Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Mats Lewan]

Jones, 
I tried to express a similar concept in a more 'popular' way in this blog post: 

http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/10/time-to-dispel-the-streetlight-paradox-of-energy/

Bottom line -- sooner or later, efficient access to energy stored in matter 
will make scarcity of energy be a non-issue. 

Mats

> 23 okt 2015 kl. 19:19 skrev "Jones Beene" :
> 
> A provocative question:
> 
> If we accept Holmlid’s research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can be 
> disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore – that this reaction can return 
> mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then what is the value 
> of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per gram.
> 
> Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the 
> market allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy 
> equivalent of matter-antimatter)? As the field of “cold spallation” evolves, 
> perhaps we should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from 
> water-splitting) is converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in giant 
> factories - and sold to the highest bidder – which of course is NASA and DoD.
> 
> Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home Lab, 
> due to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop vorticians 
> and assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few nanograms here 
> and there (the new moonshine?).
> 
> Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This gives 
> us an idea of its value to the highest bidder.
> 
> The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed 
> 78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty, 
> each. If – with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff weight could be 
> reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra shielding, then a 
> reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top – making the Shuttle lighter 
> than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it becomes feasible to take off 
> horizontally from an airstrip instead of vertical lift-off, even with the 
> extra weight for gamma shielding.
> 
> Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel-  LOX mass 
> 1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was almost 
> 3.85 million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost per launch 
> – don’t ask.
> 
> As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can 
> be extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated ! 
> Whoa. No wonder there are a few skeptics out there, present company included. 
> Kind of ironic that the first skeptics of cold spallation are the basically 
> the same individuals who complain so loudly about the skepticism of cold 
> fusion. J
> 
> Bottom line, there is a good argument that dense hydrogen (assuming Holmlid 
> is right) will be the most valuable commodity of the next decade… is this the 
> “next big thing” or has yours-truly been sampling moonshine of the 
> retro-variety?
> 

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

From: Stephen Cooke 

*   That nucleons may actually disintegrate is nothing short of
astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe
such huge amounts of energy?

Yes precisely. This is why it will be more controversial than cold fusion
until replicated. Many observers were left in a state of amazement, but …
all of this was in the prior papers. We talked about it here earlier. 

Sometimes you just have to hear it directly from a credible person instead
of seeing it in a paper. Ólafsson is a tall, handsome Nordic fellow - not as
charismatic as McKubre, but some of that comes with age. He is very
believable.
*   
*   900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton
(938 MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!

Yes – it is the entire mass of a nucleon which is being converted into
energy. I should not have rounded this off. Much of that energy will be lost
to neutrinos but there will be gammas. 
*   
*   When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:

1)  Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions
to Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma?

Yes. They see mesons first, then pions, then muons and finally electrons.
They have a detector. I think the skepticism from other Physicists will
focus on the detector. Ideally other detectors should be used as well. I
hope the slides will be published soon as this would require a lone time to
try to explain, otherwise.

2)  If so could it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one that
can disintegrate?

Either one or both together.
*   
*   Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in
one reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. 

If they can confirm this finding using a neutrino detector – that would go a
long way. I walked away from this with the feeling that a new door is
opening in the world of alternative energy. They may not have it completely
right, but this could represent the final hurdle in the process started in
1989 (or earlier). 

It is too bad for mainstream physics that most of them have they missed the
boat on this. If Holmlid is accurate, it makes the billions spent on the LHC
and the Higgs closer to self-promoting fraud than to the efficient
advancement of science. Unlike the situation in 1989, it will be much harder
to erect obstacles.

Let us hope that this is not a Pandora’s box which is opening.

 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

What amazes me is that Gary T. Horowitz and Eva Silverstein make
theoretical predictions based on their theories and when these predictions
turn out to come true in the real world, they can't believe it.  Very
strange.

You would think that these people would be excited by the prospect of using
LENR to experimentally verify the predictions of string theory. What a
strange time we live in.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Believe it or not...
>
> After I saw the presentation on tachyon tracks:
>
> http://restframe.com/rf/home.html
>
>  I started to read this article:
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11616.pdf
>
> The Inside Story: Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes
>
> It explains how and why Lief Holmlid is seeing mesons and muons produced
> in his experiments.
>
> These SPPs evaperate through hawking radiation untill they become stable
> and quiescent. They form a tachyon condensate inside their boundary that
> will produce quark based (mesons) particles when they receive more EMF.
>
> Holmlid says that muons are produced when his reactants are exposed to the
> fluorescent lighting in his lab. They release muons as a declining rate
> even in a dark room.
>
> The SPP hold a huge amount of energy in excess of 1,000,000 giga electron
> volts
>
> I got through to Holmlid but Holmlid does not believe in black hole LENR
> causation. I am now faced with the bleak prospect of learning black hole
> physics, string theory, tachyon physics and general relativity.
>
> The dot connecting effort has gotten into some really heavy stuff. I am
> not that smart so progress from now on will be very slow. These subjects
> are at the cutting edge of physics and chemistry so there is a limitation
> here.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Cooke  > wrote:
>
>> Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.
>>
>> If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the
>> Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions
>> onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually
>> disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are
>> actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts of energy?
>>
>> 900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938
>> MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
>>
>> When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
>>
>> 1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to
>> Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the
>> Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate?
>>
>> 2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions
>> i.e (939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be
>> released as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and
>> neutrinos or gamma?
>>
>> 3) Did they imply something else.
>>
>> Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one
>> reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation.
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: jone...@pacbell.net
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
>> Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>>
>> Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key
>> and optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater
>> also presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of
>> Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection
>> between the two … but read on.
>>
>> Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon
>> and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before.
>> However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be
>> even more controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was
>> demonstrated is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious
>> amounts of radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when
>> it gets up to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.
>>
>> However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which
>> is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain
>> the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate
>> the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving
>> dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other
>> outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions ->
>> muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron
>> disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy
>> is released than in fusion !
>>
>> There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters
>> who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand
>> Hill Road. A video crew 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>

Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid
may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently
alienated the people who could help him interpret his results that he may
be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a
misinterpretation of some kind on his part.

While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>

Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental data.
Explanations of the data are always fair game.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

Hi Mark,

 

Please ask about the lifetime of dense hydrogen, once formed, and the time 
frame for production (rate per mass of catalyst ??). Those are important 
details which are apparently not answered in Holmlid’s papers.

 

Also the magnetic properties. My guess (in answer to Bob’s question) is that 
clusters can be moved using magnetic fields. The important paper: “Efficient 
source for the production of ultradense deuterium” by Patrik U. Andersson, 
Benny Lönn, and Leif Holmlid) is 5 years old now and many details may have 
changed.

 

Rgds,

 

Jones

 

From: Mark Jurich 

 

Hi Bob (All):

 

I can answer some of your questions now, but we are going to be continuing 
discussions of the talks at San Jose State University in an open discussion 
headed by Ken Wharton in the Science Building at 10:30 AM today (Friday) ... I 
will make sure all your questions are addressed as well as others.  Due to lack 
of time, I cannot respond properly at the moment, but will do so soon.

 

Thanks,

Mark Jurich

 

From: Bob Higgins   

Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:57 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

 

Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe? 

*   That a dense hydrogen layer could form at all at room temperatures- and 
with a catalyst that is not even on the surface?  So these catalyzed hydrogen 
atoms travel from the catalyst body to the receptor surface in some magic form 
that doesn't change en route despite many molecular collisions and arrive able 
to form this magic layer.

*   That the dense hydrogen layer could be so stable that it would 
accumulate over weeks?  Ed Storms suggested that if metallic hydrogen formed it 
would fuse immediately.  Holmlid's dense hydrogen sounds an awful lot like a 
layer of metallic hydrogen.  What he describes may be even more dense than 
metallic hydrogen.

*   That a laser could induce a disintegration of a deuterium nucleus into 
sub-nucleonic matter?  That sound like a magic feather being able to move a 
mountain.

*   That such a Rydberg assemblage of deuterons could survive even a single 
energetic event without being completely disrupted back into gas.

While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.

 

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke  
wrote:

Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report. 

 

If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the 
Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions 
onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually disintegrate 
is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did 
they really observe such huge amounts of energy?

 

900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 MeV), 
Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!

 

When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:

 

1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to Muons 
to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the Neutron or 
Proton or either one that can disintegrate?

 

2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions i.e 
(939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be released 
as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and neutrinos or 
gamma? 

 

3) Did they imply something else.

 

Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one reaction 
almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. 

 

 

  _  

From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and 
optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also 
presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of Rossi/Parkhomov. At 
first glance, there would appear to be no connection between the two … but read 
on.

Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and 
Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. However, most 
of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even more controversial 
than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion 
and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would expected 
in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level of 
thermal gain. Now it is subwatt. 

However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which is 
dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain the lack 
of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate the reactant. 
IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?

When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores
huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But
once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is
reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.


This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response.
They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long
time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.

I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.

The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
will save a lot of time.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>
>
> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid
> may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently
> alienated the people who could help him interpret his results that he may
> be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a
> misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>
> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
>> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>>
>
> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental data.
> Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>
> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores
> huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But
> once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is
> reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.
>
>
> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response.
> They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long
> time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.
>
> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>
> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
> will save a lot of time.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>>
>>
>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid
>> may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently
>> alienated the people who could help him interpret his results that he may
>> be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a
>> misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>
>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
>>> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jones,
please allow me to offer this to my readers on EGO OUT, citing you. Thanks!
Peter

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and
> optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also
> presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of
> Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection
> between the two … but read on.
>
> Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon
> and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before.
> However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even 
> more
> controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated
> is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of
> radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up
> to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.
>
> However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which
> is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain
> the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate
> the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving
> dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other
> outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions ->
> muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron
> disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is
> released than in fusion !
>
> There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters
> who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand
> Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants
> to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad
> choice, since it does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And
> there is nothing cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling
> the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate.
>
> The only thing needed now is replication.
>
> A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying
> to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that
> the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended
> shelf life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson  ** 
> weeks
> to accumulate **.
>
> As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned
> that his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active
> reactant. Could it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense
> hydrogen all along?
>
> The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident
> that if and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor –
> we can believe it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and
> dedicated. Like many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins
> downgraded assessment of the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2
> see Bob’s white paper).
>
> I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a 
> 2-stage
> or compound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium
> separately from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first
> he seemed dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge
> Holmlid’s results with Rossi. But this strategy would allow a very low
> powered continuous laser to accumulate the dense material over time. The
> ideal situation, if one wishes to avoid radiation toxicitym seems to be:
> do NOT to use a fast pulse intense laser to convert dense deuterium into
> heat (this assumes there does exist the radiation-free route to convert
> it to heat).
>
> IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense
> Rydberg matter in situ (in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not
> see harmful radiation. It can be done at the subwatt level, but those two 
> processes
> are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high power.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Peter Gluck]

thank you, it is fine, few things happen these days, at leats so we know.
Peter

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> OK
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Gluck
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Jones,
>
> please allow me to offer this to my readers on EGO OUT, citing you. Thanks!
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

OK

 

From: Peter Gluck 

 

 

Dear Jones,

please allow me to offer this to my readers on EGO OUT, citing you. Thanks!

Peter

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Stephen Cooke]

Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.
If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the 
Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions 
onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually disintegrate 
is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did 
they really observe such huge amounts of energy?
900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 MeV), 
Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to Muons 
to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the Neutron or 
Proton or either one that can disintegrate?
2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions i.e 
(939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be released 
as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and neutrinos or 
gamma? 
3) Did they imply something else.
Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one reaction 
almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. 

From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI






Colloquium at SRI




Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and 
optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also 
presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of Rossi/Parkhomov. At 
first glance, there would appear to be no connection between the two … but read 
on.

Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and 
Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. However, most 
of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even more controversial 
than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion 
and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would expected 
in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level of 
thermal gain. Now it is subwatt. 

However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which is 
dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain the lack 
of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate the reactant. 
IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium bound 
at a few picometers separation - where other outcomes are expected: other than 
disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With the laser as the input 
power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 
times MORE energy is released than in fusion !

There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters who 
prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand Hill Road. 
A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants to call the 
phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad choice, since it does 
not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And there is nothing cold about 
the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in 
the paper with Miley) was not accurate.

The only thing needed now is replication. 

A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying to 
replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that the 
dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended shelf 
life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson  ** weeks to 
accumulate **. 

As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned that 
his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active reactant. Could 
it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense hydrogen all along?



The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident that if 
and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor – we can believe 
it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and dedicated. Like 
many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins downgraded assessment of 
the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2 see Bob’s white paper).

I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a 2-stage 
or compound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium separately 
from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first he seemed 
dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge Holmlid’s results 
with Rossi. But this strategy would allow a very low powered continuous laser 
to accumulate the dense material over time. The ideal situation, if one wishes 
to avoid radiation toxicitym seems to be: do NOT to use a fast pulse intense 
laser to convert dense deuterium into heat (this assumes there does exist the 
radiation-free route to convert it to heat).

IMO - It will be 

[Vo]:Fw: [teslafy] Is time an illusion or reality?

[Harvey Norris]

 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

  On Friday, October 23, 2015 9:40 AM, "harv...@yahoo.com [teslafy]" 
 wrote:
   

     Is time an illusion or reality? 
||
||||   Is time an illusion or reality?  time is change, 
sometimes state, or measure/clocks/counting of clicks, pertaining to reality it 
is all matter, energy/motion/distance/structure/tempe...||
|  View on answers.yahoo.com  |Preview by Yahoo|
||

   It must be an illusion because it can be manipulated. Normally we assume 
that inferences may be made by assumptions. For example If we plot out the 
vectors involved in a three phase process when we compare two phases reference 
points and say that we are measuring their "DIIFFERENCE" or separation in time 
this is called the phase angle difference. A sort of voltage "triangulation" 
method can be used to determine the phase angle by recording each of two 
voltages oscillating in time and then recording the sum of the voltages in 
series. By this method two sets of phase angles may be measured and each shown 
to be 120 degrees apart in time. 240 degrees of the 360 time circle have been 
used up so the assumption is inferred that the third measurement must also be 
120 degrees as a net subtraction form the total. Yet there are certain resonant 
processes where a "contraction" of the time circle as a consequence of its 
energy transfer occurs as the following measurements show only a ~ 340 degree 
time circle. https://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/16...   primary time 
compression 
||
||||   primary time compression  A 7 volt DC field on the 
three phase AC alternator normally produces 21.8 volts open circuit @ 465 hz. 
Here in the action of using a 4/1 step transformer the co...||
|  View on www.flickr.com  |Preview by Yahoo|
||

     __._,_.___ Posted by: harv...@yahoo.com 
|  Reply via web post  | • |   Reply to sender   | • |   Reply to group   | • | 
 Start a New Topic  | • |  Messages in this topic (1)  |

  Visit Your Group
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
 .  
 __,_._,___#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180 -- #yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp {border:1px 
solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv5113129180 
#yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv5113129180 
#yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp #yiv5113129180hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp #yiv5113129180ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp .yiv5113129180ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp .yiv5113129180ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180ygrp-mkp .yiv5113129180ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv5113129180ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv5113129180 
#yiv5113129180ygrp-sponsor #yiv5113129180ygrp-lc #yiv5113129180hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv5113129180 
#yiv5113129180ygrp-sponsor #yiv5113129180ygrp-lc .yiv5113129180ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv5113129180 
#yiv5113129180activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv5113129180
 #yiv5113129180activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv5113129180 
#yiv5113129180activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv5113129180 #yiv5113129180activity span 
.yiv5113129180underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5113129180 
.yiv5113129180attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv5113129180 .yiv5113129180attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv5113129180 .yiv5113129180attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv5113129180 .yiv5113129180attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv5113129180 .yiv5113129180attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv5113129180 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv5113129180 .yiv5113129180bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv5113129180 
.yiv5113129180bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv5113129180 dd.yiv5113129180last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv5113129180 dd.yiv5113129180last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv5113129180 
dd.yiv5113129180last p span.yiv5113129180yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv5113129180 div.yiv5113129180attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv5113129180 div.yiv5113129180attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv5113129180 div.yiv5113129180file-title a, #yiv5113129180 
div.yiv5113129180file-title a:active, #yiv5113129180 
div.yiv5113129180file-title 

[Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Jones Beene]

A provocative question: 

If we accept Holmlid's research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can be
disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore - that this reaction can
return mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then what is
the value of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per gram.

Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the
market allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy
equivalent of matter-antimatter)? As the field of "cold spallation" evolves,
perhaps we should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from
water-splitting) is converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in giant
factories - and sold to the highest bidder - which of course is NASA and
DoD. 

Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home Lab,
due to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop vorticians
and assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few nanograms here
and there (the new moonshine?).
Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This
gives us an idea of its value to the highest bidder.
The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed
78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds
empty, each. If - with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff weight
could be reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra shielding,
then a reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top - making the Shuttle
lighter than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it becomes feasible to take
off horizontally from an airstrip instead of vertical lift-off, even with
the extra weight for gamma shielding.
Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel-  LOX mass
1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was almost
3.85 million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost per
launch - don't ask. 
As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can
be extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated !
Whoa. No wonder there are a few skeptics out there, present company
included. Kind of ironic that the first skeptics of cold spallation are the
basically the same individuals who complain so loudly about the skepticism
of cold fusion. :-)
Bottom line, there is a good argument that dense hydrogen (assuming Holmlid
is right) will be the most valuable commodity of the next decade. is this
the "next big thing" or has yours-truly been sampling moonshine of the
retro-variety?

[Vo]:OCT 23, 2015, INFO AND A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO FATAL ERRORS

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/oct-23-2015lenr-info-two-stories-of.html


there are some doses of desperation there. but constructive


Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

More...

See

http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-radiation.html

The reason why radiation is seen in cavitation is that there is not enough
heat available in a water envirnment  to setup a entangled ensemble of SPP
black holes to counter the radiation produced in the spp formation process
using super absorption. So if you want to produce water based rydberg
matter using cavitation, be very careful of radiation and neutron exposure.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> It is more complicated that just hydrogen rydberg matter. The same rydberg
> matter principle applies to any alkali metal. There is even more element
> that this principle applies to. And water can form this stuff too. Remember
> that Holmlid uses the tried and true potassium catalyst that thermicore
> used way back in the day. Holmlid is just showing us the tip of the iceberg.
>
> I speculate that we can use an old washing machine pump to build a
> cavitation system whose ash is just as LENR active as Holmlid's matter.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> A provocative question:
>>
>> If we accept Holmlid’s research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can
>> be disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore – that this reaction can
>> return mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then what
>> is the value of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per gram.
>>
>> Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the
>> market allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy 
>> equivalent
>> of matter-antimatter)? As the field of “cold spallation” evolves,
>> perhaps we should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from
>> water-splitting) is converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in
>> giant factories - and sold to the highest bidder – which of course is
>> NASA and DoD.
>>
>> Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home
>> Lab, due to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop
>> vorticians and assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few
>> nanograms here and there (the new moonshine?).
>>
>> Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This
>> gives us an idea of its value to the highest bidder.
>>
>> The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed
>> 78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty
>> , each. If – with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff weight could
>> be reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra shielding, then
>> a reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top – making the Shuttle
>> lighter than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it becomes feasible to take
>> off horizontally from an airstrip instead of vertical lift-off, even
>> with the extra weight for gamma shielding.
>>
>> Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel-  LOX
>> mass 1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was
>> almost 3.85 million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost
>> per launch – don’t ask.
>>
>> As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can
>> be extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated !
>> Whoa. No wonder there are a few skeptics out there, present company
>> included. Kind of ironic that the first skeptics of cold spallation are
>> the basically the same individuals who complain so loudly about the
>> skepticism of cold fusion. J
>>
>> Bottom line, there is a good argument that dense hydrogen (assuming Holmlid
>> is right) will be the most valuable commodity of the next decade… is this
>> the “next big thing” or has yours-truly been sampling moonshine of the
>> retro-variety?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

It is more complicated that just hydrogen rydberg matter. The same rydberg
matter principle applies to any alkali metal. There is even more element
that this principle applies to. And water can form this stuff too. Remember
that Holmlid uses the tried and true potassium catalyst that thermicore
used way back in the day. Holmlid is just showing us the tip of the iceberg.

I speculate that we can use an old washing machine pump to build a
cavitation system whose ash is just as LENR active as Holmlid's matter.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> A provocative question:
>
> If we accept Holmlid’s research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can be
> disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore – that this reaction can
> return mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then what
> is the value of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per gram.
>
> Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the
> market allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy equivalent
> of matter-antimatter)? As the field of “cold spallation” evolves, perhaps
> we should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from water-
> splitting) is converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in giant
> factories - and sold to the highest bidder – which of course is NASA and
> DoD.
>
> Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home Lab,
> due to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop
> vorticians and assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few
> nanograms here and there (the new moonshine?).
>
> Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This
> gives us an idea of its value to the highest bidder.
>
> The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed
> 78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty
> , each. If – with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff weight could
> be reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra shielding, then a
> reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top – making the Shuttle
> lighter than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it becomes feasible to take
> off horizontally from an airstrip instead of vertical lift-off, even with
> the extra weight for gamma shielding.
>
> Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel-  LOX
> mass 1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was
> almost 3.85 million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost
> per launch – don’t ask.
>
> As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can
> be extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated !
> Whoa. No wonder there are a few skeptics out there, present company
> included. Kind of ironic that the first skeptics of cold spallation are
> the basically the same individuals who complain so loudly about the
> skepticism of cold fusion. J
>
> Bottom line, there is a good argument that dense hydrogen (assuming Holmlid
> is right) will be the most valuable commodity of the next decade… is this
> the “next big thing” or has yours-truly been sampling moonshine of the
> retro-variety?
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Colloquium at SRI

[Mark Jurich]

Here are the slides for Sveinn’s presentation, courtesy of Sveinn:

http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf

Bob Greenyer or some one: Please create a mirror and provide the link (via 
QuantumHeat.Org), as some may not be able to DownLoad 
from this site, easily.

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

Re: [Vo]:Re: Colloquium at SRI

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> Here are the slides for Sveinn’s presentation, courtesy of Sveinn:
>
> http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf

I'm keeping track of every time potassium is mentioned, as it was in these
slides.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

Why does the LeClair reactor produce radiation and neutrons and the  device
invented by James Griggs does not?

It’s a matter of temperature. The James Griggs device runs at an operating
temperature of 400F, whereas, the LeClair reactor is not pressurized and
does not.

Since the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is a bigger molecule than the water
molecule, it might be possible to capture the rydberg matter from the
Griggs device using a properly sized filtration device plased in the flow
of the circulating water and remove this filter as a feedstock for a laser
based or electric arc based LENR reactor. The high power potential of an
electric motor will dump a significant amount of power into the water thus
amplifying the rate of production of rydberg matter. Any level of power
could be applied to the water to speed Rydberg matter production.

The level of Rydberg matter production could be determined by exposor of a
photographic emulsion to the water filters.

Joe Papp used this method of fuel preprocessing to form a Rysberg matter
fortified water solution that he used as an explosive and fuel for his
engine.

Just like Papp did, other elements like chlorine might be added to the
water to enhance the explosive effect. Papp used a electric arc to activate
and liberate power production from his fuel.

If a nickel or silica aeroform is used as a filter, a Rossi like tube
reactor could be fueled with the powder make from the powdered aerofoam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> That door could open to more than energy independence.
>
>
> In this connection, if the induced-decay stuff that Robin and I were
> discussing turns out to be a thing, there are definitely military
> applications.  First one that comes to mind is powerful artillery.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Frank Znidarsic]

If we are going to consider small black holes why don't we consider small 
supernova explosions.  We could even throw in the kitchen sink.


-Original Message-
From: David Roberson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI


SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason to 
believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I suspect 
that SPP's can do the job without extra help.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the 
hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean that 
hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is 
transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately. It 
might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP solitons need 
more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step process that 
first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy in SPPs to form 
the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes. 


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?


When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores huge 
amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But once 
these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is reached, 
they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.  


This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response. They 
don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long time to 
deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.


I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful enough 
EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An electric 
arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons. 


The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It will 
save a lot of time.




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid may 
have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently alienated 
the people who could help him interpret his results that he may be a little in 
a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a misinterpretation of 
some kind on his part.



While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.





Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental data.  
Explanations of the data are always fair game.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason to 
believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I suspect 
that SPP's can do the job without extra help.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the 
hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean that 
hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is 
transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately. It 
might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP solitons need 
more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step process that 
first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy in SPPs to form 
the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes. 


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?


When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores huge 
amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But once 
these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is reached, 
they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.  


This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response. They 
don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long time to 
deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.


I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful enough 
EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An electric 
arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons. 


The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It will 
save a lot of time.




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid may 
have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently alienated 
the people who could help him interpret his results that he may be a little in 
a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a misinterpretation of 
some kind on his part.



While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.





Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental data.  
Explanations of the data are always fair game.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM entanglement
is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason
> to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I
> suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
> hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
> that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
> transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
> It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
> solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
> process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
> in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>
>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores
>> huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But
>> once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is
>> reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.
>>
>>
>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response.
>> They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long
>> time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.
>>
>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>
>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
>> will save a lot of time.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

>>>
>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
>>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>>
>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
 nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.

>>>
>>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[David Roberson]

Lets pray that rapid, large scale energy release by this type of material is 
not possible.   I can not imagine the death and destruction that will follow if 
some of the speculation on vortex is real.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


That door could open to more than energy independence.


In this connection, if the induced-decay stuff that Robin and I were discussing 
turns out to be a thing, there are definitely military applications.  First one 
that comes to mind is powerful artillery.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

My attitude is to wait and see proof.  I have serious doubts that the evidence 
will survive proper scrutiny.

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 10:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

That a dense hydrogen layer could form at all at room temperatures- and with a 
catalyst that is not even on the surface?  So these catalyzed hydrogen atoms 
travel from the catalyst body to the receptor surface in some magic form that 
doesn't change en route despite many molecular collisions and arrive able to 
form this magic layer.

That the dense hydrogen layer could be so stable that it would accumulate over 
weeks?  Ed Storms suggested that if metallic hydrogen formed it would fuse 
immediately.  Holmlid's dense hydrogen sounds an awful lot like a layer of 
metallic hydrogen.  What he describes may be even more dense than metallic 
hydrogen.

That a laser could induce a disintegration of a deuterium nucleus into 
sub-nucleonic matter?  That sound like a magic feather being able to move a 
mountain.

That such a Rydberg assemblage of deuterons could survive even a single 
energetic event without being completely disrupted back into gas.
While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke  
wrote:


Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.


If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the 
Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions 
onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually disintegrate 
is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did 
they really observe such huge amounts of energy?


900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 MeV), 
Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!


When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:


1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to Muons 
to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the Neutron or 
Proton or either one that can disintegrate?


2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions i.e 
(939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be released 
as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and neutrinos or 
gamma? 


3) Did they imply something else.


Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one reaction 
almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. 





From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI


Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and 
optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also 
presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of Rossi/Parkhomov. At 
first glance, there would appear to be no connection between the two … but read 
on.
Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and 
Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. However, most 
of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even more controversial 
than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion 
and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would expected 
in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level of 
thermal gain. Now it is subwatt. 
However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which is 
dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain the lack 
of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate the reactant. 
IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium bound 
at a few picometers separation - where other outcomes are expected: other than 
disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With the laser as the input 
power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 
times MORE energy is released than in fusion !
There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters who 
prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand Hill Road. 
A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants to call the 
phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad choice, since it does 
not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And there is nothing cold about 
the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in 
the paper with Miley) was not accurate.
The only thing needed now is replication. 
A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying to 
replicate LH but has not been 

RE: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Jones Beene]

Mats,

 

Nice effort. Your piece will be poignant lesson to mainstream physics – should 
Holmlid be shown to be correct - that physics is still in its infancy. Notice 
that the focus could now be shifting to Holmlid and a few others, and away from 
Rossi. 

 

Rossi filled a void in a way that only a showman can, but he has not added 
anything substantive to our understanding of what is going on – other than a 
reassurance that the mainstream was wrong about LENR. In fact, historians may 
conclude that Rossi’s constant level of disinformation has done more harm than 
good, in terms of advancing an accurate understanding of the field.

 

There is far more out there which we don’t know, compared to what we think we 
know. It is almost criminal to have thrown obscene amounts of money at problems 
like the Higgs (what a waste!). Those funds are better solved by more closely 
examining what has been known and rejected for 25 years. What Holmlid has done 
(two+ decades after P) without much help, should have been done at Stanford, 
MIT, LLNL, etc in 1990-92 and would probably have been - had a few hundred 
million been invested immediately, instead of retained by arrogant 
know-it-alls, in the massively redundant boondoggle of hot fusion.

 

When the identical coin is found in two places, under the streetlight and a 
couple of blocks away, by accident in the dark – then we can say we have 
finally understood that the Universe is far more complex than anyone wants to 
believe. The LENR community may have been in the dark about many things, but 
without unwavering persistence - in pursuing a vision quest, we would not be on 
the verge of success. Many think we are on the door step now, but be careful 
what you wish for. That door could open to more than energy independence.

 

From: Mats Lewan 

 

Jones, 

I tried to express a similar concept in a more 'popular' way in this blog post: 

 

http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/10/time-to-dispel-the-streetlight-paradox-of-energy/

 

Bottom line -- sooner or later, efficient access to energy stored in matter 
will make scarcity of energy be a non-issue. 

 

Mats


23 okt 2015 kl. 19:19 skrev "Jones Beene" :

A provocative question: 

If we accept Holmlid’s research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can be 
disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore – that this reaction can return 
mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then what is the value 
of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per gram.

Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the market 
allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy equivalent of 
matter-antimatter)? As the field of “cold spallation” evolves, perhaps we 
should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from water-splitting) is 
converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in giant factories - and sold to 
the highest bidder – which of course is NASA and DoD. 

Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home Lab, due 
to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop vorticians and 
assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few nanograms here and 
there (the new moonshine?).

Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This gives 
us an idea of its value to the highest bidder.

The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed 
78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty, 
each. If – with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff weight could be 
reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra shielding, then a 
reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top – making the Shuttle lighter 
than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it becomes feasible to take off 
horizontally from an airstrip instead of vertical lift-off, even with the extra 
weight for gamma shielding.

Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel-  LOX mass 
1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was almost 3.85 
million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost per launch – 
don’t ask. 

As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can be 
extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated ! Whoa. No 
wonder there are a few skeptics out there, present company included. Kind of 
ironic that the first skeptics of cold spallation are the basically the same 
individuals who complain so loudly about the skepticism of cold fusion. J

Bottom line, there is a good argument that dense hydrogen (assuming Holmlid is 
right) will be the most valuable commodity of the next decade… is this the 
“next big thing” or has yours-truly been sampling moonshine of the 
retro-variety?

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

That door could open to more than energy independence.


In this connection, if the induced-decay stuff that Robin and I were
discussing turns out to be a thing, there are definitely military
applications.  First one that comes to mind is powerful artillery.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Colloquium at SRI

[Mark Jurich]

Hi Bob (All):

I can answer some of your questions now, but we are going to be continuing 
discussions of the talks at San Jose State University 
in an open discussion headed by Ken Wharton in the Science Building at 10:30 AM 
today (Friday) ... I will make sure all your 
questions are addressed as well as others.  Due to lack of time, I cannot 
respond properly at the moment, but will do so soon.

Thanks,
Mark Jurich

From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
  a.. That a dense hydrogen layer could form at all at room temperatures- and 
with a catalyst that is not even on the surface?  So 
these catalyzed hydrogen atoms travel from the catalyst body to the receptor 
surface in some magic form that doesn't change en route 
despite many molecular collisions and arrive able to form this magic layer.
  a.. That the dense hydrogen layer could be so stable that it would accumulate 
over weeks?  Ed Storms suggested that if metallic 
hydrogen formed it would fuse immediately.  Holmlid's dense hydrogen sounds an 
awful lot like a layer of metallic hydrogen.  What he 
describes may be even more dense than metallic hydrogen.
  a.. That a laser could induce a disintegration of a deuterium nucleus into 
sub-nucleonic matter?  That sound like a magic feather 
being able to move a mountain.
  a.. That such a Rydberg assemblage of deuterons could survive even a single 
energetic event without being completely disrupted 
back into gas.
While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a 
patho-skeptic.


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke  
wrote:

  Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.

  If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the 
Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron 
proton reactions onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may 
actually disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is 
this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts 
of energy?

  900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 
MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!

  When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:

  1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to 
Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could 
it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate?

  2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions i.e 
(939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more 
energy would be released as the pions decay to muons and eventually 
Electron/Proton and neutrinos or gamma?

  3) Did they imply something else.

  Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one 
reaction almost up there with matter antimatter 
annihilation.



--
  From: jone...@pacbell.net
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
  Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI


  Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and 
optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. 
Alan Goldwater also presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of 
Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear 
to be no connection between the two … but read on.

  Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and 
Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 
and before. However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will 
be even more controversial than cold fusion until 
proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion and not really hot 
fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would 
expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level 
of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.

  However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which 
is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold 
fusion, and explain the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does 
not disintegrate the reactant. IOW, there can be a 
range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium bound at a few picometers 
separation - where other outcomes are expected: 
other than disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With the laser as 
the input power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a 
laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is released than in fusion !

  There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters who 
prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s 
throw from Sand Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid 
apparently wants to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” 
but I think that is a bad 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Bob Higgins]

Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

   - That a dense hydrogen layer could form at all at room temperatures-
   and with a catalyst that is not even on the surface?  So these catalyzed
   hydrogen atoms travel from the catalyst body to the receptor surface in
   some magic form that doesn't change en route despite many molecular
   collisions and arrive able to form this magic layer.


   - That the dense hydrogen layer could be so stable that it would
   accumulate over weeks?  Ed Storms suggested that if metallic hydrogen
   formed it would fuse immediately.  Holmlid's dense hydrogen sounds an awful
   lot like a layer of metallic hydrogen.  What he describes may be even more
   dense than metallic hydrogen.


   - That a laser could induce a disintegration of a deuterium nucleus into
   sub-nucleonic matter?  That sound like a magic feather being able to move a
   mountain.


   - That such a Rydberg assemblage of deuterons could survive even a
   single energetic event without being completely disrupted back into gas.

While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.
>
> If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the
> Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions
> onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually
> disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are
> actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts of energy?
>
> 900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938
> MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
>
> When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
>
> 1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to
> Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the
> Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate?
>
> 2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions
> i.e (939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be
> released as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and
> neutrinos or gamma?
>
> 3) Did they imply something else.
>
> Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one
> reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation.
>
>
> --
> From: jone...@pacbell.net
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
> Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and
> optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also
> presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of
> Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection
> between the two … but read on.
>
> Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon
> and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before.
> However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even 
> more
> controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated
> is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of
> radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up
> to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.
>
> However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which
> is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain
> the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate
> the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving
> dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other
> outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions ->
> muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron
> disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is
> released than in fusion !
>
> There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters
> who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand
> Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants
> to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad
> choice, since it does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And
> there is nothing cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling
> the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate.
>
> The only thing needed now is replication.
>
> A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying
> to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that
> the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended
> shelf life thereafter. That 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Believe it or not...

After I saw the presentation on tachyon tracks:

http://restframe.com/rf/home.html

 I started to read this article:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11616.pdf

The Inside Story: Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes

It explains how and why Lief Holmlid is seeing mesons and muons produced in
his experiments.

These SPPs evaperate through hawking radiation untill they become stable
and quiescent. They form a tachyon condensate inside their boundary that
will produce quark based (mesons) particles when they receive more EMF.

Holmlid says that muons are produced when his reactants are exposed to the
fluorescent lighting in his lab. They release muons as a declining rate
even in a dark room.

The SPP hold a huge amount of energy in excess of 1,000,000 giga electron
volts

I got through to Holmlid but Holmlid does not believe in black hole LENR
causation. I am now faced with the bleak prospect of learning black hole
physics, string theory, tachyon physics and general relativity.

The dot connecting effort has gotten into some really heavy stuff. I am not
that smart so progress from now on will be very slow. These subjects are at
the cutting edge of physics and chemistry so there is a limitation here.





On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report.
>
> If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the
> Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions
> onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually
> disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are
> actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts of energy?
>
> 900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938
> MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
>
> When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
>
> 1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to
> Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the
> Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate?
>
> 2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions
> i.e (939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be
> released as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and
> neutrinos or gamma?
>
> 3) Did they imply something else.
>
> Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one
> reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation.
>
>
> --
> From: jone...@pacbell.net
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700
> Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
>
> Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and
> optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also
> presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of
> Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection
> between the two … but read on.
>
> Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon
> and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before.
> However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even 
> more
> controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated
> is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of
> radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up
> to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt.
>
> However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which
> is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P cold fusion, and explain
> the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate
> the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving
> dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other
> outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions ->
> muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron
> disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is
> released than in fusion !
>
> There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters
> who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand
> Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants
> to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad
> choice, since it does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And
> there is nothing cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling
> the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate.
>
> The only thing needed now is replication.
>
> A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying
> to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that
> the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to 

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

Why does the LeClair reactor produce radiation and neutrons and the  device
invented by James Griggs does not?

It’s a matter of temperature. The James Griggs device runs at an operating
temperature of 400F, whereas, the LeClair reactor is not pressurized and
does not.

Since the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is a bigger molecule than the water
molecule, it might be possible to capture the rydberg matter from the
Griggs device using a properly sized filtration device plased in the flow
of the circulating water and remove this filter as a feedstock for a laser
based or electric arc based LENR reactor. The high power potential of an
electric motor will dump a significant amount of power into the water thus
amplifying the rate of production of rydberg matter. Any level of power
could be applied to the water to speed Rydberg matter production.

The level of Rydberg matter production could be determined by exposor of a
photographic emulsion to the water filters.

Joe Papp used this method of fuel preprocessing to form a Rysberg matter
fortified water solution that he used as an explosive and fuel for his
engine.

Just like Papp did, other elements like chlorine might be added to the
water to enhance the explosive effect. Papp used a electric arc to activate
and liberate power production from his fuel.

If a nickel or silica aeroform is used as a filter, a Rossi like tube
reactor could be fueled with the powder make from the powdered aerofoam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> More...
>
> See
>
> http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-radiation.html
>
> The reason why radiation is seen in cavitation is that there is not enough
> heat available in a water envirnment  to setup a entangled ensemble of SPP
> black holes to counter the radiation produced in the spp formation process
> using super absorption. So if you want to produce water based rydberg
> matter using cavitation, be very careful of radiation and neutron exposure.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> It is more complicated that just hydrogen rydberg matter. The same
>> rydberg matter principle applies to any alkali metal. There is even more
>> element that this principle applies to. And water can form this stuff too.
>> Remember that Holmlid uses the tried and true potassium catalyst that
>> thermicore used way back in the day. Holmlid is just showing us the tip of
>> the iceberg.
>>
>> I speculate that we can use an old washing machine pump to build a
>> cavitation system whose ash is just as LENR active as Holmlid's matter.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> A provocative question:
>>>
>>> If we accept Holmlid’s research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can
>>> be disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore – that this reaction
>>> can return mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then
>>> what is the value of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per
>>> gram.
>>>
>>> Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the
>>> market allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy 
>>> equivalent
>>> of matter-antimatter)? As the field of “cold spallation” evolves,
>>> perhaps we should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from
>>> water-splitting) is converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in
>>> giant factories - and sold to the highest bidder – which of course is
>>> NASA and DoD.
>>>
>>> Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home
>>> Lab, due to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop
>>> vorticians and assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few
>>> nanograms here and there (the new moonshine?).
>>>
>>> Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This
>>> gives us an idea of its value to the highest bidder.
>>>
>>> The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank
>>> weighed 78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000
>>> pounds empty, each. If – with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff
>>> weight could be reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra
>>> shielding, then a reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top –
>>> making the Shuttle lighter than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it
>>> becomes feasible to take off horizontally from an airstrip instead of
>>> vertical lift-off, even with the extra weight for gamma shielding.
>>>
>>> Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel-  LOX
>>> mass 1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was
>>> almost 3.85 million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost
>>> per launch – don’t ask.
>>>
>>> As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can
>>> be extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated !
>>> Whoa. No 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.

See

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It is
> not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>
> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!
> :-)
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM entanglement
> is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason
>> to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I
>> suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
>> hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
>> that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
>> transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
>> It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
>> solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
>> process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
>> in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>>
>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional
>>> energy input.
>>>
>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
>>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
>>> become active.
>>>
>>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>>
>>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
>>> will save a lot of time.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins 
 wrote:

 Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>

 Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
 Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
 sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
 that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
 point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.

 While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>

 Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
 data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.

 Eric


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:02:02 -0400:
Hi Axil,
[snip]
>I got through to Holmlid but Holmlid does not believe in black hole LENR
>causation. I am now faced with the bleak prospect of learning black hole
>physics, string theory, tachyon physics and general relativity.

Why not write up a concise logical description of your thoughts and send it to a
few people who are already experts in the related fields. You may find one or
two who are willing to help.
[snip]

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Done that


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:02:02 -0400:
> Hi Axil,
> [snip]
> >I got through to Holmlid but Holmlid does not believe in black hole LENR
> >causation. I am now faced with the bleak prospect of learning black hole
> >physics, string theory, tachyon physics and general relativity.
>
> Why not write up a concise logical description of your thoughts and send
> it to a
> few people who are already experts in the related fields. You may find one
> or
> two who are willing to help.
> [snip]
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

[Vo]:Fw: [teslafy] Three October Teslafy You Tube Videos

[Harvey Norris]

 Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

  On Friday, October 23, 2015 8:18 PM, "harv...@yahoo.com [teslafy]" 
 wrote:
   

     Three October Teslafy you tube videos. I saw some contradictions so I 
hesitated on publicizing these, but work is ongoing. On the first video of Oct 
7,2015 on later review I wondered why the circuits being tested did not conform 
to what was formerly obtained with the circuit input parameters. In fact the 
alternator now seems to perform as if the field becomes demagnitised over time. 
The result of this is that the standard 330 volt turn on value of the combined 
secondaries from the primaries rotational input may not be evident until the 
field is seeming saturated with a full 7.5 volt field normally producing over 
20 volts on stator output. Many additonal details of explanation can be added 
further in this video sequence of exploration into the 666 machine where the 
X(L) and X(C) reactances were tested by what was found to be a flawed method of 
observation. So I hesitated to release this first video because of the flawed 
mathematical results, where I wanted to start a video series entitled Lectures 
into Source frequency resonant circuits as follows...Resonant tests for a 
spiral 1.5 ohm 666 Machine 8 volt open circuit 3phase alternator reactance 
tests for the 1.5 ohm bifilar pancake spiral 666 machine, showing balanced 
outputs and actual Q factor compared to the theoretical one by meter readings 
of quantities. The high internal capacity in the flattened Mega Cable Radio 
Shack Speaker wire spirals wire spirals must be detracting from the possible Q 
factor predicted by X(L)/R, where as predicted only 50 % of the possible 
resonance occurs; where this will further be analyzed by snapshots of the 
reactance readings.( the further confusion that happened here was that the 
input parameters were not establishing the regular 8 volt open circuit 
condition due to a presumed loss of magnetism on the field rotor, or possibly 
caused by that of a prolonged operation of the field electromagnet, as it had 
been on for sevearl days accidentally. In addition to this a significant error 
was introduced by shorting one side of the resonances to make an indivdual 
reactance reading)https://youtu.be/DggPDKV1ZlEStudies of remanent magnetism of 
an alternator field rotor (1) Published on Oct 15, 2015Effect of field reversal 
@ 465 hz on three 13.6 uf capacitive reactance loads from a Delco Remy 3 phase 
alternator.https://youtu.be/xtZhSYzseZ0Studies of remanent magnetism of an 
alternator field rotor (2) Published on Oct 17, 
2015https://youtu.be/qsoJMzsTtEQAfter inadvertently leaving the DC field 
current on for three days,( In the direction of polarity opposite to that found 
in the rotational state) investigations continue showing that the field current 
has apparently completely demagnetized the field rotor as to what is 
experienced in the rotational state. Then the effects of restoring the field 
current to that in harmony with what was formerly found in the rotational, or 
strictly parametric state are restored. Now the voltage output is shown to be 
half of that obtained prior to the experimentation, thus showing SOME of the 
effects of this so called "remanent" magnetization of the alternator field 
rotor. In addition to this the method to restore the full remanent magnetism of 
the field rotor will be shown.Sincerely HDN  __._,_.___ Posted by: 
harv...@yahoo.com 
|  Reply via web post  | • |   Reply to sender   | • |   Reply to group   | • | 
 Start a New Topic  | • |  Messages in this topic (1)  |

  Visit Your Group
   -  New Members 1 
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
 .  
 __,_._,___#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785 -- #yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp {border:1px 
solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv9571727785 
#yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv9571727785 
#yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp #yiv9571727785hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp #yiv9571727785ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp .yiv9571727785ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp .yiv9571727785ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785ygrp-mkp .yiv9571727785ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv9571727785ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv9571727785 
#yiv9571727785ygrp-sponsor #yiv9571727785ygrp-lc #yiv9571727785hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv9571727785 
#yiv9571727785ygrp-sponsor #yiv9571727785ygrp-lc .yiv9571727785ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv9571727785 #yiv9571727785actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv9571727785 
#yiv9571727785activity 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It is not 
too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact strongly with 
nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic interaction by SPP's is not 
going to be adequate?  The multiparticle entanglement theory is not proven to 
be required for LENR.

No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!  :-)

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the cluster 
fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle entanglement. Only 
black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see ER=ERP: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM entanglement is 
monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.  


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason to 
believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I suspect 
that SPP's can do the job without extra help.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI




During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the 
hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean that 
hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is 
transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately. It 
might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP solitons need 
more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step process that 
first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy in SPPs to form 
the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes. 


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?


When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores huge 
amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But once 
these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is reached, 
they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.  


This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response. They 
don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long time to 
deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.


I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful enough 
EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An electric 
arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons. 


The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It will 
save a lot of time.




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid may 
have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently alienated 
the people who could help him interpret his results that he may be a little in 
a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a misinterpretation of 
some kind on his part.



While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.





Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental data.  
Explanations of the data are always fair game.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
hawking radiation.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>
> See
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It is
>> not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>
>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!
>> :-)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
>>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas
>>> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
>>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
>>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be
>>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
>>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?

 When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
 stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
 this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
 threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional
 energy input.

 This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
 response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
 for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
 become active.

 I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
 enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
 electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.

 The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel.
 It will save a lot of time.

 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
 wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:
>
> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>
>
> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>
> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having
>> these nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a
>> patho-skeptic.
>>
>
> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>
> Eric
>
>

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

See

https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402

http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
> hawking radiation.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
>> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>>
>> See
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It
>>> is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
>>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>>
>>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
 reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
 reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.

 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

 During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
 the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
 mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas
 is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
 immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
 heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be
 a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
 accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.

 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>
> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional
> energy input.
>
> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
> become active.
>
> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not
> powerful enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper
> level. An electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the
> solitons.
>
> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel.
> It will save a lot of time.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <
>> rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>>
>>
>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his 
>> results
>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>
>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having
>>> these nervous concerns 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[ChemE Stewart]

Axil, I am on your side man

On Friday, October 23, 2015, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Also see:
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole/
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:
>
>> See
>>
>> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil > > wrote:
>>
>>> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
>>> hawking radiation.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson >> > wrote:
>>>
 I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.

 Dave



 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil >
 To: vortex-l >
 Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

 The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole.
 Any wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.

 See

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

 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson > wrote:

> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It
> is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>
> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about
> it!  :-)
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil  >
> To: vortex-l  >
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson  > wrote:
>
>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil > >
>> To: vortex-l > >
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because 
>> gas
>> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may 
>> be
>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black 
>> holes.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil > > wrote:
>>
>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>>
>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any 
>>> additional
>>> energy input.
>>>
>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his 
>>> fuel
>>> for a 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Us against the world...

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:31 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Axil, I am on your side man
>
>
> On Friday, October 23, 2015, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Also see:
>>
>>
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole/
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> See
>>>
>>> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video
 produces hawking radiation.

 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson 
 wrote:

> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole.
> Any wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>
> See
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.
>> It is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can 
>> interact
>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>
>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about
>> it!  :-)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure
>>> of the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This 
>>> might
>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because 
>>> gas
>>> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
>>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
>>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may 
>>> be
>>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
>>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black 
>>> holes.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?

 When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
 stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to 
 do
 this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
 threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any 
 additional
 energy input.

 This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
 response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his 
 fuel
 for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them 
 to
 become active.

 I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not
 powerful enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the 
 proper
 level. An electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the
 solitons.

 The lessen to take away, use an electric 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any wave 
structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.


See


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




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It is not 
too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact strongly with 
nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic interaction by SPP's is not 
going to be adequate?  The multiparticle entanglement theory is not proven to 
be required for LENR.

No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!  :-)

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the cluster 
fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle entanglement. Only 
black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see ER=ERP: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM entanglement is 
monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.  


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason to 
believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I suspect 
that SPP's can do the job without extra help.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI




During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the 
hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean that 
hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is 
transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately. It 
might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP solitons need 
more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step process that 
first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy in SPPs to form 
the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes. 


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?


When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores huge 
amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But once 
these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is reached, 
they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.  


This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response. They 
don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long time to 
deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.


I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful enough 
EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An electric 
arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons. 


The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It will 
save a lot of time.




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.  Holmlid may 
have something interesting.  His interpretation may have sufficiently alienated 
the people who could help him interpret his results that he may be a little in 
a bind.  Energy conservation considerations point to a misinterpretation of 
some kind on his part.



While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous 
concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.





Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental data.  
Explanations of the data are always fair game.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Bosenove were detected in the DGT testing. THis occurs at the end of black
hole evaporation. Also, tachyons have been detected inside these micro
black holes.

See

http://restframe.com/rf/home.html

It is well known in string theory, Tachyon condensation produces mesons
from which muons a produced as seen by Holmlid.



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> If we are going to consider small black holes why don't we consider small
> supernova explosions.  We could even throw in the kitchen sink.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Roberson 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason
> to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I
> suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
> hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
> that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
> transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
> It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
> solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
> process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
> in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>
>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores
>> huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But
>> once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is
>> reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.
>>
>>
>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response.
>> They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long
>> time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.
>>
>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>
>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
>> will save a lot of time.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

>>>
>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
>>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>>
>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
 nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.

>>>
>>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Also see:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole/

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> See
>
> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
>> hawking radiation.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil 
>>> To: vortex-l 
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
>>> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It
 is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
 strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
 interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
 entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.

 No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about
 it!  :-)

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil 
 To: vortex-l 
 Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

 One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
 cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
 entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
 ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
 entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.

 On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson 
 wrote:

> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because 
> gas
> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be
> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black 
> holes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:
>
>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>
>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any 
>> additional
>> energy input.
>>
>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
>> become active.
>>
>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not
>> powerful enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the 
>> proper
>> level. An electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the
>> solitons.
>>
>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel.
>> It will save a lot of time.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <
>>> rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

>>>
>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:31:28 -0400:
Hi,

It occurs to me that lasers in plasmas have previously been used as bench top
particle accelerators. I wonder if that also applies in Holmlid's experiments?
(See e.g.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/12/08/world-record-for-compact-particle-accelerator/)

If so, then finding some exotic particles might not even be unexpected?

>My attitude is to wait and see proof.  I have serious doubts that the evidence 
>will survive proper scrutiny.
>
>Dave
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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