elements (A+H*) like a 
neutron as the orbital "deeper" electron is able to bind to the nucleus 
too. Deuterium D* is added as two protons!! equivalent. That's why we 
see a lot of beta+ decay paths after adding D to a nucleus.



This, said here, is not guesswork as most things communicated in the 
last group e-mails: It's experimentally measured behavior!



Jürg Wyttenbach


On 24.06.2019 18:40, Bob Higgins wrote:
Of course, the presumption is that the excess heat in Mizuno's reactor 
is being generated in his Ni screen and thermally transferred to the 
outer SS shell of his reactor vessel.  That is not necessarily the 
case.  If the output of the reaction was kinetic charged particle 
emission, and in particular if it was alpha emission, the energy could 
be transferred almost 50% directly to the shell of the vessel without 
having the Ni mesh be hotter than the outside of the vessel.  The same 
would be even more true if the output were low energy photons.  At 
this point, we don't have enough data to know.


Fortunately, the reactor and protocol seem very simple, and 
replication should provide ample opportunities for evaluation of the 
possibilities.


Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:21 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 > wrote:


Jed wrote about the Mizuno reactor wall temperature:

“”Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the
inside wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the
portion of the wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly
hotter than the rest of the outside wall, or the ends of reactor.
That would be difficult to model, I think. It complicates matters.”

Modeling temperatures in a metal object is old hat.  The reactor
vessel would be easy to model IMHO.

Such modeling would add to the understanding of the air cooling
and identify if any heat is being generated in the metal of the
 reactor vessel as a result of unexpected reactions adding or
subtracting energy to the metal of the reactor vessel.

Validation of any thermal model would be substantial with
information from both the dummy reactor and the LENR reactor.  
You cannot have too many thermocouples for a validation from my
experience--complications be damned.

If the Ni mesh is the source of heat from an LENR reaction, then
the contact between the mesh and the reactor wall at any spot will
be a factor in the temperature of the mesh.  An ultrasonic
examination of such contacts over the entire reactor/mesh
interface would be desirable to facilitate modeling to determine
mesh temperatures,   Temperature gradients in the mesh would
likely cause changes in the mesh/reactor wall contact,
substantially influencing the resulting temperature.   The same
issues would apply to the dimensional stability of the heating wire.

Mizuno should specify the details associated with the mesh/reactor
wall contact as well as the details associated with the heating
wire contact.

Bob Cook


 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Bob Higgins]

Of course, the presumption is that the excess heat in Mizuno's reactor is
being generated in his Ni screen and thermally transferred to the outer SS
shell of his reactor vessel.  That is not necessarily the case.  If the
output of the reaction was kinetic charged particle emission, and in
particular if it was alpha emission, the energy could be transferred almost
50% directly to the shell of the vessel without having the Ni mesh be
hotter than the outside of the vessel.  The same would be even more true if
the output were low energy photons.  At this point, we don't have enough
data to know.

Fortunately, the reactor and protocol seem very simple, and replication
should provide ample opportunities for evaluation of the possibilities.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 9:21 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jed wrote about the Mizuno reactor wall temperature:
>
>
>
> “”Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside
> wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the
> wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of
> the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model,
> I think. It complicates matters.”
>
>
>
> Modeling temperatures in a metal object is old hat.  The reactor vessel
> would be easy to model IMHO.
>
>
>
> Such modeling would add to the understanding of the air cooling and
> identify if any heat is being generated in the metal of the  reactor vessel
> as a result of unexpected reactions adding or subtracting energy to the
> metal of the reactor vessel.
>
>
>
> Validation of any thermal model would be substantial with information from
> both the dummy reactor and the LENR reactor.   You cannot have too many
> thermocouples for a validation from my experience--complications be damned.
>
>
>
> If the Ni mesh is the source of heat from an LENR reaction, then the
> contact between the mesh and the reactor wall at any spot will be a factor
> in the temperature of the mesh.  An ultrasonic examination of such contacts
> over the entire reactor/mesh interface would be desirable to facilitate
> modeling to determine mesh temperatures,   Temperature gradients in the
> mesh would likely cause changes in the mesh/reactor wall contact,
> substantially influencing the resulting temperature.   The same issues
> would apply to the dimensional stability of the heating wire.
>
>
>
> Mizuno should specify the details associated with the mesh/reactor wall
> contact as well as the details associated with the heating wire contact.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>


Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jed wrote about the Mizuno reactor wall temperature:



“”Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.”



Modeling temperatures in a metal object is old hat.  The reactor vessel would 
be easy to model IMHO.



Such modeling would add to the understanding of the air cooling and identify if 
any heat is being generated in the metal of the  reactor vessel as a result of 
unexpected reactions adding or subtracting energy to the metal of the reactor 
vessel.



Validation of any thermal model would be substantial with information from both 
the dummy reactor and the LENR reactor.   You cannot have too many 
thermocouples for a validation from my experience--complications be damned.



If the Ni mesh is the source of heat from an LENR reaction, then the contact 
between the mesh and the reactor wall at any spot will be a factor in the 
temperature of the mesh.  An ultrasonic examination of such contacts over the 
entire reactor/mesh interface would be desirable to facilitate modeling to 
determine mesh temperatures,   Temperature gradients in the mesh would likely 
cause changes in the mesh/reactor wall contact, substantially influencing the 
resulting temperature.   The same issues would apply to the dimensional 
stability of the heating wire.



Mizuno should specify the details associated with the mesh/reactor wall contact 
as well as the details associated with the heating wire contact.



Bob Cook








From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 5:04:26 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

Alberto De Souza 
mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In 
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: 
one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor the 
temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant 
temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is 
anomalous heat.


Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:


I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large differences in 
the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to another. He uses air flow 
calorimetry because it is not affected such temperature variations. You do have 
to measure the reactor wall temperature, because that tells you a great deal 
about the reaction, but I do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If 
you want to use the wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half 
the reactor vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.


Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside wall. 
If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the wall just 
outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of the outside 
wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model, I think. It 
complicates matters.


If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much hotter 
than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is producing 
heat. An IR camera might reveal that.

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Alberto De Souza]

 Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor.
One thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature
difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are
already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The
setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if
the kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 9:05 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alberto De Souza  wrote:
>
> I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results.
>> In this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same
>> time: one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor
>> the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A
>> significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate
>> that there is anomalous heat.
>>
>
> Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:
>
>
> I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large
> differences in the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to
> another. He uses air flow calorimetry because it is not affected such
> temperature variations. You do have to measure the reactor wall
> temperature, because that tells you a great deal about the reaction, but I
> do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If you want to use the
> wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half the reactor
> vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.
>
>
> Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside
> wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the
> wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of
> the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model,
> I think. It complicates matters.
>
>
> If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much
> hotter than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is
> producing heat. An IR camera might reveal that.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

lariton decays. When the 
polariton decays, the time distortion goes away and the photons 
derived from the vacuum become real.


The reason that the polariton can produce so much photon based vacuum 
energy is because it is so small and short lived. Two types of vacuum 
perturbed photons come from the vacuum, the positive energy photons 
that are low frequency heat guys, and negative energy ones that have a 
negative frequency whose energy level is in the ultraviolet energy 
range. The polariton condensate holds onto the negative gravity 
property of the negative photons that are being constantly created by 
the roiling soup of polaritons aggregation almost instantaneous birth 
and deaths within the Bose condensate were each member of the 
aggregation  lives and dies in pico-seconds, and the positive photons 
that are released to the far field as heat. The storage of negative 
energy inside the condensate results in its experimentally observed 
negative mass behavior.


The bigger the polaritons get… meaning the polaritons store more 
negative energy, the longer they live but because of the polariton’s 
increase size(energy content) and longer lifetimes, they produce and 
release less vacuum energy…they essentially go to sleep. These 
sleeping polaritons wake up when they are pumped and new short lived 
polariton start the vacuum energy extraction cycle again.


Dr Sutter laments that this Hacking radiation stuff is four levels of 
hard to understand. For the electromagnetic analog black hole, just 
double that level of hard. You can see that understanding LENR will 
take some considerable amount of time to become commonplace.


The LENR speed limit... When the LENR reaction is active, the energy 
and particles that it produces are not constrained by any walls nor 
containment because they are in superposition. These energy and 
particle emissions pass unencumbered through matter. Matter and energy 
in this state of superposition are not connected to this reality while 
the LENR reaction is active. But when the LENR reaction completes, 
then the emissions that had been produced will manifest at a location 
in space/time where it would have been if the emission was traveling 
through a vacuum. For example, if the LENR reaction was active for one 
second, then the energy that it produced would have traveled at the 
speed of light for 300,000 kilometers. The energy that the LENR 
reaction generates is manifest at the instant when the LENR reaction 
initially activates. The transmutation of elements occurs immediately 
when the LENR reaction first begins. The energy that the LENR reaction 
derives from that transmutation is broadcast at the speed of light in 
all directions in a spherical distribution even if that emission 
passes through the entire mass of the earth. When the LENR reaction 
terminates, then the broadcast of energy actualizes at a distance from 
its point of origin defined by the speed of light and the time that 
the LENR reaction was active. A basic primary simplex LENR reaction 
generated by a polariton lasts for between 1 and 10 picoseconds. In 
that time, the energy that this reaction produces travels between .03 
and .3 centimeters. Emissions produced by strange radiation as it 
excavates grooves, ruts, and holes in matter, will be teleported many 
millions of kilometers while the Strange radiation is active. The 
energy emissions derived from the matter that the strange radiation 
plasmoid decomposes as it travels along a surface might provide a 
country the size of Great Britain its total energy output for a year 
based on E=Mc2





On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:55 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Axil-

It seems that you consider the source of energy creating the BEC
is the vacuum.  That vacuum energy is then stored by the “pumping”
phenomena you suggest to  “bring the BEC to life  and then release
the energy as EM radiation in the bosenova.

Note that I have assumed the vacuum as the source of energy. 
However, you may may consider    a different source of energy
feeding the BEC’s.  For example. the source could be the
condensation of single electrons into   Cooper pairs with 0 spin
and 2 electron charges with the original spin energy of the 2
paired electrons the energy source.

Bob Cook

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

*From: *Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:39 AM
*To: *vortex-l <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> *ubject: *Re:
[Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

I believe that a steady state LENR reaction does not produce
energy, but a flickering reaction does. This is why lowering the
gas pressure to almost nothing reveals the energy that LENR is
producing. This goes back to my beleive that transmutation does
not

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Axil Axil]

https://youtu.be/zF9enAUHI6E

This video visualizes a entangles cluster of Bose condensates that had
produced strage radiation tracks. I have see single condensates that have a
dipole magnetic flux tube configuration and well as a monopole magnetic
flux tube configuration.

These flux tubes are actually worm holes associated with the analog EMF
black holes as we have discussed previously. If you are interested in
seeing these single condensates, I can dig up the videos for you. If it is
too much for you to beleive, then we can let it pass.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:55 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Axil-
>
>
>
> It seems that you consider the source of energy creating the BEC is the
> vacuum.  That vacuum energy is then stored by the “pumping” phenomena you
> suggest to  “bring the BEC to life  and then release the energy as EM
> radiation in the bosenova.
>
> Note that I have assumed the vacuum as the source of energy.  However, you
> may may considera different source of energy feeding the BEC’s.  For
> example. the source could be the condensation of single electrons into
>   Cooper pairs with 0 spin and 2 electron charges with the original spin
> energy of the 2 paired electrons the energy source.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Axil Axil 
> *Sent: *Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:39 AM
> *To: *vortex-l*ubject: *Re: [Vo]:Mizuno
> presentation at ICCF-21
>
>
>
> I believe that a steady state LENR reaction does not produce energy, but a
> flickering reaction does. This is why lowering the gas pressure to almost
> nothing reveals the energy that LENR is producing. This goes back to my
> beleive that transmutation does not produce any meaningful LENR energy in
> the real world.
>
>
>
> This belief is predicated on the assumption that the energy from LENR
> comes from a Bose condensate of plasmom based polaritons. When the Bose
> condensate is steady, it does not release energy, but when it flickers,
> then energy is released when it dies and later comes back to life. Think a
> florescent light operating at marginal voltage.
>
>
>
> The application of cyclic pumping is the best method to produce energy
> from the LENR reaction. The higher the pumping frequency, the more energy
> that will be released. A low gas pressure puts  the Bose condensate of
> plasmon polaritons on the "edge of survival" when repeated terminations of
> the BEC produces repeated Bosenova releases of energy. The "edge of
> survival" means that the density of polaritons is right at the critical
> density needed for a Bose condensate to form.
>
>
>
> A high frequency RF pumping signal will also produce high frequency energy
> release from the Bose condensate. Using heat to pump the LENR reaction
> cannot easily produce a high frequency cyclic Bose condensate life/death
> cycle.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:11 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>
>
> Can surface plasmons couple with dense hydrogen accumulating in nano
> cracks - in order to form large clusters of bosons at warm temperatures ?
> The cluster would contain many bound bosons (deuterium) in a condensed
> state. In effect, it is a “warm BEC”. If so then there is an instant route
> to thermal anomalies – far exceeding the limits of chemistry, but without
> nuclear fusion or nuclear decay.
>
>
>
> Dozens of researchers in LENR have hypothesized that clusters of atoms are
> the key to energy gain. There are papers going back to the 1950s on
> pycnonuclear reactions in liquid deuterium but they did not realize then
> that with proper interfacial conditions, densification could happen at
> ambient or warm temperatures. Later - but still over twenty years ago,
> Arata & Zhang popularized the dense hydrogen cluster – aka pycno -  as a
> predecessor of nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> Fast forward while looking for a methodology (one with fewer miracles than
> actual thermonuclear fusion) and a clear alternative pathway arises. The
> sudden reversal of the dense state in an explosion would be one promising
> way to explain a thermal anomaly without the actual fusion. In such a
> reaction the active modality is a Coulomb explosion of the dense cluster.
>
>
>
> Excess energy would derive from the binding energy of the cluster being
> release suddenly. There is, in fact,  evidence that the signature of this
> Coulomb explosion is radiation at 630 eV. Mizuno has mentioned this also
> but it is not his preferred modality for gain.
>
>
>
> If we accept the premise of hydrogen densification into redundant ground
> states, as o

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Axil Axil]

range. The
polariton condensate holds onto the negative gravity property of the
negative photons that are being constantly created by the roiling soup of
polaritons aggregation almost instantaneous birth and deaths within the
Bose condensate were each member of the aggregation  lives and dies in
pico-seconds, and the positive photons that are released to the far field
as heat. The storage of negative energy inside the condensate results in
its experimentally observed negative mass behavior.

The bigger the polaritons get… meaning the polaritons store more negative
energy, the longer they live but because of the polariton’s increase
size(energy content) and longer lifetimes, they produce and release less
vacuum energy…they essentially go to sleep. These sleeping polaritons wake
up when they are pumped and new short lived polariton start the vacuum
energy extraction cycle again.

Dr Sutter laments that this Hacking radiation stuff is four levels of hard
to understand. For the electromagnetic analog black hole, just double that
level of hard. You can see that understanding LENR will take some
considerable amount of time to become commonplace.

The LENR speed limit... When the LENR reaction is active, the energy and
particles that it produces are not constrained by any walls nor containment
because they are in superposition. These energy and particle emissions pass
unencumbered through matter. Matter and energy in this state of
superposition are not connected to this reality while the LENR reaction is
active. But when the LENR reaction completes, then the emissions that had
been produced will manifest at a location in space/time where it would have
been if the emission was traveling through a vacuum. For example, if the
LENR reaction was active for one second, then the energy that it produced
would have traveled at the speed of light for 300,000 kilometers. The
energy that the LENR reaction generates is manifest at the instant when the
LENR reaction initially activates. The transmutation of elements occurs
immediately when the LENR reaction first begins. The energy that the LENR
reaction derives from that transmutation is broadcast at the speed of light
in all directions in a spherical distribution even if that emission passes
through the entire mass of the earth. When the LENR reaction terminates,
then the broadcast of energy actualizes at a distance from its point of
origin defined by the speed of light and the time that the LENR reaction
was active. A basic primary simplex LENR reaction generated by a polariton
lasts for between 1 and 10 picoseconds. In that time, the energy that this
reaction produces travels between .03 and .3 centimeters. Emissions
produced by strange radiation as it excavates grooves, ruts, and holes in
matter, will be teleported many millions of kilometers while the Strange
radiation is active. The energy emissions derived from the matter that the
strange radiation plasmoid decomposes as it travels along a surface might
provide a country the size of Great Britain its total energy output for a
year based on E=Mc2




On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:55 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Axil-
>
>
>
> It seems that you consider the source of energy creating the BEC is the
> vacuum.  That vacuum energy is then stored by the “pumping” phenomena you
> suggest to  “bring the BEC to life  and then release the energy as EM
> radiation in the bosenova.
>
> Note that I have assumed the vacuum as the source of energy.  However, you
> may may considera different source of energy feeding the BEC’s.  For
> example. the source could be the condensation of single electrons into
>   Cooper pairs with 0 spin and 2 electron charges with the original spin
> energy of the 2 paired electrons the energy source.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Axil Axil 
> *Sent: *Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:39 AM
> *To: *vortex-l*ubject: *Re: [Vo]:Mizuno
> presentation at ICCF-21
>
>
>
> I believe that a steady state LENR reaction does not produce energy, but a
> flickering reaction does. This is why lowering the gas pressure to almost
> nothing reveals the energy that LENR is producing. This goes back to my
> beleive that transmutation does not produce any meaningful LENR energy in
> the real world.
>
>
>
> This belief is predicated on the assumption that the energy from LENR
> comes from a Bose condensate of plasmom based polaritons. When the Bose
> condensate is steady, it does not release energy, but when it flickers,
> then energy is released when it dies and later comes back to life. Think a
> florescent light operating at marginal voltage.
>
>
>
> The application of cyclic pumping is the best method to produce energy
> from the LENR reaction

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I would add a small window to both  reactors to observe differential EM  
spectra.  Also provide for yhe addition of He to both reactors to change the 
teat transfer coeff.   and the observed spectra emanating from different radial 
zones around the Ni mesh in order to correlate excess heat with a specific 
photon energy or band of energies.

Bob Cook

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


From: Alberto De Souza 
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 4:19:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In 
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same time: 
one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside it). The 
sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and to a single 
power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters of both reactors 
would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage should be about the 
same, which would show both reactors would be receiving the same amount of 
power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the same deuterium gas source 
through a shared plumbing system, so that they would have the same pressure 
during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples would monitor the temperature in 
the external metal surface of both reactors. A significant temperature 
difference between the reactors would demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. 
Later, an inert gas could be used in place of deuterium to show that the 
external temperature is about the same, even considering the difference between 
reactors (the active has nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe 
this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and 
will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also 
cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter.


On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:54 PM Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
JonesBeene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

The most striking thing to me from this presentation  is that Mizuno  was using 
the nickel mesh coated with palladium early on with modest success - but did 
not see the big breakthrough until going to a lower pressure regime (and 
allowing the reactor itself to heat up.)

Correct. He did not see this. He discovered improvements in this order:

1. Let the reactor heat up
2. Lower the pressure somewhat
3. Put the heater inside the reactor
4. Lower pressure a great deal, down to 300 Pa

He discovered these things partly by trial and error, but also by looking 
closely for trends in the data. I might have anticipated #1, but #4 came as a 
shock to me. I spent a couple of days recreating his graphs and noodling with 
the data looking at this.

I might have done #3 just to improve the COP by using less power to heat up the 
cell. As I said before, that has no scientific significance. I do not know if 
Mizuno anticipated it might have a dramatic effect. That also surprised me, but 
I saw there are plausible explanations for it, such as IR stimulation, so it 
was not that shocking. Not like the low pressure.

This demonstrates how important it is to look at small effects, and to pursue 
them relentlessly. Fleischmann said that when you see a small effect, "the 
easiest thing in the world is to dismiss it" as experimental error. The lesson 
here is: if you think it might be real, and not an artifact, go after it. Try 
to find ways to increase the size of it and make it more repeatable.


PS – again it is looking more and more like the low gas pressure could be the 
most important new parameter for success.

Yup.

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Jed Rothwell]

Alberto De Souza  wrote:

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In
> this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same
> time: one active and one dummy . . .  Finally, thermocouples would monitor
> the temperature in the external metal surface of both reactors. A
> significant temperature difference between the reactors would demonstrate
> that there is anomalous heat.
>

Someone else suggested that. Here is what I wrote in response:


I do not think this would be a good idea. Mizuno has found large
differences in the temperature from one part of the reactor wall to
another. He uses air flow calorimetry because it is not affected such
temperature variations. You do have to measure the reactor wall
temperature, because that tells you a great deal about the reaction, but I
do not think it would work well for calorimetry. If you want to use the
wall temperature, perhaps an IR camera that measures half the reactor
vessel would work. I have no experience doing that.


Here's the problem. The Ni mesh reactant is right up against the inside
wall. If the experiment works, the mesh gets hot, and the portion of the
wall just outside the mesh gets hot. Significantly hotter than the rest of
the outside wall, or the ends of reactor. That would be difficult to model,
I think. It complicates matters.


If you observed that the portion of the wall outside the mesh is much
hotter than the rest of the cell, that would be good evidence the mesh is
producing heat. An IR camera might reveal that.

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[JonesBeene]

From: Alberto De Souza

…I believe this setup is skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Mizuno has 
had) and will save us from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is 
also cheaper than alternatives using a calorimeter. 



If testing an active reactor against a control reactor – how will you know what 
the COP is? You still need a calorimeter for that.

I like the simplicity of your approach and there should be a large temperature 
difference if Mizuno is correct,  but eventually one would still need to do 
more than test against a control  to accurately determine the extent of thermal 
gain.

BTW- you probably saw the Mizuno setup where he did use two reactors in the 
calorimeter – so essentially let us say only that this cross-testing does NOT 
stop those ad nauseam debates. 

The skeptics are an inevitable fact of life for the LENR researcher… and they 
do serve a purpose.

If independent replication arrives, many of those same skeptics will be trying 
to take part of the credit.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Axil-

It seems that you consider the source of energy creating the BEC is the vacuum. 
 That vacuum energy is then stored by the “pumping” phenomena you suggest to  
“bring the BEC to life  and then release the energy as EM radiation in the 
bosenova.
Note that I have assumed the vacuum as the source of energy.  However, you may 
may considera different source of energy feeding the BEC’s.  For example. 
the source could be the condensation of single electrons into   Cooper pairs 
with 0 spin and 2 electron charges with the original spin energy of the 2 
paired electrons the energy source.

Bob Cook

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

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:39 AM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>   ubject: Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation 
at ICCF-21

I believe that a steady state LENR reaction does not produce energy, but a 
flickering reaction does. This is why lowering the gas pressure to almost 
nothing reveals the energy that LENR is producing. This goes back to my beleive 
that transmutation does not produce any meaningful LENR energy in the real 
world.

This belief is predicated on the assumption that the energy from LENR comes 
from a Bose condensate of plasmom based polaritons. When the Bose condensate is 
steady, it does not release energy, but when it flickers, then energy is 
released when it dies and later comes back to life. Think a florescent light 
operating at marginal voltage.

The application of cyclic pumping is the best method to produce energy from the 
LENR reaction. The higher the pumping frequency, the more energy that will be 
released. A low gas pressure puts  the Bose condensate of plasmon polaritons on 
the "edge of survival" when repeated terminations of the BEC produces repeated 
Bosenova releases of energy. The "edge of survival" means that the density of 
polaritons is right at the critical density needed for a Bose condensate to 
form.

A high frequency RF pumping signal will also produce high frequency energy 
release from the Bose condensate. Using heat to pump the LENR reaction cannot 
easily produce a high frequency cyclic Bose condensate life/death cycle.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:11 PM JonesBeene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Can surface plasmons couple with dense hydrogen accumulating in nano cracks - 
in order to form large clusters of bosons at warm temperatures ? The cluster 
would contain many bound bosons (deuterium) in a condensed state. In effect, it 
is a “warm BEC”. If so then there is an instant route to thermal anomalies – 
far exceeding the limits of chemistry, but without nuclear fusion or nuclear 
decay.

Dozens of researchers in LENR have hypothesized that clusters of atoms are the 
key to energy gain. There are papers going back to the 1950s on pycnonuclear 
reactions in liquid deuterium but they did not realize then that with proper 
interfacial conditions, densification could happen at ambient or warm 
temperatures. Later - but still over twenty years ago, Arata & Zhang 
popularized the dense hydrogen cluster – aka pycno -  as a predecessor of 
nuclear fusion.

Fast forward while looking for a methodology (one with fewer miracles than 
actual thermonuclear fusion) and a clear alternative pathway arises. The sudden 
reversal of the dense state in an explosion would be one promising way to 
explain a thermal anomaly without the actual fusion. In such a reaction the 
active modality is a Coulomb explosion of the dense cluster.

Excess energy would derive from the binding energy of the cluster being release 
suddenly. There is, in fact,  evidence that the signature of this Coulomb 
explosion is radiation at 630 eV. Mizuno has mentioned this also but it is not 
his preferred modality for gain.

If we accept the premise of hydrogen densification into redundant ground 
states, as originally promoted by Mills or as refined by Holmlid and formalized 
by Meulenberg et al via the Dirac equation -  then the mystery of excess heat  
can be pinpointed to  the nature of the binding energy of the dense species 
into clusters.

Where did that energy gain originate? Can the Casimir force at a few nanometers 
be a relevant factor in cluster formation? This alternative explanation is a 
work in progress but fortunately there  is a trove of information coming from 
the early days of semiconductor manufacturing with emphasis on surface plasmons.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038109882908924

“Surface plasmon attenuation by thin film overlayers in the far infrared”
1980 Stegeman and Seymour

Absorption of surface plasmons in “metal–cladding layer–air” structure at 
terahertz 
frequencies<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350449506000259>
Zhizhin,  Nikitin,  Bogomolov 2006 “Absorption of surface plasmons (SP) guided 
by metal surface covered with a transparent layer

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Alberto De Souza]

I would like to suggest a setup for the replication of Misuno’s results. In
this setup we would have two reactors operating side-by-side at the same
time: one active and one dummy (mounted without the nickel meshes inside
it). The sheath heater of these reactors would be connected in series and
to a single power supply. The voltage between the terminals of the heaters
of both reactors would be monitored during the experiments. The voltage
should be about the same, which would show both reactors would be receiving
the same amount of power. Also, both reactors would be connected to the
same deuterium gas source through a shared plumbing system, so that they
would have the same pressure during the experiments. Finally, thermocouples
would monitor the temperature in the external metal surface of both
reactors. A significant temperature difference between the reactors would
demonstrate that there is anomalous heat. Later, an inert gas could be used
in place of deuterium to show that the external temperature is about the
same, even considering the difference between reactors (the active has
nickel meshes inside and the dummy do not). I believe this setup is
skeptic-proof (if we have a large COP, as Misuno has had) and will save us
from those ad nauseam debates about calorimetry. It is also cheaper than
alternatives using a calorimeter.


On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 1:54 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>
>> The most striking thing to me from this presentation  is that Mizuno  was
>> using the nickel mesh coated with palladium early on with modest success -
>> but did not see the big breakthrough until going to a lower pressure regime
>> (and allowing the reactor itself to heat up.)
>>
>
> Correct. He did not see this. He discovered improvements in this order:
>
> 1. Let the reactor heat up
> 2. Lower the pressure somewhat
> 3. Put the heater inside the reactor
> 4. Lower pressure a great deal, down to 300 Pa
>
> He discovered these things partly by trial and error, but also by looking
> closely for trends in the data. I might have anticipated #1, but #4 came as
> a shock to me. I spent a couple of days recreating his graphs and noodling
> with the data looking at this.
>
> I might have done #3 just to improve the COP by using less power to heat
> up the cell. As I said before, that has no scientific significance. I do
> not know if Mizuno anticipated it might have a dramatic effect. That also
> surprised me, but I saw there are plausible explanations for it, such as IR
> stimulation, so it was not that shocking. Not like the low pressure.
>
> This demonstrates how important it is to look at small effects, and to
> pursue them relentlessly. Fleischmann said that when you see a small
> effect, "the easiest thing in the world is to dismiss it" as experimental
> error. The lesson here is: if you think it might be real, and not an
> artifact, go after it. Try to find ways to increase the size of it and make
> it more repeatable.
>
>
> PS – again it is looking more and more like the low gas pressure could be
>> the most important new parameter for success.
>>
>
> Yup.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Axil Axil]

I believe that a steady state LENR reaction does not produce energy, but a
flickering reaction does. This is why lowering the gas pressure to almost
nothing reveals the energy that LENR is producing. This goes back to my
beleive that transmutation does not produce any meaningful LENR energy in
the real world.

This belief is predicated on the assumption that the energy from LENR comes
from a Bose condensate of plasmom based polaritons. When the Bose
condensate is steady, it does not release energy, but when it flickers,
then energy is released when it dies and later comes back to life. Think a
florescent light operating at marginal voltage.

The application of cyclic pumping is the best method to produce energy from
the LENR reaction. The higher the pumping frequency, the more energy that
will be released. A low gas pressure puts  the Bose condensate of plasmon
polaritons on the "edge of survival" when repeated terminations of the BEC
produces repeated Bosenova releases of energy. The "edge of survival" means
that the density of polaritons is right at the critical density needed for
a Bose condensate to form.

A high frequency RF pumping signal will also produce high frequency energy
release from the Bose condensate. Using heat to pump the LENR reaction
cannot easily produce a high frequency cyclic Bose condensate life/death
cycle.

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:11 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> Can surface plasmons couple with dense hydrogen accumulating in nano
> cracks - in order to form large clusters of bosons at warm temperatures ?
> The cluster would contain many bound bosons (deuterium) in a condensed
> state. In effect, it is a “warm BEC”. If so then there is an instant route
> to thermal anomalies – far exceeding the limits of chemistry, but without
> nuclear fusion or nuclear decay.
>
>
>
> Dozens of researchers in LENR have hypothesized that clusters of atoms are
> the key to energy gain. There are papers going back to the 1950s on
> pycnonuclear reactions in liquid deuterium but they did not realize then
> that with proper interfacial conditions, densification could happen at
> ambient or warm temperatures. Later - but still over twenty years ago,
> Arata & Zhang popularized the dense hydrogen cluster – aka pycno -  as a
> predecessor of nuclear fusion.
>
>
>
> Fast forward while looking for a methodology (one with fewer miracles than
> actual thermonuclear fusion) and a clear alternative pathway arises. The
> sudden reversal of the dense state in an explosion would be one promising
> way to explain a thermal anomaly without the actual fusion. In such a
> reaction the active modality is a Coulomb explosion of the dense cluster.
>
>
>
> Excess energy would derive from the binding energy of the cluster being
> release suddenly. There is, in fact,  evidence that the signature of this
> Coulomb explosion is radiation at 630 eV. Mizuno has mentioned this also
> but it is not his preferred modality for gain.
>
>
>
> If we accept the premise of hydrogen densification into redundant ground
> states, as originally promoted by Mills or as refined by Holmlid and
> formalized by Meulenberg et al via the Dirac equation -  then the mystery
> of excess heat  can be pinpointed to  the nature of the binding energy of
> the dense species into clusters.
>
>
>
> Where did that energy gain originate? Can the Casimir force at a few
> nanometers be a relevant factor in cluster formation? This alternative
> explanation is a work in progress but fortunately there  is a trove of
> information coming from the early days of semiconductor manufacturing with
> emphasis on surface plasmons.
>
>
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038109882908924
>
>
>
> “Surface plasmon attenuation by thin film overlayers in the far infrared”
>
> 1980 Stegeman and Seymour
>
>
> Absorption of surface plasmons in “metal–cladding layer–air” structure at
> terahertz frequencies
> 
>
> Zhizhin,  Nikitin,  Bogomolov 2006 “Absorption of surface plasmons (SP)
> guided by metal surface covered with a transparent layer (“cladding layer”)
> at terahertz frequencies has been studied both experimentally and
> by computer simulations. It was found that presence of the very thin layer
> increases SP absorption …”
>
>
>
> These early papers can be interpreted as making the case for a process
> where far Infrared radiation is actually powering the Casimir compression
> of hydrogen into dense clusters. Once compressed, perhaps QCD dynamics
> provide the “glue” which bind the cluster.
>
>
>
> As for gain - at some point the cluster becomes destabilized and the
> Coulomb explosion follows. The glue (perhaps a pseudo gluon) massive and
> that mass in converted to energy in the Coulomb explosion.
>
>
>
> This all fits together without the first miracle of nuclear fusion and the
> second miracle of a new kind of gamma-free fusion – by substituting the
> alternative miracle of QCD 

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[JonesBeene]

Can surface plasmons couple with dense hydrogen accumulating in nano cracks - 
in order to form large clusters of bosons at warm temperatures ? The cluster 
would contain many bound bosons (deuterium) in a condensed state. In effect, it 
is a “warm BEC”. If so then there is an instant route to thermal anomalies – 
far exceeding the limits of chemistry, but without nuclear fusion or nuclear 
decay.

Dozens of researchers in LENR have hypothesized that clusters of atoms are the 
key to energy gain. There are papers going back to the 1950s on pycnonuclear 
reactions in liquid deuterium but they did not realize then that with proper 
interfacial conditions, densification could happen at ambient or warm 
temperatures. Later - but still over twenty years ago, Arata & Zhang 
popularized the dense hydrogen cluster – aka pycno -  as a predecessor of 
nuclear fusion. 

Fast forward while looking for a methodology (one with fewer miracles than 
actual thermonuclear fusion) and a clear alternative pathway arises. The sudden 
reversal of the dense state in an explosion would be one promising way to 
explain a thermal anomaly without the actual fusion. In such a reaction the 
active modality is a Coulomb explosion of the dense cluster.

Excess energy would derive from the binding energy of the cluster being release 
suddenly. There is, in fact,  evidence that the signature of this Coulomb 
explosion is radiation at 630 eV. Mizuno has mentioned this also but it is not 
his preferred modality for gain.

If we accept the premise of hydrogen densification into redundant ground 
states, as originally promoted by Mills or as refined by Holmlid and formalized 
by Meulenberg et al via the Dirac equation -  then the mystery of excess heat  
can be pinpointed to  the nature of the binding energy of the dense species 
into clusters. 

Where did that energy gain originate? Can the Casimir force at a few nanometers 
be a relevant factor in cluster formation? This alternative explanation is a 
work in progress but fortunately there  is a trove of information coming from 
the early days of semiconductor manufacturing with emphasis on surface plasmons.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038109882908924

“Surface plasmon attenuation by thin film overlayers in the far infrared”
1980 Stegeman and Seymour

Absorption of surface plasmons in “metal–cladding layer–air” structure at 
terahertz frequencies
Zhizhin,  Nikitin,  Bogomolov 2006 “Absorption of surface plasmons (SP) guided 
by metal surface covered with a transparent layer (“cladding layer”) at 
terahertz frequencies has been studied both experimentally and 
by computer simulations. It was found that presence of the very thin layer 
increases SP absorption …”

These early papers can be interpreted as making the case for a process where 
far Infrared radiation is actually powering the Casimir compression of hydrogen 
into dense clusters. Once compressed, perhaps QCD dynamics provide the “glue” 
which bind the cluster. 

As for gain - at some point the cluster becomes destabilized and the Coulomb 
explosion follows. The glue (perhaps a pseudo gluon) massive and that mass in 
converted to energy in the Coulomb explosion. 

This all fits together without the first miracle of nuclear fusion and the 
second miracle of a new kind of gamma-free fusion – by substituting the 
alternative miracle of QCD (strong force) pseudo-gluons. 

An  evolving hypothesis like this may not hold up over time but at least for 
now - it wins the battle of conservation of miracles…  

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[JonesBeene]

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com

Low gas pressure would also reduce the heat transfer coeff. between the Ni mesh 
and the wall of the reactor… creating coupling to the phonic lattice energy 
states 



Yes there are a number of reasons to suspect that mutual coupling and positive 
feedback between phonons, photons (IR) and plasmons are paramount in the Mizuno 
configuration. There could be triple resonance.

On an historical note – there has been a strange divide – almost a line in the 
sand - for thirty years between the Pd-D “cold fusioneers” which were the 
majority - and the Ni-H “hydrino heads”… and no one took the initiative towards 
finding a middle ground until Mizuno.

As mentioned, Mills and Holmlid have used the very low pressure gas regime for 
more than two decades but not with nano palladium. The cold fusion 
experimenters stuck with electrolysis until Mizuno pioneered the glow discharge 
but that was relatively high pressure compared to Mills. 

The “ full monty” of very low pressure gas - plus nickel - plus nano palladium 
- was almost overlooked for all these years. Mills had listed palladium as well 
as nickel as a hydrino catalyst but did not use it in experiments for fear of 
jeopardizing his  IP which is no mostly expired. In fact, palladium is a better 
fit as a Millsean catalyst than is nickel! But IP considerations dictated that 
there was to be this persistent divide between the two. Holmlid further the 
divide with his own unique perspective.

In short, it is a quirk of history that someone did not come up with the 
present Mizuno regime back in the early 1990s.

If Mizuno’s results are duplicated – that historical quirk of having it 
available hidden in plain view for 25 years, could be looked on by future 
historians as one of the greatest missed opportunities of the 21st century..

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> The most striking thing to me from this presentation  is that Mizuno  was
> using the nickel mesh coated with palladium early on with modest success -
> but did not see the big breakthrough until going to a lower pressure regime
> (and allowing the reactor itself to heat up.)
>

Correct. He did not see this. He discovered improvements in this order:

1. Let the reactor heat up
2. Lower the pressure somewhat
3. Put the heater inside the reactor
4. Lower pressure a great deal, down to 300 Pa

He discovered these things partly by trial and error, but also by looking
closely for trends in the data. I might have anticipated #1, but #4 came as
a shock to me. I spent a couple of days recreating his graphs and noodling
with the data looking at this.

I might have done #3 just to improve the COP by using less power to heat up
the cell. As I said before, that has no scientific significance. I do not
know if Mizuno anticipated it might have a dramatic effect. That also
surprised me, but I saw there are plausible explanations for it, such as IR
stimulation, so it was not that shocking. Not like the low pressure.

This demonstrates how important it is to look at small effects, and to
pursue them relentlessly. Fleischmann said that when you see a small
effect, "the easiest thing in the world is to dismiss it" as experimental
error. The lesson here is: if you think it might be real, and not an
artifact, go after it. Try to find ways to increase the size of it and make
it more repeatable.


PS – again it is looking more and more like the low gas pressure could be
> the most important new parameter for success.
>

Yup.

RE: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Low gas pressure would also reduce the heat transfer coeff. between the Ni mesh 
and the wall of the reactor—increasing the thermal gradient and flux of high 
temperature photons which would increase or reduce resonant phonic vibrations 
in the Ni lattice and or  resonance with spin energy states of the various 
isotopes present.  (Small changes in the B fields at nuclei would change the 
respective nuclear spin energy states. as occurs in NMR machines, creating 
coupling to the phonic lattice energy states and allowing a change of nuclear 
potential to lattice kinetic energy.)

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: JonesBeene 
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 1:39:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Mizuno presentation at ICCF-21

This is Rothwell’s presentation of Mizuno’s earlier work on the nickel mesh 
setup - from last fall.

At this stage neither of them was aware of things to come within a few months 
of time which made a big difference in the ease of going to a robust level of 
gain.

It is very helpful to put the 4+ years of  research into historical perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkTwecPeNe4

The most striking thing to me from this presentation  is that Mizuno  was using 
the nickel mesh coated with palladium early on with modest success - but did 
not see the big breakthrough until going to a lower pressure regime (and 
allowing the reactor itself to heat up.)

Jones

PS – again it is looking more and more like the low gas pressure could be the 
most important new parameter for success.
To me this has to be related to the mean free path being extended to a 
resonance level with the IR input. The change to low pressure then favors the 
plasmon/polariton explanation - which may eventually turn up in hybrid for the 
mechanism which forms the dense clusters.

Note – both Mills and Holmlid have used the low gas pressure regime for two 
decades or more.