RE: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

Thanks Mark

This could be a further indication of some kind of cross-identity. Of course, 
when an electron is emitted from a neutron beta decay - there are those who 
strongly believe that it arose ab initio -- and was never a part of the 3 quark 
arrangement. 

Thus - it is both an open question and a semantic issue about the meaning 
attached to the consistent appearance of muons following a proton 
disintegration.

BTW - there is a small minority who affirm that the quark is little more than a 
fiction, a place-holder. That is, it is a fiction in the sense that it was 
invented to have properties that do show up in high energy events, but it is 
has no independent identity of its own. In short, a quark could, at some future 
point in time, be redefined as a "bound triad of muons", and there is some 
evidence for that description now (and some against). Statistically, the quark 
is composed of a triad --- three of something.

Even the neutrino, another "invented particle" has been shown to have a real 
identity, having once served the same purpose, which is as place-holder, in the 
past. Not the quark.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Jurich 

... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en

http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4 
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the 
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!

Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Bob Higgins]

My understanding is that quarks don't weigh enough to constituted of
muons.  While we hear of protons and neutrons being described as an
assemblage of 3 quarks, they are talking about the valence quarks, and
there are many more quark-antiquark pairs that constitute the whole mass of
the proton or neutron.  Because of this, quarks would have to be an
assemblage of something smaller - epos for example.

Do I have it right?

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Thanks Mark
>
> This could be a further indication of some kind of cross-identity. Of
> course, when an electron is emitted from a neutron beta decay - there are
> those who strongly believe that it arose ab initio -- and was never a part
> of the 3 quark arrangement.
>
> Thus - it is both an open question and a semantic issue about the meaning
> attached to the consistent appearance of muons following a proton
> disintegration.
>
> BTW - there is a small minority who affirm that the quark is little more
> than a fiction, a place-holder. That is, it is a fiction in the sense that
> it was invented to have properties that do show up in high energy events,
> but it is has no independent identity of its own. In short, a quark could,
> at some future point in time, be redefined as a "bound triad of muons", and
> there is some evidence for that description now (and some against).
> Statistically, the quark is composed of a triad --- three of something.
>
> Even the neutrino, another "invented particle" has been shown to have a
> real identity, having once served the same purpose, which is as
> place-holder, in the past. Not the quark.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Jurich
>
> ... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:
>
> https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en
>
> http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html
>
> Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in
> 4 Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in
> the ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
> Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!
>
> Mark Jurich
>
>
>

[Vo]:LENR INFO FOR OCT 8, 2015

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/08-oct-2015.html
Yours,
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR theory

[Lennart Thornros]

When I read all the theories and how they conflict or partly agree with me
*I wonder why we do not hear about anyone replicating Holmlid's experiment.?
I am not able to set up the required components or conduct the measurements
required. However, it amazes me that we do not hear others doing it -
people with knowledge how to do this type of tests.
It seems to me that the method and the required detailed are well described
by Holmlid and by other people commenting on Holmlid's model.
I am asking because I am trying to understand the reason (hurdle) that
obviously exist in a replication.

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 Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker
>
> Why is everyone getting excited?   Louis hasn't even claimed radiation or
> transmutation or significant energy density beyond something that can be
> chemically explained.  It's just an informal email with vague hints about
> other things.  The only thing that was particularly exciting was that he
> thinks Rossi is credible.
>
> I think the Holmlid fellow is much more interesting.
>
> - Has a long history of published literature in credible journals
>
> - He's claiming real energy
>
> - He's measuring real radiation (muons, but still)
>
> Exactamundo. I agree completely. Holmlid looks like the real-deal while the
> old version of Pd-D electrolysis is mired at the subwatt level, and will
> be repeating old disappointments.
>
> The future of LENR is emerging on several fronts and clearly one of them
> is in being able to take lessons which came from cold fusion but went
> missing from the mainstream, such as dense deuterium (f/H, pychno, or
> whatever you want to call it), and putting that species into the context
> of hot fusion – so as to allow hot fusion to break out of its own private
> hell of waste and failure.
>
> Hot fusion will be the biggest beneficiary of cold fusion – in the end…
> and Leif Holmlid holds the key. MIT would be wise to recruit him on the
> spot.
>
> OK – we all realize that Holmlid’s work is also subwatt for now, but by
> using low powered lasers, which do scale up - he ties directly and
> seamlessly into ICF… which… drumroll… is a technology which is desperately 
> looking
> for just what he has to offer. Holmlid (suggested by Winterberg) offers
> the field an ICF target which can be irradiated with a thousand times
> less power, and can go into service and  past breakeven at 10,000 times
> less cost. Well… since ICF is in the purview of DoE for now (LLNL),
> better make that a hundred times less cost.
>
> That target comes from the Low Energy field, And it can turn a 50 billion
> dollar boondoggle at LLNL into the savior of the next generation of
> profligate consumers (our grandchildren) who learned to “super-size-it”…
> with few complaints from us.
>
> Jones
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid says that mesons are created in addition to muons. If that is the
case, rydberg matter has the ability to produce strong force effects since
the meson is made of a quark and its anti-quark partner. At least one quark
can be produced from the vacuum if enough energy is pumped into it.

I say that this strong force reaction arises from strong magnetism.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> My understanding is that quarks don't weigh enough to constituted of
> muons.  While we hear of protons and neutrons being described as an
> assemblage of 3 quarks, they are talking about the valence quarks, and
> there are many more quark-antiquark pairs that constitute the whole mass of
> the proton or neutron.  Because of this, quarks would have to be an
> assemblage of something smaller - epos for example.
>
> Do I have it right?
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Mark
>>
>> This could be a further indication of some kind of cross-identity. Of
>> course, when an electron is emitted from a neutron beta decay - there are
>> those who strongly believe that it arose ab initio -- and was never a part
>> of the 3 quark arrangement.
>>
>> Thus - it is both an open question and a semantic issue about the meaning
>> attached to the consistent appearance of muons following a proton
>> disintegration.
>>
>> BTW - there is a small minority who affirm that the quark is little more
>> than a fiction, a place-holder. That is, it is a fiction in the sense that
>> it was invented to have properties that do show up in high energy events,
>> but it is has no independent identity of its own. In short, a quark could,
>> at some future point in time, be redefined as a "bound triad of muons", and
>> there is some evidence for that description now (and some against).
>> Statistically, the quark is composed of a triad --- three of something.
>>
>> Even the neutrino, another "invented particle" has been shown to have a
>> real identity, having once served the same purpose, which is as
>> place-holder, in the past. Not the quark.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Jurich
>>
>> ... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:
>>
>> https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en
>>
>> http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html
>>
>> Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting
>> in 4 Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in
>> the ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
>> Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!
>>
>> Mark Jurich
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Major Coral Bleaching Crisis Spreads Worldwide

[ChemE Stewart]

Mark,

Thanks.  I will share some data/photos with vortex shortly.  Reef surveys
in Kauai are pointing to accelerated "corrosion" of the calcium (which is a
metal) reef structure, converting it to CaCl2 and CaO, both can be
byproducts of stray electrical current corrosion in saltwater, which is
common in boats around marinas with electrical current leaking into the
water. The reef skeleton in Kauai is turning orange(CaCl2) and white (CaO)
and eroding away to "nothing" back to lava rock. This is after the billions
of coral polyps are dying.

CaCO3 is LESS soluble as temperature increases, so it does not appear to be
a temperature problem disassociating the reef structure.  Conductivity of
seawater INCREASES with temperature.

We think it may be a cumulative effect of low level electrical currents
along the outside "surface" of the seawater due to skin effects from our
wireless revolution "grounding out" into the conductive seawater...

The more antennas and radars the merrier

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Mark Iverson  wrote:

> This is mainly for Stewart (ChemE) due to his hypothesis that pulsed
> Doppler radar is damaging coral reefs, but thought the Collective might
> like to see it as well…
>
>
> http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/news/2015/10/scientists-major-coral-bleaching-crisis-spreads-worldwide
>
>
>
> -mark iverson
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Even the neutrino, another "invented particle" has been shown to have a
> real identity, having once served the same purpose, which is as
> place-holder, in the past. Not the quark.


This may be true.  But the iconoclast who would disabuse us of our belief
in neutrinos owes us an alternative explanation for (a) conservation of
lepton number (or lack thereof) and the implications that flow from this
symmetry; and (b) the broadband (rather than narrowband) energies for
electrons and positrons that result from beta decays.

The current explanation for (b) is that beta decays have three daughters
rather than two (the decaying nucleus, the emitted electron/positron and
the neutrino).  In three body decays the energies assigned to each daughter
are somewhat indeterminate whereas they are known in advance if there are
only two daughters, and I think this is the same three-body scatterings in
classical mechanics.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   My understanding is that quarks don't weigh enough to constituted of 
muons. 
 
No one can be sure of that. In fact no one has a clue about the mass of quarks, 
and there is a range which varies by orders of magnitude. Since the quark is 
not really a particle with its own identity, there are a lot of educated 
guesses but no value, and there most likely can never be. The quark is fiction, 
but it is fiction which describes reality.

Usually the assigned value (best guess) is based on the actual superset 
particle, the one where quarks are claimed to appear. An up quark and down 
antiquark in a pion are said to have 140 MeV of mass energy, while in a meson 
the same EXACT combination of quarks has an apparent mass of 770 MeV!  This is 
a range of 500+ percent and there are even more extreme ranges. The shorter the 
lifetime, generally… the higher the mass-energy of the (assumed quarks) which 
is seen in collisions. This indicates that much of the real mass is actually 
“deficit mass” or binding energy. 

It is a hopeless mess in 2015, showing how little the physics establishment 
really knows, but it opens up one possibility that everyone seems to be missing 
(except possibly Axil). That is – proton disintegration, if it exists due to 
interactions of dense hydrogen and the strong force, could be gainful by itself 
– NO fusion required. 

This would be “subatomic fission” of the proton. (I am not the first to suggest 
this by any means although most of the others are SciFi). Google: “quark bomb” 
or Q-bomb.

*   While we hear of protons and neutrons being described as an assemblage 
of 3 quarks, they are talking about the valence quarks, and there are many more 
quark-antiquark pairs that constitute the whole mass of the proton or neutron.  
Because of this, quarks would have to be an assemblage of something smaller - 
epos for example.

As a fan of Don Hotson, I agree with that. Quarks may be better defined as epos 
in a particular range of configurations, which show up as muons first, then 
epos a few milliseconds later. 

Jones Beene wrote:

Thanks Mark. This could be a further indication of some kind of cross-identity. 
Of course, when an electron is emitted from a neutron beta decay - there are 
those who strongly believe that it arose ab initio -- and was never a part of 
the 3 quark arrangement.

Thus - it is both an open question and a semantic issue about the meaning 
attached to the consistent appearance of muons following a proton 
disintegration.

BTW - there is a small minority who affirm that the quark is little more than a 
fiction, a place-holder. That is, it is a fiction in the sense that it was 
invented to have properties that do show up in high energy events, but it is 
has no independent identity of its own. In short, a quark could, at some future 
point in time, be redefined as a "bound triad of muons", and there is some 
evidence for that description now (and some against). Statistically, the quark 
is composed of a triad --- three of something.

Even the neutrino, another "invented particle" has been shown to have a real 
identity, having once served the same purpose, which is as place-holder, in the 
past. Not the quark.

-Original Message-
From: Mark Jurich

... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en

http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html

Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4 
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the 
ATLAS Detector.  Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!

Mark Jurich

[Vo]:Sci. Am. never learns and never forgets

[Jed Rothwell]

Which is why they attacked the Wright brothers most recently in 2003.

Their latest on cold fusion is here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-is-now-again-for-back-to-the-future-part-ii/

I posted a message in response.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating P+F

[Finlay MacNab]

It's annoying to read this communication to MFMP :
https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1051219568242075
Statement from NRL source on their... - Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project | 
Facebook
Statement from NRL source on their position, re their data, cited in the recent 
Louis F. DeChiaro, Ph.D (NAVSEA) report "We (NRL) have stated publicly a...
Read 
more...

What is with the keystone cops routine?

My only hope is that they are trying to avoid disclosing the information before 
filing a patent claim.

To late NRL it's prior art now.

[Vo]:Major Coral Bleaching Crisis Spreads Worldwide

[Mark Iverson]

This is mainly for Stewart (ChemE) due to his hypothesis that pulsed Doppler
radar is damaging coral reefs, but thought the Collective might like to see
it as well.

http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/news/2015/10/scientists-major-coral-blea
ching-crisis-spreads-worldwide

 

-mark iverson

 

Re: [Vo]:LENR INFO FOR OCT 8, 2015

[Axil Axil]

@Ecco

You said:

"What if Lithium, as a penetrating corrosive agent (especially in the case
of Nickel), is accelerating the embrittlement/corrosion process so that
eventually, yet at a quicker rate than normal, the right nanoscale
structures can appear on the metal?"

This is a good observation. This fits in with the fuel preprocessing that
Rossi has done as seen in the Lugano test. The 100 micron nickel particle
that the preprocess method produces is covered with lithium throughout its
entire surface area. During preprocessing, the application of lithium at
high temperatures might erode the surface of the nickel particle(S) to form
nanocavities as happens in palladium at high hydrogen loading levels. Maybe
the crack idea of Ed Storms holds merit.

Parkhomov uses a low quality powder with lots of carbon on the surface.
Lithium processing might erode that carbon and leave nano cavities on the
surface of the nickel powder as occurs in palladium at high hydrogen
loading. Maybe the Russian nickel powder is good because it is so poor in
production. A powder with abundant carbon content might be the best type of
powder to use.

Furthermore, the surface of the nickel powder becomes saturated with
lithium to the point where lithium is no longer consumed in nickel
alloying. When the reaction begins with LAH, lithium is no longer consumed
and remains free and available for the LENR reaction to use.

Another thing that could be happening in the high carbon surface
preprocessing of Russian nickel powder is that lithium carbide is formed on
the surface of the powder. This lithium compound might produce both lithium
and hydrogen Rydberg matter during the reaction stage through a desorption
process at the surface of the particle right where the rydberg matter is
most needed.

However the particle preprocessing step can produce 1 nanometer cavities on
the surface of the nickel particles as exists in iron oxide(rust) is good.

Mizono uses an arc discharge to pit his substrate.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

Page 14 shows what nickel looks like after Mizono preprocesses his nickel
or palladium surface with arc discharge. A rough and pitted surface is best
in a catalyst.

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/08-oct-2015.html
> Yours,
> Peter
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>