RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

I did read the "Simple theory may explain dark matter" article supplied by Axil.

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-simple-theory-dark.html

 

Excerpt:

 

There are a great many different theories about the nature of dark matter. What 
I like about this theory is its simplicity, uniqueness and the fact that it can 
be tested," said Scherrer.

 

 

Proposing the concept of confining a magnetic field within the topology of a 
torus is an interesting idea. I gather this configuration has been verified in 
certain physics experiments such as in atoms of cesium-133 and ytterbium-174.

 

Now, if I can just figure out what a Majorana fermion (or particle) is. I 
gather it has been difficult to detect... like hydrinos. 

 

More excerpts:

 

"Further, the model makes very specific predictions about the rate at which it 
should show up in the vast dark matter detectors that are buried underground 
all over the world. These predictions show that soon the existence of anapole 
dark matter should either be discovered or ruled out by these experiments."

 

Good! That's what I like to see. A practical way of either verifying or 
falsifying the theory. I wait for the results. If the findings are positive, 
this would likely motivate me to want to bone up on the subject in a more 
serious way.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Thank you for making the effort, Axil.

 

I bookmarked all three articles for possible future reference. The Anapole dark 
matter article appears to possess a lot of complicated algebra. But at least 
it's not 20 pages of integrals. FYI, since my retirement I have acquired a very 
full class schedule of subjects that I'm in the process of trying to acquire a 
better understanding of. This includes occasionally torturing myself with 
courses on 1st, 2nd, & 3rd semester calculus, brought to you by The Teaching 
Company. The company often offers significant discounts on all course 
materials. You just have to be patient in waiting for what you're interested in 
being offered at discounted prices. Just about everything gets discounted twice 
a year. At present trying to understand Calculus takes priority over exposing 
myself to the controversial mysteries of Rydberg matter. Fortunately for me, 
learning calculus isn't considered a controversial or disputed topic.

 

See:

 

www.thegreatcourses.com

 

OTOH, I can go out to Wikipedia (which is every one's favorite source of 
getting to the truth of the "matter" ;-) ) and read the cliff notes on Rydberg 
matter. Granted, the info out there is exceedingly sparse, and the subject 
material is being contested by the Wiki police...

 

Wiki sez:

 

This article has multiple issues. 

Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its 
subject. (January 2010)

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. (June 2014)

 

What little I've read so far on Rydberg matter pretty much convinces me of the 
fact that the subject is going to be way over my head. There appears to be no 
simple or elegant way to represent basic information to give a beginner student 
any kind of incentive to attempt to inculcate the basics. Based on the contents 
out in the brief Wiki article alone... I can see why Randy's Classical Physics 
model of the hydrino appears to be a much more appealing hypothesis for Dark 
Matter - particularly to Randy's dedicated supporters.

 

Over the years I've gotten the impression that are other members within the 
Vort Collective, besides Axil, that strongly lean in favor of the Rydberg 
Matter hypothesis. Jones? Are you possibly one of them? Fran? I sure would like 
to hear some distilled reasoning from other Rydberg Matter supporters, and why 
this mysterious and most likely misunderstood form of matter deserves serious 
consideration for the candidacy of Dark Matter.

 

Can that be done without resorting to a plethora of integrals?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

And anyone who has followed the vortex group over the years realizes that
> it is top heavy with programmers may have learned a little physics along
> the way, but who look at LENR mostly as a control problem.


True, and well-put.  Vortex has a lot of programmers, and some of us view
LENR as a control problem.  And more, as an empirical issue to be sorted
out rather than explained away.

The main objections from physicists who have voiced an opinion on the
matter of LENR seem to be to the effect that it should be impossible by
accepted theories, i.e., applied mathematical models.  Software developers
are generally skeptical of the scope and accuracy of mathematical models
and see their application primarily as a curve-fitting problem -- are the
data we have accurate, does the mathematical model accurately fit those
data, and, once it does, can it be used to find new discoveries?  When you
dig into assumptions in such models pertaining to things like the linearity
of important variables (to allow the use of linear algebra), it is easy to
see room for a given model possibly being a bad fit in some unexplored area
of the parameter space.

Is the speed of light a constant value over time?  We assume it is.  But
what's the basis for that assumption?  That's just one of many things that
we assume that could be queried and found incorrect in the future.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

So which is it, Axil? Rydberg matter, or hydrinos?


Count me as betting against both.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Eric,

> Software developers are generally skeptical of the scope and accuracy
> of mathematical models and see their application primarily as a 
> curve-fitting problem

That is an accurate description Eric. I think I'll be doing a lot of that for 
the next couple years.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
OrionWorks.com
zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Axil and Steven,
I liked Steven's comments.
There are seldom we see radical shifts in anything. That is because people
in general has a built in resistance to changes.
I am sure that (unfortunately) there will be people building and improving
nuclear bombs even without the need for fusion generated electricity.
BTW is not LENR nuclear in on way or the other? Does it not take nuclear
engineering to make LENR be a real alternative?
IMHO I think LENR is in the same stage as the Otto motor was in 1875. It
will take awhile to get the LENR introduced as the singular source of
energy in a distributed power generated society. The people who understand
engineering will easily be able to contribute to the development of LENR
toward an optimized energy resource. Just as the steam engineers of 1875
contributed to the refining of the Otto motor.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If there was no need for nuclear power, there would be no need for uranium
> enrichment or plutonium production. Without the need for engineers to keep
> nuclear power plants going, their would be no knowhow to produce H-bombs.
> Nuclear power plants permits nuclear bomb technology to exist. LENR will
> eliminate the need for the existence of bomb technology knowhow such as
> that currently exists and allowed by treaty in the middle east. American
> politicians will love to remove nuclear technology from the experience of
> engineering.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> From Axil,
>>
>>
>>
>> > The advent of LENR will destroy nuclear physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Where have I heard phrases like this before? Oh yes, over at Dr. Mills'
>> SCP group. Just substitute "SunCell technology" for "LENR" and I think
>> you'd fit right in with the BLP cheering squad.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've heard phrases like this elsewhere as well...
>>
>>
>>
>> I realize this is just a picky personal gripe of mine but when I hear
>> phrases like the above coming from both Vortex and the SCP group, it
>> occasionally sounds not all that different to me than listening to a group
>> of fundamentalist Christians waxing on and on about how everything will be
>> set right once the second coming gets underway.
>>
>>
>>
>> IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I
>> think it will adapt.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>
>> OrionWorks.com
>>
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Axil:

 

> If there was no need for nuclear power, there would be no need for

> uranium enrichment or plutonium production. Without the need for engineers

> to keep nuclear power plants going, their would be no knowhow to produce

> H-bombs.

 

Unfortunately, I did not make my POV sufficiently clear. When I used the term 
"nuclear physics" I was not using in terms of developing another fission power 
plant. I was using in terms of academic education. I suspect universities will 
still have to teach some form of "nuclear physics" along with the evolution of 
quantum mechanics. I suspect advanced students will still have to learn the 
basic principles of "nuclear physics". Granted, assuming LENR eventually proves 
its mettle, the current field of "nuclear physics" and quantum mechanics will 
most likely learn to adapt or incorporate what LENR has to offer to the 
negotiation table. That goes for incorporating Dr. Mills' BLP Classical Physics 
concepts as well. This assumes the audacious startup can ever get off the 
ground. BLP's latest switcheroo to an alleged solid state "SunCell" engineering 
effort with no plans to reveal anything to the public about what the new solid 
state engineering entails is likely to make the company vulnerable to 
considerable amount of skeptical skewering.  But, of course, BLP doesn't care 
what the peanut gallery or what stalwart skeptics have to say. Last summer BLP 
managed to secure millions of dollars of additional funding to keep them 
afloat. But all that generous funding had been based on engineering principals 
involving moving parts that have now been apparently abandoned as BLP now 
pursues a new Solid state engineering concept. Unfortunately, none of us in the 
peanut gallery have a clue as to what the solid state engineering might entail. 
Needless to say, with nothing to go on, I have my doubts. Stalwart skeptics 
love this kind of switcheroo behavior. Can't say I blame them.

 

As for future generations not acquiring the knowledge to produce a couple of 
nasty H-Bombs or dirty bombs, I think it is exceedingly naive to assume 
countries like North Korea and similar types of tribal/family-run businesses 
would not brush up on leaning old skills.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Jones,
I think you are on to something.
Think small.
Think flexible.
Think without strings attached to "the ones in the know".
It probably will make result as it is multi pronged approach (instead of
everyone trying to convince the decision makers who is most eloquent
interpreting the agreed upon wisdom).
The most important is that it would increase the personal freedom and the
happiness coming from be independent. (I do not mean egoistic - reality is
that you need to get something before you can share it.)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
>
>
>
> Ø  IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I
> think it will adapt.
>
>
>
> Not only will it adapt, and it could thrive…
>
>
>
> Perhaps Big-Fizz is poised to claim priority and take ownership of the
> field. LENR could become the best thing that has happened to mainstream
> nuclear physics in 70 years. Former skeptics will be saying “told you so.”
>
>
>
> Let’s face it … the prestige of mainstream physics is almost dead
> following the numerous billion dollar boondoggles and growing taxpayer
> discontent, For instance, the Higgs boson (bogon), Princeton’s toroid,
> Superconducting Super Collider, ITER & successors, NOVA & successors,
> National Ignition Facility (NIF) and of course LHC and dozens more… a
> string of costly failures, salted with a few overblown advances, which is
> breathtaking in only the amount of funds wasted and huge pensions which
> will carry forward that waste for decades to come.
>
>
>
> Generally, nuclear physicists are/were the crème-de-la-crème of hard
> science. However, in truth, that past glory means very little in the Cyber
> world of today. All of science has become so specialized that any brilliant
> mind, untrained in the broader field but with the assistance of digital
> technology, can focus on a narrow niche and understand it better than the
> professor who has taught the broader field for 30 years. Credentials mean
> little wrt the cutting edge of physics . There has been a sea-change in the
> locus of major breakthroughs – away from the Ivy League or even the minor
> state school – back to the well-equipped garage.
>
>
>
> And anyone who has followed the vortex group over the years realizes that
> it is top heavy with programmers may have learned a little physics along
> the way, but who look at LENR mostly as a control problem.
>
>
>
> Holmlid’s work is emblematic of such a threat to the National Labs and
> others who are draining billions from DoE working on massive dead-end
> projects.
>
>
>
> He is at the convergence of LENR and ICF – but at a scale where results
> can be found in a garage and on a budget of less than a million instead of
> a billion per. Mainstream fizzix can do nothing on a tight budget and
> especially with milestones, and funders are beginning now to realize that
> the form factor of the National Ignition Facility can be reduced to a
> tabletop – so there could be a lot of overpaid physicists taking big cuts.
> Which can be a good thing – think Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard or Steve
> Jobs – think small and modular.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Bob and in addition the losses in distribution of electricity is
significant. Enhanced by the fact that transfer high currents is less
efficient (more than proportional). Distributed power production has no
negative sides and is not vulnerable for terrorism.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sadly I think Jones is correct.  The nuclear power industry got off track
> early in the 1960’s   when GE,Combustion Engineering, B and Westinghouse
> got together and concluded that big was beautiful.  They  “cornered the
> market” for big reactor equipment with their big established fabrication
> capability.  They convinced utilities around the US and the World that big
> plants were the way to go based on a fairytale called “Economy of Scale.”
> Washington Public Power System—its name before default—with its
> non-technical board of directing farmers was sold a bill of goods.  Three
> different 1000 Mw plants at one site—easy to care for and cheap to
> build—only a carrying charge for about 8 years with no productivity.  Three
> of the WPPS bonds went into default and only one of 4 power stations was
> completed.
>
> The Naval Reactors program started to build a big light water breeder
> reactor (Th-232 to U-233 breeder)  based on the final core operated in the
> Shippingport  Nuclear Power Plant for the planned Diablo Canyon Plant, but
> backed out because of issues with size of the reactor and safety margins
> required for operations.  Fracture mechanics design of the reactor vessel
> head was a major issue.
>
> It became clear that big reactors were not desirable.  Safety and Costs
> were issues.
>
> The Industry however went ahead with the big plant, big cost and profit
> idea and is now in decline.
>
> As Jones pointed out—they should have and should now “think small and
> modular “.
>
> The government AEC, ERDA and DOE with NRC went along with the bad
> ideas—nuclear—industrial--government village was well established.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 9:26 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl
>
>
> *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
>
>
>
> Ø  IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I
> think it will adapt.
>
>
>
> Not only will it adapt, and it could thrive…
>
>
>
> Perhaps Big-Fizz is poised to claim priority and take ownership of the
> field. LENR could become the best thing that has happened to mainstream
> nuclear physics in 70 years. Former skeptics will be saying “told you so.”
>
>
>
> Let’s face it … the prestige of mainstream physics is almost dead
> following the numerous billion dollar boondoggles and growing taxpayer
> discontent, For instance, the Higgs boson (bogon), Princeton’s toroid,
> Superconducting Super Collider, ITER & successors, NOVA & successors,
> National Ignition Facility (NIF) and of course LHC and dozens more… a
> string of costly failures, salted with a few overblown advances, which is
> breathtaking in only the amount of funds wasted and huge pensions which
> will carry forward that waste for decades to come.
>
>
>
> Generally, nuclear physicists are/were the crème-de-la-crème of hard
> science. However, in truth, that past glory means very little in the Cyber
> world of today. All of science has become so specialized that any brilliant
> mind, untrained in the broader field but with the assistance of digital
> technology, can focus on a narrow niche and understand it better than the
> professor who has taught the broader field for 30 years. Credentials mean
> little wrt the cutting edge of physics . There has been a sea-change in the
> locus of major breakthroughs – away from the Ivy League or even the minor
> state school – back to the well-equipped garage.
>
>
>
> And anyone who has followed the vortex group over the years realizes that
> it is top heavy with programmers may have learned a little physics along
> the way, but who look at LENR mostly as a control problem.
>
>
>
> Holmlid’s work is emblematic of such a threat to the National Labs and
> others who are draining billions from DoE working on massive dead-end
> projects.
>
>
>
> He is at the convergence of LENR and ICF – but at a scale where results
> can be found in a garage and on a budget of less than a million instead of
> a billion per. Mainstrea

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

Jones is always on point.

Accepted science is sending huge amounts to find the cause for Dark Matter.
We know that Dark Matter is a result of Rydberg matter that exists as a
preferred form of hydrogen that is spread widely throughout the universe.
The people at the LHC will spend additional billions looking for the
problematical Dark Matter particle. They could save all that money by
replicating the Rydberg matter desk top experiments already performed to
determine how Rydberg matter produces mass in Photons.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
>
>
>
> Ø  IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I
> think it will adapt.
>
>
>
> Not only will it adapt, and it could thrive…
>
>
>
> Perhaps Big-Fizz is poised to claim priority and take ownership of the
> field. LENR could become the best thing that has happened to mainstream
> nuclear physics in 70 years. Former skeptics will be saying “told you so.”
>
>
>
> Let’s face it … the prestige of mainstream physics is almost dead
> following the numerous billion dollar boondoggles and growing taxpayer
> discontent, For instance, the Higgs boson (bogon), Princeton’s toroid,
> Superconducting Super Collider, ITER & successors, NOVA & successors,
> National Ignition Facility (NIF) and of course LHC and dozens more… a
> string of costly failures, salted with a few overblown advances, which is
> breathtaking in only the amount of funds wasted and huge pensions which
> will carry forward that waste for decades to come.
>
>
>
> Generally, nuclear physicists are/were the crème-de-la-crème of hard
> science. However, in truth, that past glory means very little in the Cyber
> world of today. All of science has become so specialized that any brilliant
> mind, untrained in the broader field but with the assistance of digital
> technology, can focus on a narrow niche and understand it better than the
> professor who has taught the broader field for 30 years. Credentials mean
> little wrt the cutting edge of physics . There has been a sea-change in the
> locus of major breakthroughs – away from the Ivy League or even the minor
> state school – back to the well-equipped garage.
>
>
>
> And anyone who has followed the vortex group over the years realizes that
> it is top heavy with programmers may have learned a little physics along
> the way, but who look at LENR mostly as a control problem.
>
>
>
> Holmlid’s work is emblematic of such a threat to the National Labs and
> others who are draining billions from DoE working on massive dead-end
> projects.
>
>
>
> He is at the convergence of LENR and ICF – but at a scale where results
> can be found in a garage and on a budget of less than a million instead of
> a billion per. Mainstream fizzix can do nothing on a tight budget and
> especially with milestones, and funders are beginning now to realize that
> the form factor of the National Ignition Facility can be reduced to a
> tabletop – so there could be a lot of overpaid physicists taking big cuts.
> Which can be a good thing – think Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard or Steve
> Jobs – think small and modular.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html

Note: this point

"The theory could have broad ranging applications from explaining dark
matter to combating energy losses in future technologies."

If you want to get into how Dark mode solitons and plasmoids can produce
mass in EMF concentration.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002MNRAS.333..360B_key=AST_ind=0_select=NO_type=GIF=SCREEN_GIF=YES
>
> Start out with the reference above and we will progress step by step to
> show that Rydberg matter will satisfy all experimental observations that
> connects LENR to dark matter.
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> From Axil:
>>
>>
>>
>> > We know that Dark Matter is a result of Rydberg matter that
>>
>> > exists as a preferred form of hydrogen that is spread widely
>>
>> > throughout the universe.
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, it disturbs me to no end reading a Vort post that portrays
>> speculative assumptions (however tantalizing those assumptions may be to
>> some within the Collective) as undisputed fact. It's no different than
>> hearing another so called undisputed fact claiming that hydrinos make up
>> dark matter. One can get their fill of the hydrino model over at Dr. Mills'
>> SCP group. It is enthusiastically supported by the BLP cheer leading squad.
>> ((I suspect some of them were very happy to see me barred.)
>>
>>
>>
>> So which is it, Axil? Rydberg matter, or hydrinos? I suspect you'd have a
>> real fight on your hands if you decided to correct SCP's presumed
>> misconceptions about the explanation for Dark Matter. Quite frankly, I
>> don't know which model is the correct one, or perhaps I should say: The
>> more accurate one. Perhaps in the end it may turn out to be the case that
>> it's neither.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm going to sit on the fence some more and see what shakes out. Sadly, I
>> think it's going to continue to be a long wait. Under the circumstance the
>> best thing for me to do is try not generate posts filled with tantalizing
>> speculation passed off as undisputed fact. Granted, that is easier said
>> than done at times. Nobody is perfect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Full disclosure: I admit my ignorance of the Rydberg matter model. Is
>> there a reasonably brief explanation of the model posted somewhere that I
>> might be able to read up on... hopefully an explanation that doesn't
>> involve 20 pages of Integrals? At present all I have to go on is the
>> suspicion that Hydrinos and Rydberg matter seem to be strongly related to
>> each other, as if they are kissing cousins. As in the case of hydrinos,
>> over the years I've acquired a vague impression that much of Rydberg matter
>> involves altered states of hydrogen. Is that a correct assumption, or am I
>> wrong on that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>
>> OrionWorks.com
>>
>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0503

See how anapole EMF solitons satisfy experimental observations.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://phys.org/news/2013-06-simple-theory-dark.html
>
> Read this for more background on anapole EMF concentration.
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html
>>
>> Note: this point
>>
>> "The theory could have broad ranging applications from explaining dark
>> matter to combating energy losses in future technologies."
>>
>> If you want to get into how Dark mode solitons and plasmoids can produce
>> mass in EMF concentration.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002MNRAS.333..360B_key=AST_ind=0_select=NO_type=GIF=SCREEN_GIF=YES
>>>
>>> Start out with the reference above and we will progress step by step to
>>> show that Rydberg matter will satisfy all experimental observations that
>>> connects LENR to dark matter.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
>>> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
 From Axil:



 > We know that Dark Matter is a result of Rydberg matter that

 > exists as a preferred form of hydrogen that is spread widely

 > throughout the universe.



 FWIW, it disturbs me to no end reading a Vort post that portrays
 speculative assumptions (however tantalizing those assumptions may be to
 some within the Collective) as undisputed fact. It's no different than
 hearing another so called undisputed fact claiming that hydrinos make up
 dark matter. One can get their fill of the hydrino model over at Dr. Mills'
 SCP group. It is enthusiastically supported by the BLP cheer leading squad.
 ((I suspect some of them were very happy to see me barred.)



 So which is it, Axil? Rydberg matter, or hydrinos? I suspect you'd have
 a real fight on your hands if you decided to correct SCP's presumed
 misconceptions about the explanation for Dark Matter. Quite frankly, I
 don't know which model is the correct one, or perhaps I should say: The
 more accurate one. Perhaps in the end it may turn out to be the case that
 it's neither.



 I'm going to sit on the fence some more and see what shakes out. Sadly,
 I think it's going to continue to be a long wait. Under the circumstance
 the best thing for me to do is try not generate posts filled with
 tantalizing speculation passed off as undisputed fact. Granted, that is
 easier said than done at times. Nobody is perfect.



 Full disclosure: I admit my ignorance of the Rydberg matter model. Is
 there a reasonably brief explanation of the model posted somewhere that I
 might be able to read up on... hopefully an explanation that doesn't
 involve 20 pages of Integrals? At present all I have to go on is the
 suspicion that Hydrinos and Rydberg matter seem to be strongly related to
 each other, as if they are kissing cousins. As in the case of hydrinos,
 over the years I've acquired a vague impression that much of Rydberg matter
 involves altered states of hydrogen. Is that a correct assumption, or am I
 wrong on that?



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 OrionWorks.com

 zazzle.com/orionworks

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-simple-theory-dark.html

Read this for more background on anapole EMF concentration.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html
>
> Note: this point
>
> "The theory could have broad ranging applications from explaining dark
> matter to combating energy losses in future technologies."
>
> If you want to get into how Dark mode solitons and plasmoids can produce
> mass in EMF concentration.
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002MNRAS.333..360B_key=AST_ind=0_select=NO_type=GIF=SCREEN_GIF=YES
>>
>> Start out with the reference above and we will progress step by step to
>> show that Rydberg matter will satisfy all experimental observations that
>> connects LENR to dark matter.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
>> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From Axil:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > We know that Dark Matter is a result of Rydberg matter that
>>>
>>> > exists as a preferred form of hydrogen that is spread widely
>>>
>>> > throughout the universe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, it disturbs me to no end reading a Vort post that portrays
>>> speculative assumptions (however tantalizing those assumptions may be to
>>> some within the Collective) as undisputed fact. It's no different than
>>> hearing another so called undisputed fact claiming that hydrinos make up
>>> dark matter. One can get their fill of the hydrino model over at Dr. Mills'
>>> SCP group. It is enthusiastically supported by the BLP cheer leading squad.
>>> ((I suspect some of them were very happy to see me barred.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So which is it, Axil? Rydberg matter, or hydrinos? I suspect you'd have
>>> a real fight on your hands if you decided to correct SCP's presumed
>>> misconceptions about the explanation for Dark Matter. Quite frankly, I
>>> don't know which model is the correct one, or perhaps I should say: The
>>> more accurate one. Perhaps in the end it may turn out to be the case that
>>> it's neither.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to sit on the fence some more and see what shakes out. Sadly,
>>> I think it's going to continue to be a long wait. Under the circumstance
>>> the best thing for me to do is try not generate posts filled with
>>> tantalizing speculation passed off as undisputed fact. Granted, that is
>>> easier said than done at times. Nobody is perfect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Full disclosure: I admit my ignorance of the Rydberg matter model. Is
>>> there a reasonably brief explanation of the model posted somewhere that I
>>> might be able to read up on... hopefully an explanation that doesn't
>>> involve 20 pages of Integrals? At present all I have to go on is the
>>> suspicion that Hydrinos and Rydberg matter seem to be strongly related to
>>> each other, as if they are kissing cousins. As in the case of hydrinos,
>>> over the years I've acquired a vague impression that much of Rydberg matter
>>> involves altered states of hydrogen. Is that a correct assumption, or am I
>>> wrong on that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>>>
>>> OrionWorks.com
>>>
>>> zazzle.com/orionworks
>>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Jones Beene]

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

 

Ø  IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I think 
it will adapt.

 

Not only will it adapt, and it could thrive… 

 

Perhaps Big-Fizz is poised to claim priority and take ownership of the field. 
LENR could become the best thing that has happened to mainstream nuclear 
physics in 70 years. Former skeptics will be saying “told you so.”

 

Let’s face it … the prestige of mainstream physics is almost dead following the 
numerous billion dollar boondoggles and growing taxpayer discontent, For 
instance, the Higgs boson (bogon), Princeton’s toroid, Superconducting Super 
Collider, ITER & successors, NOVA & successors, National Ignition Facility 
(NIF) and of course LHC and dozens more… a string of costly failures, salted 
with a few overblown advances, which is breathtaking in only the amount of 
funds wasted and huge pensions which will carry forward that waste for decades 
to come.

 

Generally, nuclear physicists are/were the crème-de-la-crème of hard science. 
However, in truth, that past glory means very little in the Cyber world of 
today. All of science has become so specialized that any brilliant mind, 
untrained in the broader field but with the assistance of digital technology, 
can focus on a narrow niche and understand it better than the professor who has 
taught the broader field for 30 years. Credentials mean little wrt the cutting 
edge of physics . There has been a sea-change in the locus of major 
breakthroughs – away from the Ivy League or even the minor state school – back 
to the well-equipped garage.

 

And anyone who has followed the vortex group over the years realizes that it is 
top heavy with programmers may have learned a little physics along the way, but 
who look at LENR mostly as a control problem.

 

Holmlid’s work is emblematic of such a threat to the National Labs and others 
who are draining billions from DoE working on massive dead-end projects. 

 

He is at the convergence of LENR and ICF – but at a scale where results can be 
found in a garage and on a budget of less than a million instead of a billion 
per. Mainstream fizzix can do nothing on a tight budget and especially with 
milestones, and funders are beginning now to realize that the form factor of 
the National Ignition Facility can be reduced to a tabletop – so there could be 
a lot of overpaid physicists taking big cuts. Which can be a good thing – think 
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard or Steve Jobs – think small and modular. 

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2002MNRAS.333..360B_key=AST_ind=0_select=NO_type=GIF=SCREEN_GIF=YES

Start out with the reference above and we will progress step by step to
show that Rydberg matter will satisfy all experimental observations that
connects LENR to dark matter.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Axil:
>
>
>
> > We know that Dark Matter is a result of Rydberg matter that
>
> > exists as a preferred form of hydrogen that is spread widely
>
> > throughout the universe.
>
>
>
> FWIW, it disturbs me to no end reading a Vort post that portrays
> speculative assumptions (however tantalizing those assumptions may be to
> some within the Collective) as undisputed fact. It's no different than
> hearing another so called undisputed fact claiming that hydrinos make up
> dark matter. One can get their fill of the hydrino model over at Dr. Mills'
> SCP group. It is enthusiastically supported by the BLP cheer leading squad.
> ((I suspect some of them were very happy to see me barred.)
>
>
>
> So which is it, Axil? Rydberg matter, or hydrinos? I suspect you'd have a
> real fight on your hands if you decided to correct SCP's presumed
> misconceptions about the explanation for Dark Matter. Quite frankly, I
> don't know which model is the correct one, or perhaps I should say: The
> more accurate one. Perhaps in the end it may turn out to be the case that
> it's neither.
>
>
>
> I'm going to sit on the fence some more and see what shakes out. Sadly, I
> think it's going to continue to be a long wait. Under the circumstance the
> best thing for me to do is try not generate posts filled with tantalizing
> speculation passed off as undisputed fact. Granted, that is easier said
> than done at times. Nobody is perfect.
>
>
>
> Full disclosure: I admit my ignorance of the Rydberg matter model. Is
> there a reasonably brief explanation of the model posted somewhere that I
> might be able to read up on... hopefully an explanation that doesn't
> involve 20 pages of Integrals? At present all I have to go on is the
> suspicion that Hydrinos and Rydberg matter seem to be strongly related to
> each other, as if they are kissing cousins. As in the case of hydrinos,
> over the years I've acquired a vague impression that much of Rydberg matter
> involves altered states of hydrogen. Is that a correct assumption, or am I
> wrong on that?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Cook,

 

 

...

 

> As Jones pointed out—they should have and should now “think small and modular 
> “.

 

Several years ago I recall reading a Kiplinger Forecast that stated there are 
smaller modular oriented nuclear power designs in the works. I seem to recall 
Toshiba may be one of the principal participants. See:

 

http://www.toshiba.com/tane/

 

I think one of the on-going plans was to retrofit and update designs originally 
configured to power nuclear submarines. Apparently the assumption was that 
there would be profits to be made constructing smaller modular nuclear power 
plants for locations in remote areas of the planet. As an example, I think they 
stated a modular plant based up in remote parts of Canada located near the huge 
tar oil sands would be put to use in liquefying the crude oil. I gather the 
assumption was that using a small modular nuclear plant to generate sufficient 
amounts of heat would be cheaper and perhaps more environmentally friendly as 
compared to burning a lot of oil to generate the necessary heat. As I 
understand the situation, the process burns up a lot of oil in order to get the 
tar sufficiently liquefied for transport. I think one of the biggest 
complaints, besides the fact that the tar is filled with loads of impurities (a 
matter Al Gore incessantly harped about), is the obvious fact that the process 
belches out a huge amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

I wonder how these modular designs are proceeding. I wonder if they are still 
considered economically viable in remote areas. At first glance, it does seem 
to be a sensible alternative.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Axil:

 

> We know that Dark Matter is a result of Rydberg matter that 

> exists as a preferred form of hydrogen that is spread widely

> throughout the universe. 

 

FWIW, it disturbs me to no end reading a Vort post that portrays speculative 
assumptions (however tantalizing those assumptions may be to some within the 
Collective) as undisputed fact. It's no different than hearing another so 
called undisputed fact claiming that hydrinos make up dark matter. One can get 
their fill of the hydrino model over at Dr. Mills' SCP group. It is 
enthusiastically supported by the BLP cheer leading squad. ((I suspect some of 
them were very happy to see me barred.)

 

So which is it, Axil? Rydberg matter, or hydrinos? I suspect you'd have a real 
fight on your hands if you decided to correct SCP's presumed misconceptions 
about the explanation for Dark Matter. Quite frankly, I don't know which model 
is the correct one, or perhaps I should say: The more accurate one. Perhaps in 
the end it may turn out to be the case that it's neither.

 

I'm going to sit on the fence some more and see what shakes out. Sadly, I think 
it's going to continue to be a long wait. Under the circumstance the best thing 
for me to do is try not generate posts filled with tantalizing speculation 
passed off as undisputed fact. Granted, that is easier said than done at times. 
Nobody is perfect.

 

Full disclosure: I admit my ignorance of the Rydberg matter model. Is there a 
reasonably brief explanation of the model posted somewhere that I might be able 
to read up on... hopefully an explanation that doesn't involve 20 pages of 
Integrals? At present all I have to go on is the suspicion that Hydrinos and 
Rydberg matter seem to be strongly related to each other, as if they are 
kissing cousins. As in the case of hydrinos, over the years I've acquired a 
vague impression that much of Rydberg matter involves altered states of 
hydrogen. Is that a correct assumption, or am I wrong on that?

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

The advent of LENR will destroy nuclear physics. The nuclear engineers
instinctively realize that their field will be discarded from the knowledge
base of humankind; and gladly so. This may be the reason why nuclear
engineers are trying their best to destroy LENR. I would think that a LENR
company would never hire a nuclear engineer. These nuclear types might all
be forced to become UBER drivers.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> Thanks to you both.  It may be good that this happened.  Fred represents
> what much of the establishment thinks.  He, however, says it directly.
> This should prove to be quite a story when cold fusion pans out.
>
>
> Frank
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Frank Znidarsic]

Thanks to you both.  It may be good that this happened.  Fred represents what 
much of the establishment thinks.  He, however, says it directly.  This should 
prove to be quite a story when cold fusion pans out.




Frank



-Original Message-





   
  
 
 

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Axil,

 

> The advent of LENR will destroy nuclear physics. 

 

...

 

Where have I heard phrases like this before? Oh yes, over at Dr. Mills' SCP 
group. Just substitute "SunCell technology" for "LENR" and I think you'd fit 
right in with the BLP cheering squad.

 

I've heard phrases like this elsewhere as well...

 

I realize this is just a picky personal gripe of mine but when I hear phrases 
like the above coming from both Vortex and the SCP group, it occasionally 
sounds not all that different to me than listening to a group of fundamentalist 
Christians waxing on and on about how everything will be set right once the 
second coming gets underway.

 

IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I think it 
will adapt.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fred Zoepfl

[Axil Axil]

If there was no need for nuclear power, there would be no need for uranium
enrichment or plutonium production. Without the need for engineers to keep
nuclear power plants going, their would be no knowhow to produce H-bombs.
Nuclear power plants permits nuclear bomb technology to exist. LENR will
eliminate the need for the existence of bomb technology knowhow such as
that currently exists and allowed by treaty in the middle east. American
politicians will love to remove nuclear technology from the experience of
engineering.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Axil,
>
>
>
> > The advent of LENR will destroy nuclear physics.
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Where have I heard phrases like this before? Oh yes, over at Dr. Mills'
> SCP group. Just substitute "SunCell technology" for "LENR" and I think
> you'd fit right in with the BLP cheering squad.
>
>
>
> I've heard phrases like this elsewhere as well...
>
>
>
> I realize this is just a picky personal gripe of mine but when I hear
> phrases like the above coming from both Vortex and the SCP group, it
> occasionally sounds not all that different to me than listening to a group
> of fundamentalist Christians waxing on and on about how everything will be
> set right once the second coming gets underway.
>
>
>
> IMHO, nuclear physics will not be destroyed by the advent of LENR. I think
> it will adapt.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>