Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Bob!

Let's do the neutrinos later .. we now can just smell them - at least we 
believe it.


At least for the SO(4) fusion model we don't need them so far as all 
energies can be explained without neutrinos - what was a surprise!


J.W.



Am 08.02.20 um 18:06 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


The consideration of the creation of new space with the release of EM 
energy is a model that may explain the increase of entropy in 
classical thermodynamic theory for closed systems with conservation of 
 total energy.   ( However, neutrinos also need to be  considered 
assuming they have mass energy at their local space. They may be 
like a photon in free space, but which  are an odd magnetic flux 
rotation—a fraction of 2pi radians-- .)  2pi/3 comes to mind as a 
potential option for their odd rotation.  That’s what it takes to make 
any angular momentum.) 


Bob Cook

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


*From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
*Sent: *Saturday, February 8, 2020 8:32 AM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Jurg—

Four questions that come to mind are:

  * What is the distance in 3-D space between the D*-D* centers needed
to start a common rotation of their respective flux rotations?
  * What matching is necessary of angular alignment of the axes of the
respective flux rotation toruses, if any, to allow the common
rotation and transition to a He* with the creation of new free space?
  * And does the new space volume (in 3-D) have any local time
associated with flux rotation frequency or is there no local
frequency of magnetic flux—i.e., no flux in the new space once the
photon leaves the new space?
  * Is there any specific volume in 3-D associated with the new space?

These questions may be good to consider at the workshop.

Bob

*From: *Jürg Wyttenbach <mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
*Sent: *Friday, February 7, 2020 2:42 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a 
pyramid with the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can 
dilate out from the 3d base structure of the metal lattice and form 
blankets of fractional hydrogen in either temporal direction from the 
lattice.


The restriction for Mills/hydrino like condensation is given by the 
symmetry of the fields and space. Orbits with same mass and topology 
can condensate what means start a common rotation what classically 
frees space-time what is equivalent to releasing energy.


As said: In the Holmlid case we see such orbit pairing going downhill 
from 8 H* --> 2 4-He (8-Be) with a proton finally taking over the 
excess energy. This has nothing in common with Mills model as there 
always must be a final state with a higher stability/density = number 
of flux rotations.


There is just one more rotation possible for one symmetric mass pair 
and thus there is only one H*-H* state fora a pair of protons where as 
D*-D* can have 4 bonds.


Consequently the next H*-H* condensation only works if you have 2 
H*-H* and does not work not for a single pair. This is what Mills missed.


J.W.

Am 07.02.20 um 16:54 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:


Fran—

You seem to imply that nature changes depending on your
observation position—at the center of a local hydrogen at 3^rd
base of a lattice nuclet or far away in the batter’s box.  Is my
inference correct?

Also you suggest more than one temporal (time) direction.  This
suggests 3 or maybe 6 possible time directions relative to 3^rd
base—up, down, back front left or right. Can you explain temporal
direction in more detail?  Is there _no_global time that applies
to all points in space, once that point is created?

Bob Cook

*From: *Roarty, Francis X <mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
*Sent: *Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:37 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
    *Subject: *RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Hi Jones, I still suspect Casimir geometry is actually
relativistic and the math they are using is giving the dimensions
from  local hydrogen perspective while from our perspective the
hydrogen inside the hydride dilates becoming both faster and
“relatively” smaller, packing out further and further on the
temporal axis while simultaneously getting harder and harder to
detect from the macro world. I think Mills was accurate about self
catalyzing of fractional hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like
cheerleaders forming a pyramid with the lattice as just the ground
floor I sus

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Am 08.02.20 um 17:32 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Jurg—

Four questions that come to mind are:

  * What is the distance in 3-D space between the D*-D* centers needed
to start a common rotation of their respective flux rotations?

In H*-H*/D*-D* the proton perturbative mass joins the flux in a new 
common rotation. Normally we should assume that a nuclear mass part 
assumes a nuclear orbit given by the charge radius. But all wave 
coupling produces a virtual charge and the radius of this virtual charge 
must be much larger. I did not yet try to model this new idea as I'm 
myself currently in a low energy mode... I once calculated it for H*-H* 
using 3D fields only and the result was about 2.4pm or a bit larger than 
what Holmlid believes. But we simply do not have enough experimental 
support that we would need to exclude some parts of the equation.


The first step of the formation of D*-D* is Rydberg like SO(4) spin 
matter. This aligns the proton spin(s) and will result in a 4-He like 
structure due to the added orbit force. But one open key question is: 
How - if - will the spin waves extend ? Does this lead to a tighter 
radius - stronger coupling or just to a steric more stable cluster? How 
do the spin orbits interact with the catalyst?


What matching is necessary of angular alignment of the axes of the 
respective flux rotation toruses, if any, to allow the common rotation 
and transition to a He* with the creation of new free space?


This is to complex to explain in an e-mail. All mass in 4-He is core "4 
rotation" mass which can be decomposed from 4x 4 to 2x2 and finally 1x1. 
We can discuss this (details) in the workshop as it is part of the early 
model already.



And does the new space volume (in 3-D) have any local time associated 
with flux rotation frequency or is there no local frequency of magnetic 
flux—i.e., no flux in the new space once the photon leaves the new space?



Time is always represented by the frequency that only depends on speed 
of light and the total torus path length. Of course this is one key 
issues - how the change in topology and number of rotations influences 
the path length.


I did notice that some SM assumptions e.g. about live time are wrong 
because they use a to short path.


And Is there any specific volume in 3-D associated with the new space?


The space we finally use to calculate energy quantities is the classic 
3D space. For this purpose we need to do projections. The only general 
thing we can do is to relate energy to lost 3D space what is a first 
approximation only. I can show the 4p --> 4-He changes. It would be keen 
to define new space measures as in 6D (SO(4)) you can have multiple 
forms of "space" e.g. 4D,5D volumes. One thing we know is that in SO(4) 
the magnetic flux runs on the higher D (4D, or 5D manifolds) torus 
surface and not in the 3D volume otherwise the projection would not 
deliver the correct results we see.


Thus if we talk of space-time conversion to photon energy then this 
might not 100% match the real 3D space we free, as the numbers of 
rotations (2 or 3) are not always the same and even more important: The 
real space a nucleus occupies is *given* by the *larges charge radius* 
that couples two orbits.


This you can see if you once check nuclear data.


But the universe expands because photons always flow outwards what 
generates an outward pressure! It's like a heating pot at ultra large scale.


J.W.




  * Is there any specific volume in 3-D associated with the new space?

These questions may be good to consider at the workshop.

Bob

*From: *Jürg Wyttenbach <mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
*Sent: *Friday, February 7, 2020 2:42 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a 
pyramid with the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can 
dilate out from the 3d base structure of the metal lattice and form 
blankets of fractional hydrogen in either temporal direction from the 
lattice.


The restriction for Mills/hydrino like condensation is given by the 
symmetry of the fields and space. Orbits with same mass and topology 
can condensate what means start a common rotation what classically 
frees space-time what is equivalent to releasing energy.


As said: In the Holmlid case we see such orbit pairing going downhill 
from 8 H* --> 2 4-He (8-Be) with a proton finally taking over the 
excess energy. This has nothing in common with Mills model as there 
always must be a final state with a higher stability/density = number 
of flux rotations.


There is just one more rotation possible for one symmetric mass pair 
and thus there is only one H*-H* state fora a pair of protons where as 
D*-D* can have 4 bonds.


Consequently the next H*-H* condensation only works 

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The consideration of the creation of new space with the release of EM energy is 
a model that may explain the increase of entropy in classical thermodynamic 
theory for closed systems with conservation of  total energy.   ( However, 
neutrinos also need to be  considered assuming they have mass energy at their 
local space. They may be like a photon in free space, but which  are an odd 
magnetic flux rotation—a fraction of 2pi radians-- .)  2pi/3 comes to mind as a 
potential option for their odd rotation.  That’s what it takes to make any 
angular momentum.)

Bob Cook

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

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2020 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Jurg—

Four questions that come to mind are:

  *   What is the distance in 3-D space between the D*-D* centers needed to 
start a common rotation of their respective flux rotations?
  *   What matching is necessary of angular alignment of the axes of the 
respective flux rotation toruses, if any, to allow the common rotation and 
transition to a He* with the creation of new free space?
  *   And does the new space volume (in 3-D) have any local time associated 
with flux rotation frequency or is there no local frequency of magnetic 
flux—i.e., no flux in the new space once the photon leaves the new space?
  *   Is there any specific volume in 3-D associated with the new space?

These questions may be good to consider at the workshop.

Bob
From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 2:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional hydrogen when 
trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with the lattice as 
just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 3d base structure 
of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional hydrogen in either 
temporal direction from the lattice.

The restriction for Mills/hydrino like condensation is given by the symmetry of 
the fields and space. Orbits with same mass and topology can condensate what 
means start a common rotation what classically frees space-time what is 
equivalent to releasing energy.

As said: In the Holmlid case we see such orbit pairing going downhill from 8 H* 
--> 2 4-He (8-Be) with a proton finally taking over the excess energy. This has 
nothing in common with Mills model as there always must be a final state with a 
higher stability/density = number of flux rotations.

There is just one more rotation possible for one symmetric mass pair and thus 
there is only one H*-H* state fora a pair of protons where as D*-D* can have 4 
bonds.
Consequently the next H*-H* condensation only works if you have 2 H*-H* and 
does not work not for a single pair. This is what Mills missed.

J.W.

Am 07.02.20 um 16:54 schrieb 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:
Fran—

You seem to imply that nature changes depending on your observation position—at 
the center of a local hydrogen at 3rd base of a lattice nuclet or far away in 
the batter’s box.  Is my inference correct?

Also you suggest more than one temporal (time) direction.  This suggests 3 or 
maybe 6 possible time directions relative to 3rd base—up, down, back front left 
or right.  Can you explain temporal direction in more detail?  Is there no 
global time that applies to all points in space, once that point is created?

Bob Cook


From: Roarty, Francis X<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Hi Jones, I still suspect Casimir geometry is actually relativistic and the 
math they are using is giving the dimensions from  local hydrogen perspective 
while from our perspective the hydrogen inside the hydride dilates becoming 
both faster and “relatively” smaller, packing out further and further on the 
temporal axis while simultaneously getting harder and harder to detect from the 
macro world. I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with 
the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 3d 
base structure of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional hydrogen in 
either temporal direction from the lattice.
Fran


From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 9:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen spa

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jurg—

Four questions that come to mind are:

  *   What is the distance in 3-D space between the D*-D* centers needed to 
start a common rotation of their respective flux rotations?
  *   What matching is necessary of angular alignment of the axes of the 
respective flux rotation toruses, if any, to allow the common rotation and 
transition to a He* with the creation of new free space?
  *   And does the new space volume (in 3-D) have any local time associated 
with flux rotation frequency or is there no local frequency of magnetic 
flux—i.e., no flux in the new space once the photon leaves the new space?
  *   Is there any specific volume in 3-D associated with the new space?

These questions may be good to consider at the workshop.

Bob
From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 2:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional hydrogen when 
trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with the lattice as 
just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 3d base structure 
of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional hydrogen in either 
temporal direction from the lattice.

The restriction for Mills/hydrino like condensation is given by the symmetry of 
the fields and space. Orbits with same mass and topology can condensate what 
means start a common rotation what classically frees space-time what is 
equivalent to releasing energy.

As said: In the Holmlid case we see such orbit pairing going downhill from 8 H* 
--> 2 4-He (8-Be) with a proton finally taking over the excess energy. This has 
nothing in common with Mills model as there always must be a final state with a 
higher stability/density = number of flux rotations.

There is just one more rotation possible for one symmetric mass pair and thus 
there is only one H*-H* state fora a pair of protons where as D*-D* can have 4 
bonds.
Consequently the next H*-H* condensation only works if you have 2 H*-H* and 
does not work not for a single pair. This is what Mills missed.

J.W.

Am 07.02.20 um 16:54 schrieb 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:
Fran—

You seem to imply that nature changes depending on your observation position—at 
the center of a local hydrogen at 3rd base of a lattice nuclet or far away in 
the batter’s box.  Is my inference correct?

Also you suggest more than one temporal (time) direction.  This suggests 3 or 
maybe 6 possible time directions relative to 3rd base—up, down, back front left 
or right.  Can you explain temporal direction in more detail?  Is there no 
global time that applies to all points in space, once that point is created?

Bob Cook


From: Roarty, Francis X<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Hi Jones, I still suspect Casimir geometry is actually relativistic and the 
math they are using is giving the dimensions from  local hydrogen perspective 
while from our perspective the hydrogen inside the hydride dilates becoming 
both faster and “relatively” smaller, packing out further and further on the 
temporal axis while simultaneously getting harder and harder to detect from the 
macro world. I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with 
the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 3d 
base structure of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional hydrogen in 
either temporal direction from the lattice.
Fran


From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 9:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen spacing - 
in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.

However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all, and 
therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.

Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this work 
aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of superconductivity 
at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of LENR are somehow 
related.

Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic 
ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html

It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field and the 
extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.



Terry Blanton wrote:

An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen atoms in a 
metal hydride materi

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional hydrogen 
when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with the 
lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 
3d base structure of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional 
hydrogen in either temporal direction from the lattice.


The restriction for Mills/hydrino like condensation is given by the 
symmetry of the fields and space. Orbits with same mass and topology can 
condensate what means start a common rotation what classically frees 
space-time what is equivalent to releasing energy.


As said: In the Holmlid case we see such orbit pairing going downhill 
from 8 H* --> 2 4-He (8-Be) with a proton finally taking over the excess 
energy. This has nothing in common with Mills model as there always must 
be a final state with a higher stability/density = number of flux rotations.


There is just one more rotation possible for one symmetric mass pair and 
thus there is only one H*-H* state fora a pair of protons where as D*-D* 
can have 4 bonds.
Consequently the next H*-H* condensation only works if you have 2 H*-H* 
and does not work not for a single pair. This is what Mills missed.


J.W.

Am 07.02.20 um 16:54 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Fran—

You seem to imply that nature changes depending on your observation 
position—at the center of a local hydrogen at 3^rd base of a lattice 
nuclet or far away in the batter’s box. Is my inference correct?


Also you suggest more than one temporal (time) direction.  This 
suggests 3 or maybe 6 possible time directions relative to 3^rd 
base—up, down, back front left or right.  Can you explain temporal 
direction in more detail?  Is there _no_ global time that applies to 
all points in space, once that point is created?


Bob Cook

*From: *Roarty, Francis X <mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
*Sent: *Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:37 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Hi Jones, I still suspect Casimir geometry is actually relativistic 
and the math they are using is giving the dimensions from  local 
hydrogen perspective while from our perspective the hydrogen inside 
the hydride dilates becoming both faster and “relatively” smaller, 
packing out further and further on the temporal axis while 
simultaneously getting harder and harder to detect from the macro 
world. I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a 
pyramid with the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can 
dilate out from the 3d base structure of the metal lattice and form 
blankets of fractional hydrogen in either temporal direction from the 
lattice.


Fran

*From:* Jones Beene 
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 04, 2020 9:19 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen 
spacing - in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.


However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at 
all, and therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.


Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and 
this work aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of 
superconductivity at greater than room temperature - and the 
occurrence of LENR are somehow related.


Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 
atomic ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high 
pressure.


https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html

It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field 
and the extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.


Terry Blanton wrote:

*/An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen 
atoms in a metal hydride material are much more tightly spaced than 
had been predicted for decades — a feature that could possibly 
facilitate superconductivity at or near room temperature and pressure./*


https://scitechdaily.com/room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Fran—

You seem to imply that nature changes depending on your observation position—at 
the center of a local hydrogen at 3rd base of a lattice nuclet or far away in 
the batter’s box.  Is my inference correct?

Also you suggest more than one temporal (time) direction.  This suggests 3 or 
maybe 6 possible time directions relative to 3rd base—up, down, back front left 
or right.  Can you explain temporal direction in more detail?  Is there no 
global time that applies to all points in space, once that point is created?

Bob Cook


From: Roarty, Francis X<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Hi Jones, I still suspect Casimir geometry is actually relativistic and the 
math they are using is giving the dimensions from  local hydrogen perspective 
while from our perspective the hydrogen inside the hydride dilates becoming 
both faster and “relatively” smaller, packing out further and further on the 
temporal axis while simultaneously getting harder and harder to detect from the 
macro world. I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with 
the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 3d 
base structure of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional hydrogen in 
either temporal direction from the lattice.
Fran


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 9:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen spacing - 
in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.

However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all, and 
therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.

Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this work 
aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of superconductivity 
at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of LENR are somehow 
related.

Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic 
ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html

It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field and the 
extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.



Terry Blanton wrote:

An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen atoms in a 
metal hydride material are much more tightly spaced than had been predicted for 
decades — a feature that could possibly facilitate superconductivity at or near 
room temperature and pressure.

https://scitechdaily.com/room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Roarty, Francis X]

Hi Jones, I still suspect Casimir geometry is actually relativistic and the 
math they are using is giving the dimensions from  local hydrogen perspective 
while from our perspective the hydrogen inside the hydride dilates becoming 
both faster and “relatively” smaller, packing out further and further on the 
temporal axis while simultaneously getting harder and harder to detect from the 
macro world. I think Mills was accurate about self catalyzing of fractional 
hydrogen when trapped in a lattice, like cheerleaders forming a pyramid with 
the lattice as just the ground floor I suspect they can dilate out from the 3d 
base structure of the metal lattice and form blankets of fractional hydrogen in 
either temporal direction from the lattice.
Fran


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 9:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen spacing - 
in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.

However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all, and 
therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.

Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this work 
aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of superconductivity 
at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of LENR are somehow 
related.

Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic 
ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html

It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field and the 
extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.



Terry Blanton wrote:

An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen atoms in a 
metal hydride material are much more tightly spaced than had been predicted for 
decades — a feature that could possibly facilitate superconductivity at or near 
room temperature and pressure.

https://scitechdaily.com/room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Axil Axil]

roduced in a
particular data set of proton-proton collisions and how many might have
been transformed into the end products their detectors can look for.

“Leptoquarks have become one of the most tantalising ideas for extending
our calculations, as they make it possible to explain several observed
anomalies. At the LHC we are making every effort to either prove or exclude
their existence
<https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=1=AND=leptoquark=title=y_archives=hep-ex_by=all_dates=_date=_date=_type=submitted_date=show=50=-announced_date_first>,”
says Roman Kogler, a physicist on CMS who worked on this search.

After sifting through collision events looking for specific
characteristics, CMS saw no excess in the data that might point to the
existence of third-generation leptoquarks. The scientists were therefore
able to conclude that any LQ3 that transform exclusively to a top-tau pair
would need to be at least 900 GeV in mass, or around five times heavier
than the top quark, the heaviest particle we have observed.

The limits placed by CMS on the mass of third-generation leptoquarks are
the tightest so far. CMS has also searched for third-generation leptoquarks
that transform into a tau lepton and a bottom quark, concluding that such
leptoquarks would need to be at least 740 GeV in mass
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.03472>. However, it is important to note that
this result comes from the examination of only a fraction of LHC data at 13
TeV, from 2016. Further searches from CMS and ATLAS
<https://home.cern/about/experiments/atlas> that take into account data
from 2017 as well as the forthcoming run of 2018 will ensure that the LHC
can continue to test theories about the fundamental nature of our universe.

*See also “CMS searches for third-generation leptoquarks
<https://cerncourier.com/cms-searches-for-third-generation-leptoquarks/>”
in the *CERN Courier*’s April 2018 issue**.*
lepton <https://home.cern/tags/lepton>quark <https://home.cern/tags/quark>
CMS <https://home.cern/tags/cms>

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:51 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Leptoquark—It carries information.  That’s a new idea for me.
>
>
>
> Is this just more SM fudgers making more fudge?   I would hope there is
> a model for how these imaginary particles carry the information to their
> inter generational clients—other imaginary particles.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> -----------
>
> *From: *Axil Axil 
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 6, 2020 12:40 AM
> *To: *vortex-l 
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride
>
>
>
> This particle is believed to have existed at the very beginning of the
> universe,
>
> See
> Leptoquark
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptoquark
>
> Leptoquarks are hypothetical particles that would carry information
> between a generation of quarks and a generation of leptons, thus allowing
> quarks and leptons to interact.
>
> Current best limits on leptoquarks are set by LHC, which has been
> searching for the first, second, and third generation of leptoquarks and
> some mixed-generation leptoquarks.
>
> Leptoquarks could explain the reason for the three generations of matter.
> Furthermore, leptoquarks could explain why the same number of quarks and
> leptons exist and many other similarities between the quark and the lepton
> sectors. At high energies, at which leptons (which are not affected by the
> strong force) and quarks (that cannot be separately observed because of the
> strong force) become one;
>
> This particle could be an actor during the transmutation process in ultra
> dense matter
> Holmlid could prove the existence of Leptoquarks.
>
> Also
>
> X and Y bosons
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_and_Y_bosons
>
> In particle physics, the X and Y bosons (sometimes collectively called "X
> bosons"[1]:437) are hypothetical elementary particles analogous to the W
> and Z bosons,
>
> The EVO may be producing these industrial strength "Intermediate Vector
> Bosons"
>
> The X and Y bosons couple quarks to leptons, allowing violation of the
> conservation of baryon number, and thus permitting proton decay.<
>
> Since Holmlid is seeing proton decay, he may be producing these powerful
> IVBs
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Nicholas Palmer wrote:
>
>
>
> This brings to mind the 'Cincinnati group' ... The late lamented Chris
> Tinsley showed me a tile which he had burned right through himself using
> the CCs 'secret sauce' which he told me contained zirconium... coincidence?
>
>
>
>
>
> Not only the zirconium turns up unexpectedly --- Lochak et al mention
> vanadium as being especially active in LENR...
>
>
>
> Hmm... yet another coincidence?
>
>
>
> (the Oak Ridge results were with a hydride of zirconium and vanadium)
>
>
>
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/db63/d5e889be09ad59c4cabc92354ee692e9876e.pdf
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Bob,Andrew,

30 years ago Mills detected why the cosmos must expand. During photon 
like decay the space matter occupies increases as the packaging will 
become less dense (in average fewer rotations - this Mills did not 
find/understand ...). Basically space time increases if photons are 
produced!
Mills also calculated the expansion speed based on total mass and energy 
dissipated by the universe. And yes the figure was pretty close to the 
real one...
This was the main reason physicists hate Mills as this was the first 
indication that GER and SM are a total fail.


As said there is and was never dark mass in the universe except you call 
e.g. H* dark mass as it mostly radiates in the non visible ("dark"..) 
region (what is not true for

Rydberg clusters..) ...

What we definitely know is that some cosmologists missed their advanced 
mechanics class and did/still do not understand why rotations at the 
border of a spiral galaxy must be faster then based on primitive 
potential model due to coupled rotations.


For me all these discussions have only one primitive and old target: 
Make something interesting an generate money. If it worked in the CERN 
case - inventing "fake" particles instead of reporting resonances - why 
should it not work for others too.


J.W.

Am 06.02.20 um 19:37 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Andrew—

 1. Regarding a statement in comment #2: . “Since mass interaction is
always attractive, a non-zero average mass might be measured, even
if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter to
antimatter,” I note the following.

Cosmologists consider that dark energy is causing the expansion of the 
Universe in opposition of mass and associated its  attraction.  This 
suggests a negative mass is equivalent to negative energy.  But dark 
energy is considered positive energy as I understand theory of GR used 
by the cosmologists.


In your model is anti-matter like the cosmologist’s dark energy with a 
repulsive force to real matter?  Oscillation along the time axis seems 
to be a key concept that distinguishes matter and antimatter.  Is this 
consistent with SM or GR?


Regarding your comment #4, can I infer that nuclear angular momentum 
is quantized for the same reason that electrons energies in nuclei are 
quantized in their orbits.


Jurg may be able to shed light on this inference.

Bob Cook

*From: *Andrew Meulenberg <mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:58 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg 
<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>

*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

BOB,

Your 3 questions below can all be answered in the context of a 
"nuclear electron".


On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:38 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:


Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation?

And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions?

And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in
discrete quanta or as a discrete differential values on an
otherwise continuous scale of space and time?

 2. I propose that the neutrino is to beta decay as a photon is to
atomic-electron orbit decay. However,
 3. the neutrino is EM plus mass (EMM?) oscillation from a bound
relativistic electron. And, just as a photon does not have a fixed
electric or magnetic field, I do not believe that neutrino mass is
a fixed quantity. Since mass interaction is always attractive, a
non-zero average mass might be measured, even if it oscillates
equally along the time axis from matter to antimatter.
 4. Angular momentum is discreet for the same reason that electron
orbits are quantized. Integration along a closed path in a
conservative system has delta E = 0 (from one path to the next).
The path closure depends on all degrees of freedom. The direction
of a body's ang mom axis, which precesses, as a result of its
motion (a relativistic effect that gives the deBroglie relation)
and from its binding potential (providing a torque), must be
cyclic (just as the body's position and momentum must be cyclic
for a stable path) if path closure is to be achieved.

Item 3 is the classical basis for QM. Items 1 & 2 are not yet 
considered for the neutrino in nuclear and QM physics.


Andrew

 _ _ _

(Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise
continuous scale of a classical geometric math abstraction from
Newton on.)

Axil’s familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple
questions.

IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only
discrete differential frequencies associated with magnet flux
rotation in distinct discrete volumes---may help explain the
angular momentum quanta deduced  from experimental observation

RE: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Leptoquark—It carries information.  That’s a new idea for me.

Is this just more SM fudgers making more fudge?   I would hope there is a 
model for how these imaginary particles carry the information to their inter 
generational clients—other imaginary particles.

Bob Cook

---
From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 12:40 AM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

This particle is believed to have existed at the very beginning of the universe,

See
Leptoquark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptoquark

Leptoquarks are hypothetical particles that would carry information between a 
generation of quarks and a generation of leptons, thus allowing quarks and 
leptons to interact.

Current best limits on leptoquarks are set by LHC, which has been searching for 
the first, second, and third generation of leptoquarks and some 
mixed-generation leptoquarks.

Leptoquarks could explain the reason for the three generations of matter. 
Furthermore, leptoquarks could explain why the same number of quarks and 
leptons exist and many other similarities between the quark and the lepton 
sectors. At high energies, at which leptons (which are not affected by the 
strong force) and quarks (that cannot be separately observed because of the 
strong force) become one;

This particle could be an actor during the transmutation process in ultra dense 
matter
Holmlid could prove the existence of Leptoquarks.

Also

X and Y bosons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_and_Y_bosons

In particle physics, the X and Y bosons (sometimes collectively called "X 
bosons"[1]:437) are hypothetical elementary particles analogous to the W and Z 
bosons,

The EVO may be producing these industrial strength "Intermediate Vector Bosons"

The X and Y bosons couple quarks to leptons, allowing violation of the 
conservation of baryon number, and thus permitting proton decay.<

Since Holmlid is seeing proton decay, he may be producing these powerful IVBs

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Nicholas Palmer wrote:

This brings to mind the 'Cincinnati group' ... The late lamented Chris Tinsley 
showed me a tile which he had burned right through himself using the CCs 
'secret sauce' which he told me contained zirconium... coincidence?


Not only the zirconium turns up unexpectedly --- Lochak et al mention vanadium 
as being especially active in LENR...

Hmm... yet another coincidence?

(the Oak Ridge results were with a hydride of zirconium and vanadium)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/db63/d5e889be09ad59c4cabc92354ee692e9876e.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Andrew—


  1.  Regarding a statement in comment #2: . “Since mass interaction is always 
attractive, a non-zero average mass might be measured, even if it oscillates 
equally along the time axis from matter to antimatter,” I note the following.
Cosmologists consider that dark energy is causing the expansion of the Universe 
in opposition of mass and associated its  attraction.  This suggests a negative 
mass is equivalent to negative energy.  But dark energy is considered positive 
energy as I understand theory of GR used by the cosmologists.
In your model is anti-matter like the cosmologist’s dark energy with a 
repulsive force to real matter?  Oscillation along the time axis seems to be a 
key concept that distinguishes matter and antimatter.  Is this consistent with 
SM or GR?
Regarding your comment #4, can I infer that nuclear angular momentum is 
quantized for the same reason that electrons energies in nuclei are quantized 
in their orbits.
Jurg may be able to shed light on this inference.
Bob Cook

From: Andrew Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:58 AM
To: VORTEX<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Andrew 
Meulenberg<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

BOB,

Your 3 questions below can all be answered in the context of a "nuclear 
electron".

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:38 PM 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation?

And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions?

  And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in discrete quanta 
or as a discrete differential values on an otherwise continuous scale of space 
and time?

  1.  I propose that the neutrino is to beta decay as a photon is to 
atomic-electron orbit decay. However,
  2.  the neutrino is EM plus mass (EMM?) oscillation from a bound relativistic 
electron. And, just as a photon does not have a fixed electric or magnetic 
field, I do not believe that neutrino mass is a fixed quantity. Since mass 
interaction is always attractive, a non-zero average mass might be measured, 
even if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter to antimatter.
  3.  Angular momentum is discreet for the same reason that electron orbits are 
quantized. Integration along a closed path in a conservative system has delta E 
= 0 (from one path to the next). The path closure depends on all degrees of 
freedom. The direction of a body's ang mom axis, which precesses, as a result 
of its motion (a relativistic effect that gives the deBroglie relation) and 
from its binding potential (providing a torque), must be cyclic (just as the 
body's position and momentum must be cyclic for a stable path) if path closure 
is to be achieved.
Item 3 is the classical basis for QM. Items 1 & 2 are not yet considered for 
the neutrino in nuclear and QM physics.

Andrew
 _ _ _
(Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise continuous scale 
of a classical geometric math abstraction from Newton on.)

Axil’s  familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple questions.

IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only discrete 
differential frequencies associated with magnet flux rotation in distinct 
discrete volumes---may help explain the angular momentum quanta deduced  from 
experimental observations.

As Russ George has noted, Jurg’s different nuclear magnetic resonance 
calculations stemming from the SO(4) Physics model of specific nuclear isotopes 
has borne fruit in designing good LENR fuel systems, subject to magnetic 
manipulations in a reactor.

Bob Cook


From: aJs ones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Jürg

This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to engineer 
proton disintegration with minimal input energy.

To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths in 
question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that information, 
one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that resonance, possibly with a 
beat wave.

Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a lower value 
which works?

In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is around 1.5 
fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with available lasers.

Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser. Holmlid 
may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not optimum. Who knows? 
Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much shorter wavelength.

Jones



Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base state has 9 
> waves The Holmlid proton spli

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Axil Axil]

This particle is believed to have existed at the very beginning of the
universe,

See
Leptoquark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptoquark

Leptoquarks are hypothetical particles that would carry information between
a generation of quarks and a generation of leptons, thus allowing quarks
and leptons to interact.

Current best limits on leptoquarks are set by LHC, which has been searching
for the first, second, and third generation of leptoquarks and some
mixed-generation leptoquarks.

Leptoquarks could explain the reason for the three generations of matter.
Furthermore, leptoquarks could explain why the same number of quarks and
leptons exist and many other similarities between the quark and the lepton
sectors. At high energies, at which leptons (which are not affected by the
strong force) and quarks (that cannot be separately observed because of the
strong force) become one;

This particle could be an actor during the transmutation process in ultra
dense matter
Holmlid could prove the existence of Leptoquarks.

Also

X and Y bosons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_and_Y_bosons

In particle physics, the X and Y bosons (sometimes collectively called "X
bosons"[1]:437) are hypothetical elementary particles analogous to the W
and Z bosons,

The EVO may be producing these industrial strength "Intermediate Vector
Bosons"

The X and Y bosons couple quarks to leptons, allowing violation of the
conservation of baryon number, and thus permitting proton decay.<

Since Holmlid is seeing proton decay, he may be producing these powerful
IVBs

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Nicholas Palmer wrote:
>
> This brings to mind the 'Cincinnati group' ... The late lamented Chris
> Tinsley showed me a tile which he had burned right through himself using
> the CCs 'secret sauce' which he told me contained zirconium... coincidence?
>
>
> Not only the zirconium turns up unexpectedly --- Lochak et al mention
> vanadium as being especially active in LENR...
>
> Hmm... yet another coincidence?
>
> (the Oak Ridge results were with a hydride of zirconium and vanadium)
>
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/db63/d5e889be09ad59c4cabc92354ee692e9876e.pdf
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Andrew Meulenberg]

BOB,

Your 3 questions below can all be answered in the context of a "nuclear
electron".

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:38 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation?
>
>
>
> And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions?
>
>
>
>   And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in discrete
> quanta or as a discrete differential values on an otherwise continuous
> scale of space and time?
>

   1. I propose that the neutrino is to beta decay as a photon is to
   atomic-electron orbit decay. However,
   2. the neutrino is EM plus mass (EMM?) oscillation from a bound
   relativistic electron. And, just as a photon does not have a fixed electric
   or magnetic field, I do not believe that neutrino mass is a fixed quantity.
   Since mass interaction is always attractive, a non-zero average mass might
   be measured, even if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter
   to antimatter.
   3. Angular momentum is discreet for the same reason that electron orbits
   are quantized. Integration along a closed path in a conservative system has
   delta E = 0 (from one path to the next). The path closure depends on all
   degrees of freedom. The direction of a body's ang mom axis, which
   precesses, as a result of its motion (a relativistic effect that gives the
   deBroglie relation) and from its binding potential (providing a torque),
   must be cyclic (just as the body's position and momentum must be cyclic for
   a stable path) if path closure is to be achieved.

Item 3 is the classical basis for QM. Items 1 & 2 are not yet considered
for the neutrino in nuclear and QM physics.

Andrew
 _ _ _

> (Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise continuous
> scale of a classical geometric math abstraction from Newton on.)
>
>
>
> Axil’s  familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple questions.
>
>
>
> IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only discrete
> differential frequencies associated with magnet flux rotation in distinct
> discrete volumes---may help explain the angular momentum quanta deduced
>  from experimental observations.
>
>
>
> As Russ George has noted, Jurg’s different nuclear magnetic resonance
> calculations stemming from the SO(4) Physics model of specific nuclear
> isotopes has borne fruit in designing good LENR fuel systems, subject to
> magnetic manipulations in a reactor.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: a*Js ones Beene 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:16 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride
>
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to engineer
> proton disintegration with minimal input energy.
>
>
>
> To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths in
> question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that
> information, one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that resonance,
> possibly with a beat wave.
>
>
>
> Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a lower
> value which works?
>
>
>
> In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is
> around 1.5 fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with available
> lasers.
>
>
>
> Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser.
> Holmlid may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not
> optimum. Who knows? Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much shorter
> wavelength.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>
>
> > The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base state
> has 9 waves The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton is: One out
> of 9 proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances what leaves behind
> a (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves.
> This wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV
> for the split is delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be)
> conversion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Jones,

I also do think that there could be more optimal wave length. (they 
probably know it.. how to get the right negative muons).


The calculation shows that the imputing energy (wave - topology) of 
polarized photons is in fact homomorphous to the so called 1x1 X (1x1 = 
back side) 1FC orbit or simply the symmetric coupling of two identical 
waves or a resonance of it. (resonances of a wave are topological 
allowed integer fractions)


The proton 3D/4D perturbative mass is indeed = 11.4MeV (finally 11 MeV 
for scattering) what is also the sum of the measured quark masses for 
the 3 neutral waves. The perturbation is given by the coupling (don't 
forget the 2-->3 weight!)  with the 272kev potential (1x1) generating 
waves and to smaller extent with the relativistic ( 4 rotation) core 
mass. (what finally gives 11Mev)


As said: All magnetic waves with the same topology can potentially 
couple. (What SM believes to be virtual particles...). Such a  coupling 
is immediate and not restricted by the speed of light. (Same as spooky 
action on a distance). If you hit the soft spot then - bang.


With a laser you just add energy to a (1x1) orbit - the visible side of 
the orbit. Due to overloading of the field  - stored energy - cannot 
relax, as the mean relaxation time is much longer than the delayed 
arrival of the next photon. It's like incrementing a counter.


But there is one trick. The 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be) conversion to Kaons 
is exothermic ( not for 4Deuterium*) . Thus the added energy is not 
delivering the Kaon split energy. The added energy that synchronizes 
with the 2 potential waves and indirectly with its multiple the (2x2) 
core wave *increases the magnetic moment* what induces a stronger 
coupling of the 8H*. (what also Mills claimed..)
In H* the proton 3D/4D perturbative mass is 1FC paired. The 8H* --> 2 
4-He process exactly releases 4 3D/4D perturbative masses + 4 (4-He) 
internal deuterium bond energies.
So we can draw the following picture: When the resonant 8H* coupling 
energy hits the 1/7 proton (a ninth proton!)  wave excess energy then a 
proton can resonantly take it over and splits as it converts from 3x3 9 
waves to 8 - 2x2 .. 2x2 + 1/7. or finally 2x2 + 1/14 .. 2x2 + 1/14. 
Whether the Kaon has a ("long-time") stable wave structure or not has to 
be modeled and proven by better experiments.


The Holmlid process is the highlight of this centuries physics as it 
shows a new path to physics and how to model it. It also enables a 
terribly cheap table top production of Kaons,Pions, Muons. And in fact 
the fraction of -u depends on the setup! An of course the production of 
Helium has been confirmed albeit it is obvious from the SO(4) physics model.


J.W.



Am 05.02.20 um 18:16 schrieb Jones Beene:

Jürg

This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to 
engineer proton disintegration with minimal input energy.


To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths 
in question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that 
information, one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that 
resonance, possibly with a beat wave.


Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a 
lower value which works?


In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is 
around 1.5 fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with 
available lasers.


Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser. 
Holmlid may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not 
optimum. Who knows? Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much 
shorter wavelength.


Jones



Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base 
state has 9 waves The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton 
is: One out of 9 proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances 
what leaves behind a (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding 
glue of the 3D/4D waves. This wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 
8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV for the split is delivered from the 
resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be) conversion.





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation?

And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions?

  And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in discrete quanta 
or as a discrete differential values on an otherwise continuous scale of space 
and time?  (Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise 
continuous scale of a classical geometric math abstraction from Newton on.)

Axil’s  familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple questions.

IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only discrete 
differential frequencies associated with magnet flux rotation in distinct 
discrete volumes---may help explain the angular momentum quanta deduced  from 
experimental observations.

As Russ George has noted, Jurg’s different nuclear magnetic resonance 
calculations stemming from the SO(4) Physics model of specific nuclear isotopes 
has borne fruit in designing good LENR fuel systems, subject to magnetic 
manipulations in a reactor.

Bob Cook


From: aJs ones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

Jürg

This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to engineer 
proton disintegration with minimal input energy.

To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths in 
question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that information, 
one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that resonance, possibly with a 
beat wave.

Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a lower value 
which works?

In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is around 1.5 
fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with available lasers.

Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser. Holmlid 
may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not optimum. Who knows? 
Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much shorter wavelength.

Jones



Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base state has 9 
> waves The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton is: One out of 9 
> proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances what leaves behind a 
> (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves. This 
> wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV for the 
> split is delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be) conversion.

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jones Beene]

 Jürg
This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to engineer 
proton disintegration with minimal input energy. 

To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance wavelengths in 
question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th waves). From that information, 
one could presumably try to maximally disrupt that resonance, possibly with a 
beat wave. 

Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a lower value 
which works? 

In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton is around 1.5 
fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with available lasers.

Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a laser. Holmlid 
may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength which is not optimum. Who knows? 
Perhaps his laser somehow stimulates a much shorter wavelength.

 Jones


Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:  
> The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base state has 9 
> waves The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton is: One out of 9 
> proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances what leaves behind a 
> (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves. This 
> wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV for the 
> split is delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be) conversion. 
 
  

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Axil:

The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves.  The proton base state 
has 9 waves (SM only sees 3.. what is an allowed simplification)


The Holmlid proton split seen from the proton is: One out of 9 proton 
waves starts the an orthognal 1/7 resonances what leaves behind a 
(2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves. 
This wave pack (4x4) is repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 
53MeV for the split is delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 
8-Be) conversion.


The calculation shows that the Kaon split energy into K^o ,K^+ is 
exactly one Pion (1/7) wave excess (virtual) energy. The same holds for 
the internal binding charge that exactly shows that the Kaon has 4 
internal charge bound waves and the Pion 3.


Just forget the Micky Mouse SM.

J.W.




Am 05.02.20 um 01:15 schrieb Axil Axil:
Under your framework, how do you explain how Holmlid produces proton 
decay?


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:01 PM Jürg Wyttenbach > wrote:


Axil

You are an SM -junky.

Despite claiming to have found the mass generating (Higgs)
"particle" - what is a logical contradiction in itself, SM is
still not able to calculate any particle mass.

All quarks masses are still 1000 miles off as all other related/
invented "pseudo particles".

SM is a stamp collection of virtual resonances of high energy
interactions nothing else.

If you believe that LENR = *no kinetic momentum* fusion can be
explain by knowledge gained with *maximum momentum* particle
interaction, then this is beyond all flat earth claims.
May be you should first restart to understand simple Newton physics.

J.W.




Am 04.02.20 um 22:09 schrieb Axil Axil:

Correction of the links below

One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR
reaction is the "decay" of the proton that is seen through the
action of ultra dense hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.

Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force
 X "Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the
big brother of the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force
mediated decays.

If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first
understand where the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced
by the Higgs field. The Higgs field makes the weak force work and
therefore also the LENR reaction.

The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the
Higgs field.

This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi
leveled reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level:
that is either the Z or the X IVB.

This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand
unification theory.

The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a
weak force reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of
radioactive isotopes. Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno
reactor may only produce the weak LENR reaction where no
transmutation of elements occurs and therefore has a very low
COP. Its energy only comes from Hawking radiation only.

The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by
the X IVB. It will produce decay of the proton which leads to
transmutation of elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.

The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong
false Higgs field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense
Matter as seen in the Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This
strong reaction gets its energy from mass to energy conversion
and has a very high COP.

For more background, See

THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html

Also see

Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)

https://youtu.be/hFnavyFRgT0


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:00 PM Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:

One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR
reaction is the "decay" of the proton that is seen through
the action of ultra dense hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.

Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak
Force  X "Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle
is the big brother of the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak
force mediated decays.

If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first
understand where the Z IVB comes from. This particle is
produced by the Higgs field. The Higgs field makes the weak
force work and therefore also the LENR reaction.

The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the
Higgs field.

This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a
multi leveled reaction that correspond to the IVB family
member level: that is either the Z or the X IVB.

 

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Axil Axil]

Under your framework, how do you explain how Holmlid produces proton decay?

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:01 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Axil
>
> You are an SM -junky.
>
> Despite claiming to have found the mass generating (Higgs) "particle" -
> what is a logical contradiction in itself, SM is still not able to
> calculate any particle mass.
>
> All quarks masses are still 1000 miles off as all other related/ invented
> "pseudo particles".
>
> SM is a stamp collection of virtual resonances of high energy interactions
> nothing else.
>
> If you believe that LENR = *no kinetic momentum* fusion can be explain by
> knowledge gained with *maximum momentum* particle interaction, then this
> is beyond all flat earth claims.
> May be you should first restart to understand simple Newton physics.
>
> J.W.
>
>
>
>
> Am 04.02.20 um 22:09 schrieb Axil Axil:
>
> Correction of the links below
>
> One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR reaction is
> the "decay" of the proton that is seen through the action of ultra dense
> hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.
>
> Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force  X
> "Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big brother of
> the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated decays.
>
> If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first understand where
> the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced by the Higgs field. The
> Higgs field makes the weak force work and therefore also the LENR reaction.
>
> The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the Higgs field.
>
>
> This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi leveled
> reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level: that is either the
> Z or the X IVB.
>
> This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification theory.
>
> The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak force
> reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of radioactive isotopes.
> Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor may only produce the weak LENR
> reaction where no transmutation of elements occurs and therefore has a very
> low COP. Its energy only comes from Hawking radiation only.
>
> The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the X IVB.
> It will produce decay of the proton which leads to transmutation of
> elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.
>
> The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false Higgs
> field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter as seen in the
> Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong reaction gets its energy from
> mass to energy conversion and has a very high COP.
>
> For more background, See
>
> THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
> http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html
>
> Also see
>
> Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)
>
> https://youtu.be/hFnavyFRgT0
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:00 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR reaction is
>> the "decay" of the proton that is seen through the action of ultra dense
>> hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.
>>
>> Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force  X
>> "Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big brother of
>> the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated decays.
>>
>> If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first understand
>> where the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced by the Higgs field.
>> The Higgs field makes the weak force work and therefore also the LENR
>> reaction.
>>
>> The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the Higgs
>> field.
>>
>> This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi leveled
>> reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level: that is either the
>> Z or the X IVB.
>>
>> This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification theory.
>>
>> The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak force
>> reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of radioactive isotopes.
>> Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor may only produce the weak LENR
>> reaction where no transmutation of elements occurs and therefore has a very
>> low COP. Its energy only comes from Hawking radiation only.
>>
>> The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the X IVB.
>> It will produce decay of the proton which leads to transmutation of
>> elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.
>>
>> The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false Higgs
>> field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter as seen in the
>> Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong reaction gets its energy from
>> mass to energy conversion and has a very high COP.
>>
>> For more background, See
>>
>> THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Axil

You are an SM -junky.

Despite claiming to have found the mass generating (Higgs) "particle" - 
what is a logical contradiction in itself, SM is still not able to 
calculate any particle mass.


All quarks masses are still 1000 miles off as all other related/ 
invented "pseudo particles".


SM is a stamp collection of virtual resonances of high energy 
interactions nothing else.


If you believe that LENR = *no kinetic momentum* fusion can be explain 
by knowledge gained with *maximum momentum* particle interaction, then 
this is beyond all flat earth claims.

May be you should first restart to understand simple Newton physics.

J.W.




Am 04.02.20 um 22:09 schrieb Axil Axil:

Correction of the links below

One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR reaction 
is the "decay" of the proton that is seen through the action of ultra 
dense hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.


Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force  X 
"Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big 
brother of the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated decays.


If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first understand 
where the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced by the Higgs 
field. The Higgs field makes the weak force work and therefore also 
the LENR reaction.


The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the Higgs 
field.


This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi 
leveled reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level: that 
is either the Z or the X IVB.


This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification theory.

The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak 
force reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of radioactive 
isotopes. Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor may only 
produce the weak LENR reaction where no transmutation of elements 
occurs and therefore has a very low COP. Its energy only comes from 
Hawking radiation only.


The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the X 
IVB. It will produce decay of the proton which leads to transmutation 
of elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.


The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false 
Higgs field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter as 
seen in the Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong reaction 
gets its energy from mass to energy conversion and has a very high COP.


For more background, See

THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html

Also see

Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)

https://youtu.be/hFnavyFRgT0


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:00 PM Axil Axil > wrote:


One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR
reaction is the "decay" of the proton that is seen through the
action of ultra dense hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.

Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force
 X "Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big
brother of the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated
decays.

If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first
understand where the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced
by the Higgs field. The Higgs field makes the weak force work and
therefore also the LENR reaction.

The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the
Higgs field.

This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi
leveled reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level:
that is either the Z or the X IVB.

This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification
theory.

The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak
force reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of
radioactive isotopes. Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor
may only produce the weak LENR reaction where no transmutation of
elements occurs and therefore has a very low COP. Its energy only
comes from Hawking radiation only.

The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the
X IVB. It will produce decay of the proton which leads to
transmutation of elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.

The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false
Higgs field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter
as seen in the Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong
reaction gets its energy from mass to energy conversion and has a
very high COP.

For more background, See

THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
[url]http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html[/url]


Also see

Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Axil Axil]

Correction of the links below

One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR reaction is the
"decay" of the proton that is seen through the action of ultra dense
hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.

Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force  X
"Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big brother of
the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated decays.

If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first understand where
the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced by the Higgs field. The
Higgs field makes the weak force work and therefore also the LENR reaction.

The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the Higgs field.

This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi leveled
reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level: that is either the
Z or the X IVB.

This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification theory.

The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak force
reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of radioactive isotopes.
Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor may only produce the weak LENR
reaction where no transmutation of elements occurs and therefore has a very
low COP. Its energy only comes from Hawking radiation only.

The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the X IVB.
It will produce decay of the proton which leads to transmutation of
elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.

The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false Higgs
field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter as seen in the
Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong reaction gets its energy from
mass to energy conversion and has a very high COP.

For more background, See

THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html

Also see

Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)

https://youtu.be/hFnavyFRgT0


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:00 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR reaction is
> the "decay" of the proton that is seen through the action of ultra dense
> hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.
>
> Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force  X
> "Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big brother of
> the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated decays.
>
> If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first understand where
> the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced by the Higgs field. The
> Higgs field makes the weak force work and therefore also the LENR reaction.
>
> The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the Higgs field.
>
>
> This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi leveled
> reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level: that is either the
> Z or the X IVB.
>
> This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification theory.
>
> The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak force
> reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of radioactive isotopes.
> Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor may only produce the weak LENR
> reaction where no transmutation of elements occurs and therefore has a very
> low COP. Its energy only comes from Hawking radiation only.
>
> The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the X IVB.
> It will produce decay of the proton which leads to transmutation of
> elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.
>
> The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false Higgs
> field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter as seen in the
> Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong reaction gets its energy from
> mass to energy conversion and has a very high COP.
>
> For more background, See
>
> THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
> [url]http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html[/url]
>
> Also see
>
> Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)
>
> [url]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnavyFRgT0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnavyFRgT0[/url]
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:18 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen
>> spacing - in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.
>>
>> However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all,
>> and therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.
>>
>> Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this
>> work aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of
>> superconductivity at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of
>> LENR are somehow related.
>>
>> Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic
>> ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.
>>
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Axil Axil]

One of the most significant clues to the nature of the LENR reaction is the
"decay" of the proton that is seen through the action of ultra dense
hydrogen as produced by Holmlid.

Proton decay points to the formation of the postulated Weak Force  X
"Intermediate Vector Bosons" ("IVBs"). This particle is the big brother of
the Z IVB that is responsible for Weak force mediated decays.

If we want to understand the LENR reaction, we must first understand where
the Z IVB comes from. This particle is produced by the Higgs field. The
Higgs field makes the weak force work and therefore also the LENR reaction.

The IVB family  is a "Goldstone boson" that is created by the Higgs field.

This origen of the IVB family is why the LENR reaction is a multi leveled
reaction that correspond to the IVB family member level: that is either the
Z or the X IVB.

This multi leveled particle structure is part of grand unification theory.

The low level LENR reaction is actioned by the Z IVB. It is a weak force
reaction that is restricted to the stabilization of radioactive isotopes.
Weak reactors like the latest Mizuno reactor may only produce the weak LENR
reaction where no transmutation of elements occurs and therefore has a very
low COP. Its energy only comes from Hawking radiation only.

The high intensity version of the LENR reaction is actioned by the X IVB.
It will produce decay of the proton which leads to transmutation of
elements and energy produced by E=MC^2.

The X IVB is a particle that is derived from an extra strong false Higgs
field that exists in the EVO produced by Ultra Dense Matter as seen in the
Holmlid, Rossi and LION reactors. This strong reaction gets its energy from
mass to energy conversion and has a very high COP.

For more background, See

THE "W" INTERMEDIATE VECTOR BOSON AND THE WEAK FORCE MECHANISM
[url]http://www.johnagowan.org/weakforce.html[/url]

Also see

Physics of the Higgs Mechanism and Particle Mass - Part 4 (of 6)

[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnavyFRgT0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnavyFRgT0[/url]


On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:18 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen
> spacing - in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.
>
> However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all,
> and therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.
>
> Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this
> work aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of
> superconductivity at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of
> LENR are somehow related.
>
> Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic
> ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.
>
> https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html
>
> It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field and
> the extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.
>
>
>
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> *An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen atoms in
> a metal hydride material are much more tightly spaced than had been
> predicted for decades — a feature that could possibly facilitate
> superconductivity at or near room temperature and pressure.*
>
>
> https://scitechdaily.com/room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jones Beene]

Nicholas Palmer wrote: 
 This brings to mind the 'Cincinnati group' ... The late lamented Chris Tinsley 
showed me a tile which he had burned right through himself using the CCs 
'secret sauce' which he told me contained zirconium... coincidence?

Not only the zirconium turns up unexpectedly --- Lochak et al mention vanadium 
as being especially active in LENR... 

Hmm... yet another coincidence? 

(the Oak Ridge results were with a hydride of zirconium and vanadium)

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/db63/d5e889be09ad59c4cabc92354ee692e9876e.pdf
  

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Nicholas Palmer]

This brings to mind the 'Cincinatti group' in the 90s, who claimed to be
able to burn through tiles using only a few watts. The late lamented Chris
Tinsley
 showed me a tile which he had burned right through himself using the CCs
'secret sauce' which he told me contained zirconium
... coincidence? He said one ought to see it go when it 'lit up'!

Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it


On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 14:18, Jones Beene  wrote:

> I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen
> spacing - in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen.
>
> However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all,
> and therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.
>
> Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this
> work aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of
> superconductivity at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of
> LENR are somehow related.
>
> Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic
> ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.
>
> https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html
>
> It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field and
> the extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.
>
>
>
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> *An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen atoms in
> a metal hydride material are much more tightly spaced than had been
> predicted for decades — a feature that could possibly facilitate
> superconductivity at or near room temperature and pressure.*
>
>
> https://scitechdaily.com/room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride

[Jones Beene]

 I was hoping that this new discovery would show much tighter hydrogen spacing 
- in keeping with the various theories for dense hydrogen. 

However, the spacing is far from pico and not extremely compact at all, and 
therefore this may result may not be related to LENR.
Fortunately, there is a lot of work going on in superhydrides - and this work 
aligns with the long-held suspicion that a transient form of superconductivity 
at greater than room temperature - and the occurrence of LENR are somehow 
related.
Here is a related paper on another superhydride with a massive 9:1 atomic 
ratio. Ratios of nine or ten to one are possible with high pressure.

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-impossible-superconductor.html
It is only a matter of time until a breakthrough occurs in this field and the 
extreme pressures now being used, become superfluous.



   Terry Blanton wrote:  
 An international team of researchers has discovered the hydrogen atoms in a 
metal hydride material are much more tightly spaced than had been predicted for 
decades — a feature that could possibly facilitate superconductivity at or near 
room temperature and pressure.

https://scitechdaily.com/room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-at-oak-ridge-national-laboratory/