Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Bob Higgins]

I looked at the math again.  The 5 uS was for the full 4pi steradians.  It
would be more like 0.4 uS for 1 steradian.  A person would have to be
really chubby or really close to subtend 1 steradian.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> From the signal pulse, I estimate about 5 micro-Sieverts (uS) per
> steradian.  So, it depends on how close you were.
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
>
>> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does
>> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that
>> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source,
>> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would
>> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than
>> what the detector has recorded.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Axil Axil]

Like any alpha emitter, they are exceedingly dangerous if they are taken
inside the body by drinking or breathing. When inside the body, there is no
protection provided by the skin.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Ludwik Kowalski <
kowals...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:

> Typical alpha particles do not penetrate human skin.
>
> Ludwik
> 
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Russ George wrote:
>
> HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters
> some other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so
> will they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>
>
>
> I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by
> penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it
> could produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of
> thousands of alpha particles as a by-product.
>
>
>
> John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an
> open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
>
> Hi Russ:
>
>
>
>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this
> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking
> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize
> he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not
> because of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep
> during the experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this
> ... A few minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the
> Natural Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during
> the supposed burst...
>
>
>
> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Russ George 
>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>
>
>
> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does
> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that
> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source,
> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would
> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than
> what the detector has recorded.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[Axil Axil]

Another story on the subject

http://techxplore.com/news/2016-02-next-gen-atlas-door-woods.html



On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> There is a remarkable video in this article, showing the latest humanoid
> robot from Boston Dynamics. Clearly this machine is not humanoid in the
> emotional sense, because if it were, it might punch the operator in the
> nose. I felt sorry for the poor thing, which is like feeling sorry for a
> dishwasher.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/26/atlas_the_new_robot_from_boston_dynamics_sets_a_new_standard_for_robot_capabilities.html
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

P.S. 

Alpha particles from radioactive substances have energies below 8 MeV (range in 
air is about 7 cm)
Range of a typical alpha particles (say 6 MeV) is 5cm in air (about 2 inches).

Ludwik
==


On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:46 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

> Typical alpha particles do not penetrate human skin.
> 
> Ludwik
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Russ George wrote:
> 
>> HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters 
>> some other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so 
>> will they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?
>>  
>> From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
>> To: vortex-l
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>>  
>> I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by 
>> penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it 
>> could produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of thousands 
>> of alpha particles as a by-product. 
>>  
>> John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an 
>> open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,
>>  
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
>> Hi Russ:
>>  
>>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this 
>> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking 
>> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize 
>> he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not 
>> because of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep 
>> during the experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this 
>> ... A few minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the 
>> Natural Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during 
>> the supposed burst...
>>  
>> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>>   
>>  
>> From: Russ George
>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>>  
>> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does 
>> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that 
>> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, 
>> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would 
>> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than 
>> what the detector has recorded.
>>  
> 

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Typical alpha particles do not penetrate human skin.

Ludwik



On Feb 26, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Russ George wrote:

> HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters 
> some other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so 
> will they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?
>  
> From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
> To: vortex-l
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>  
> I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by 
> penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it could 
> produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of thousands of 
> alpha particles as a by-product. 
>  
> John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an 
> open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,
>  
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
> Hi Russ:
>  
>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this 
> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking 
> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize he 
> got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not because 
> of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep during the 
> experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few 
> minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the Natural 
> Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during the 
> supposed burst...
>  
> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>   
>  
> From: Russ George
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>  
> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
> infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that person is 
> both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, and has a 
> long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would seem likely 
> the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than what the 
> detector has recorded.
>  

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Axil Axil]

The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic
experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water
outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell
operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started
loosing its transparency.

Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained
transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water,
removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No
such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24
hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water
transparency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical
discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly
reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell
and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.

[image: Thumbnail]


That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor
shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling
water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of
bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs).
Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other
ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation
was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that
bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions.

The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic
Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to
the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR
reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water
bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the
cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours.

If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron
plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode
would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the
ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.


The Erzons could be HRM.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters
> some other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so
> will they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>
>
>
> I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by
> penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it
> could produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of
> thousands of alpha particles as a by-product.
>
>
>
> John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an
> open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:
>
> Hi Russ:
>
>
>
>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this
> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking
> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize
> he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not
> because of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep
> during the experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this
> ... A few minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the
> Natural Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during
> the supposed burst...
>
>
>
> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Russ George 
>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>
>
>
> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does
> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that
> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source,
> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would
> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than
> what the detector has recorded.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Bob Higgins]

>From the signal pulse, I estimate about 5 micro-Sieverts (uS) per
steradian.  So, it depends on how close you were.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does
> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that
> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source,
> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would
> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than
> what the detector has recorded.
>

[Vo]:Schrodinger's E-Cat dose?

[Russ George]

My apologies for starting this thread with the subject implied personal 
radiation dose when it is clear what we are talking about is the dose for 
Schrodinger’s E-Cat!  The alpha-knock-on emissions resulting from HRM might 
explain the observed MFMP ‘iceberg.’ My apologies to monarchists who are 
offended by my referring to HRM and “iceberg” in the same sentence.

 

From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

Sorry, Russ ... You’re right.  The emoticon went missing ... My bad ...

 

Please keep in mind that the detector signal-to-noise was enhanced by dropping 
the noise floor by almost an order of magnitude in the region of interest in 
this experiment.  Although I haven’t seen a solid estimate of the peak 
intensity, it is estimated to be not a whole lot more than that order of 
magnitude ... I am dancing on thin ice here, but you questions are good ones.  

 

The experiment was in another room and the human distances from the actual 
experiment were many meters, but who knows.

 

I hope someone will spend the time and answer your Qs from a Health Physics 
point of view.  We really don’t have enough of them versed in Muon Irradiation 
and the like. :)

 

From: Russ George   

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:03 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

You might at least use an appropriate emoticon ;) I have posed the dose 
question is to discover some idea of context. Clearly what has been stated in 
this recent experiment is a dose orders of magnitude beyond ‘natural 
background.’ 

In another context for example if Rossi feels it is necessary to provide 5 cm 
of lead shielding in his e-cats that is a stunning amount of gamma/x-ray 
shielding. For example 1mm of lead is more than sufficient to give 99.9% 
protection from medical x-rays for some common human context. 

 

From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

Hi Russ:

 

   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking about Alan, 
here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize he got 
irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not because of the 
apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep during the 
experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few 
minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the Natural Radiation 
Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed burst...

 

I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.

   

 

From:   Russ George 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM

To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that person is 
both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, and has a 
long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would seem likely the 
‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than what the detector 
has recorded. 

[Vo]:Re: Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?Sorry, Russ ... You’re right.  The emoticon 
went missing ... My bad ...

Please keep in mind that the detector signal-to-noise was enhanced by dropping 
the noise floor by almost an order of magnitude in 
the region of interest in this experiment.  Although I haven’t seen a solid 
estimate of the peak intensity, it is estimated to be 
not a whole lot more than that order of magnitude ... I am dancing on thin ice 
here, but you questions are good ones.

The experiment was in another room and the human distances from the actual 
experiment were many meters, but who knows.

I hope someone will spend the time and answer your Qs from a Health Physics 
point of view.  We really don’t have enough of them 
versed in Muon Irradiation and the like. :)

From: Russ George
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

You might at least use an appropriate emoticon ;) I have posed the dose 
question is to discover some idea of context. Clearly what 
has been stated in this recent experiment is a dose orders of magnitude beyond 
‘natural background.’

In another context for example if Rossi feels it is necessary to provide 5 cm 
of lead shielding in his e-cats that is a stunning 
amount of gamma/x-ray shielding. For example 1mm of lead is more than 
sufficient to give 99.9% protection from medical x-rays for 
some common human context.



From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?



Hi Russ:



   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m 
not talking about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even 
realize he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks 
later ... He’s resting, not because of the apparent irradiation, but because he 
didn’t get much sleep during the experiment.  I 
think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few minutes after the 
event, he received more radiation from the Natural 
Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed 
burst...



I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.





From: Russ George

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?



If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? 
Clearly that person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to 
the source, and has a long exposure from this and many 
similar experiments. It would seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some 
orders of magnitude more than what the detector has 
recorded.

RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

HRM … hmmm… So if hrm passes through glass what will happen when it enters some 
other matter, say metals… will the alpha’s suddenly be released? If so will 
they reveal themselves via alpha knock-on emissions?

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 3:01 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by 
penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it could 
produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of thousands of alpha 
particles as a by-product. 

 

John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an open 
cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  > wrote:

Hi Russ:

 

   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking about Alan, 
here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize he got 
irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not because of the 
apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep during the 
experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few 
minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the Natural Radiation 
Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed burst...

 

I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.

   

 

From: Russ George   

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that person is 
both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, and has a 
long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would seem likely the 
‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than what the detector 
has recorded. 

 

RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

You might at least use an appropriate emoticon ;) I have posed the dose 
question is to discover some idea of context. Clearly what has been stated in 
this recent experiment is a dose orders of magnitude beyond ‘natural 
background.’ 

In another context for example if Rossi feels it is necessary to provide 5 cm 
of lead shielding in his e-cats that is a stunning amount of gamma/x-ray 
shielding. For example 1mm of lead is more than sufficient to give 99.9% 
protection from medical x-rays for some common human context. 

 

From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

Hi Russ:

 

   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking about Alan, 
here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize he got 
irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not because of the 
apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep during the 
experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few 
minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the Natural Radiation 
Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed burst...

 

I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.

   

 

From:   Russ George 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM

To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that person is 
both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, and has a 
long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would seem likely the 
‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than what the detector 
has recorded. 

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Axil Axil]

I believe that the Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM) can escape the reactor by
penetrating glass or hot alumina. If this stuff gets into the lungs, it
could produce nuclear reactions inside the body and produce 10s of
thousands of alpha particles as a by-product.

John Fisher has seen such particles ascending in the steam produced by an
open cell. That particle produced thousands of alpha particles,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich  wrote:

> Hi Russ:
>
>I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this
> experiment, very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m not talking
> about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even realize
> he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks later ... He’s resting, not
> because of the apparent irradiation, but because he didn’t get much sleep
> during the experiment.  I think the dose estimate was something like this
> ... A few minutes after the event, he received more radiation from the
> Natural Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during
> the supposed burst...
>
> I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.
>
>
> *From:* Russ George 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?
>
>
> If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does
> this infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that
> person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source,
> and has a long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would
> seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than
> what the detector has recorded.
>

Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Mark Jurich]

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?Hi Russ:

   I happen to know one of the possibly irradiated parties of this experiment, 
very well ... He’s a total idiot, actually ... I’m 
not talking about Alan, here.  He’s such an idiot that he actually didn’t even 
realize he got irradiated until the analysis, weeks 
later ... He’s resting, not because of the apparent irradiation, but because he 
didn’t get much sleep during the experiment.  I 
think the dose estimate was something like this ... A few minutes after the 
event, he received more radiation from the Natural 
Radiation Background than all that was currently estimated during the supposed 
burst...

I’ll check back with him in a few days to see if he’s OK, though.


From: Russ George
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 2:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? 
Clearly that person is both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to 
the source, and has a long exposure from this and many 
similar experiments. It would seem likely the ‘human detector dose’ is some 
orders of magnitude more than what the detector has 
recorded.

[Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

If the radiation signal in the recent MFMP experiment holds up what does this 
infer as a dose for the person doing the experiment? Clearly that person is 
both a much larger ‘detector’, likely often closer to the source, and has a 
long exposure from this and many similar experiments. It would seem likely the 
‘human detector dose’ is some orders of magnitude more than what the detector 
has recorded. 

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Axil Axil]

This video will explain how photons and electrons become entangled in an
optical cavity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU

Polaritons like to exist in a condensate and be coherent much more than
light.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Is this polaritron concept – that of mashing electrons and photons
> together- related to Barbat claims?
>
>
>
> http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Chris Zell]

Is this polaritron concept – that of mashing electrons and photons together- 
related to Barbat claims?

http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm

Re: [Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[Patrick Ellul]

Nearly half of Australia's workforce at risk of computerisation and
automation, CSIRO report finds

   - In the next 20 years, 44 per cent of Australian jobs are at risk of
   computerisation and automation
   - All industries will be affected by automation
   - More people will work in shared "co-working" spaces
   - There will be even more casualisation of the workforce
   - Careers in the service industry will grow with the ageing population
   - Generation Z will need to be creative and entrepreneurial
   -
   
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/robots-will-take-over-44pc-of-workforce:-csiro/7203782


On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> There is a remarkable video in this article, showing the latest humanoid
> robot from Boston Dynamics. Clearly this machine is not humanoid in the
> emotional sense, because if it were, it might punch the operator in the
> nose. I felt sorry for the poor thing, which is like feeling sorry for a
> dishwasher.
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/26/atlas_the_new_robot_from_boston_dynamics_sets_a_new_standard_for_robot_capabilities.html
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

[Vo]:Solitonic / Oscillonic Stimulation

[Vibrator !]

As a complete novice in all things LENR i've been following the
developments of recent years with interest and optimism, not least via the
very informative discussions here.

However i have one small area of interest that might be relevant, which i
haven't seen mentioned elsewhere:

 It concerns how aggregate / particulate media interact with stimulant
bandwidths, as opposed to just discrete frequencies.

The stimulation in question may be EM or mechanical, but the aim would be
the same - to excite resonances across a range of interdependent scales
simulatneously in the same medium; that interdependency relating to a
specific bandwidth...

It's octave bandwiths that are of interest - oscillons (cousins of
solitons) resonate with aggregate frequencies lying in factors of two to
the single particle resonant freq., so there's a kind of coherent scale
invariance to the resulting structure, with larger groups of particles
resonating at half the frequency of groups half their size.

A three octave range (ie. F, 2F, 4F) - so three simultaneous freqs at equal
amplitude - which could then be swept up and down while maintaining that
bandwidth ratio, would be an adequate test of the idea (i'd hesitate to
call it a hypothesis, more like a hunch)..

Similarly, i'm curious if this same principle has been tested in
superconductivity research - solitons obviously have potential relevance
there.

I only mention this in response to reports that the MFMP team are
considering testing sound / phonon stimulation: why settle for making waves
when you could try for solitons (or their 3D counterparts)..?   For a very
modest increase in complexity, this could significantly widen the net for
interesting low entropy states across a given freq range.

[Vo]:Progress in humanoid robots

[Jed Rothwell]

There is a remarkable video in this article, showing the latest humanoid
robot from Boston Dynamics. Clearly this machine is not humanoid in the
emotional sense, because if it were, it might punch the operator in the
nose. I felt sorry for the poor thing, which is like feeling sorry for a
dishwasher.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/26/atlas_the_new_robot_from_boston_dynamics_sets_a_new_standard_for_robot_capabilities.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Electron plasma frequency

[Stephen Cooke]

I'm wondering if highly hydrogenated or doped materials such as Metals, CNT, 
activated BNNT etc. in particular those with high concentrations of atomic 
hydrogen with high consent rations of valance electrons would have much higher 
electron density than normal metals. If so I suppose the plasma frequency 
(associated with evanescent waves as well as Bulk and Surface Plasmons) would 
be higher also. 

Photons with frequencies below the plasma frequency are evanescent. If there is 
an energy transition in a nucleus it emits a gamma. What happens if this 
transition occurs with an energy and frequency below that of the plasma 
frequency? Is it trapped as an evanescent wave ? Or is the transition inhibited 
some how? 

> On 26 feb. 2016, at 20:47, Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
> Axil, 
> 
> I found this interesting but very clear and simply explained presentation on 
> bulk and surface plasmons, online.
> 
> https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/AnuradhaKVerma/m2-plasmons
> 
> I thought of you when reading it even though it is at a much more basic level 
> than some of the concepts you grapple with. It might help some who are 
> unfamiliar with SPP to understand the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 26 feb. 2016, at 19:45, Axil Axil  wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.caltech.edu/news/topolariton-new-half-matter-half-light-particle-48222
>> 
>> A topolariton is a one way flow of photons into a topological defect in a 
>> metal. All the photons move to that point and collect. They form a soliton. 
>> A solution is an huge single wave. When heat and gamma enter this soliton, 
>> their frequencies are upshifted and downshifted by mutual interference to 
>> match the frequency of the soliton.
>> 
>> This soliton is the SPP. When the soliton is not coherent, its life is short 
>> and it breaks up and all the photons are released can then be seen to the 
>> far field. The wavelengths of the solitons take on random values as the  
>> solitons are formed and destroyed at random. This is where the random 
>> frequency distribution seen in the MFMP results come from.
>> 
>> When a condensate of the SPPs form, the SPPs become metastable and they 
>> release energy as hawking radiation which is thermal. The solitons leak 
>> their energy into the vacuum. No gamma level EMF is released because the 
>> photons are constrained indefinitely in a dark mode.
>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Stephen Cooke  
>>> wrote:
>>> Apparently Silver or copper has a plasma frequency in the UV region which 
>>> is why it reflects light of below these frequencies
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
>>> 
>>> If i understand correctly at frequencies below the plasma frequency photon 
>>> emission no longer propagates but instead becomes evanescent.
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
>>> 
>>> This is probably a crazy idea but:
>>> 
>>> Could very high electron plasma densities be reached in some materials or 
>>> structures perhaps in the vicinity of NAE, Highly Hydrogenated materials, 
>>> Rydberg matter or UDD or UDH for example? 
>>> 
>>> Is there a possibility for the electron density to be sufficiently dense 
>>> that it can have a plasma frequency in the X-ray region or above in these 
>>> materials or structures?
>>> 
>>> If so what happens with X-ray or gamma emissions which typically have 
>>> frequencies below the plasma frequencies? 
>>> Are Evanescent X-rays or Gammas produced?
>>> What happens to Bremsstrahlung emissions in this region?
>>> Could near field or far field interactions of these evanescent waves lead 
>>> to resonance with particular nucleus energy level transitions for example? 
>>> Could it lead to collective behaviour and or resonances?
>>> 
>>> I suppose this could topic could relate to the SPP mentioned by Axil in 
>>> some way too. 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the maths or physics forbids this kind high energy evanescence, 
>>> hopefully a good Physicist or enthusiast knowledgable about this field 
>>> knows. Maybe Axil can enlighten me I hope? 
>> 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> In some cases they have been anti-correlated. Cells have produced
> radiation and neutrons, then heat and no radiation, then radiation again.
>

By radiation I mean gamma rays (MeV). Lots of cells produce x-rays (keV) as
detected with dental film placed close to the cathode. Maybe they all do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Axil Axil]

The One very important concept that Ken Shoulders never stumbled upon was
the polariton. He thought that the EV was made up of electrons which are
fermions only but they are made up of bosons called polaritons. Polaritons
are and entangled mixture of photons and electrons. The EV can store an
unlimited number of polaritons because they are bosons. A collection of
fermions are restricted in size based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

This all means that LENR is based on bosons which can concentrate in
unlimited numbers. The other important ability that polaritons have is that
they organize their collective spins to produce a monopole field of
unlimited strength. A soliton of polaritons is a analog monopole
quasiparticle. Monopoles can disrupt protons and neutrons and produce
mesons from them.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> There was a guy named Adamenko who produced results similar to Shoulders.
>
>
>
> http://rexresearch.com/adamenko/adamenko.htm
>
>
>
> Judging from the discussion here, it sounds as if people are looking for a
> particle to explain things – a particle similar to Shoulders charge
> clusters.
>
> It’s so sad…….his patent evinced so much careful work, a real labor of
> love – and it could give us unlimited energy and transmutation. Instead,
> it’s mostly an obscurity.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

On the contrary, the storage of energy is at the core of the LENR reaction.
>

No, it isn't. The only examples of endothermic storage before the reaction
turns on are caused by palladium loading. They are fully explained by
conventional chemistry. There is no other storage in the experimental
literature as far as I know. Please cite some examples of you know of any.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Otherwise that would mean that there is no connection between excess heat
> and radiation . . .
>
There is no correlation. In some cases they have been anti-correlated.
Cells have produced radiation and neutrons, then heat and no radiation,
then radiation again. If true, I suppose that means radiation somehow
resembles incomplete combustion that produces smoke rather than an open
flame.

Ed Storms thinks that radiation is a side effect of the cold fusion process
that happens sometimes but not other times. He thinks the neutrons may be
from fractofusion.

There may be a causative connection between radiation and heat. Perhaps one
causes the other, or there is a common cause. But there is no correlation
and definitely no fixed ratio.

That is unhelpful, but facts are facts, even when they frustrate the
theorist.

I do not think this is caused by inadequate instrumentation.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Electron plasma frequency

[Stephen Cooke]

Axil, 

I found this interesting but very clear and simply explained presentation on 
bulk and surface plasmons, online.

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/AnuradhaKVerma/m2-plasmons

I thought of you when reading it even though it is at a much more basic level 
than some of the concepts you grapple with. It might help some who are 
unfamiliar with SPP to understand the concept.



Sent from my iPad

> On 26 feb. 2016, at 19:45, Axil Axil  wrote:
> 
> https://www.caltech.edu/news/topolariton-new-half-matter-half-light-particle-48222
> 
> A topolariton is a one way flow of photons into a topological defect in a 
> metal. All the photons move to that point and collect. They form a soliton. A 
> solution is an huge single wave. When heat and gamma enter this soliton, 
> their frequencies are upshifted and downshifted by mutual interference to 
> match the frequency of the soliton.
> 
> This soliton is the SPP. When the soliton is not coherent, its life is short 
> and it breaks up and all the photons are released can then be seen to the far 
> field. The wavelengths of the solitons take on random values as the  solitons 
> are formed and destroyed at random. This is where the random frequency 
> distribution seen in the MFMP results come from.
> 
> When a condensate of the SPPs form, the SPPs become metastable and they 
> release energy as hawking radiation which is thermal. The solitons leak their 
> energy into the vacuum. No gamma level EMF is released because the photons 
> are constrained indefinitely in a dark mode.
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Stephen Cooke  
>> wrote:
>> Apparently Silver or copper has a plasma frequency in the UV region which is 
>> why it reflects light of below these frequencies
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
>> 
>> If i understand correctly at frequencies below the plasma frequency photon 
>> emission no longer propagates but instead becomes evanescent.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
>> 
>> This is probably a crazy idea but:
>> 
>> Could very high electron plasma densities be reached in some materials or 
>> structures perhaps in the vicinity of NAE, Highly Hydrogenated materials, 
>> Rydberg matter or UDD or UDH for example? 
>> 
>> Is there a possibility for the electron density to be sufficiently dense 
>> that it can have a plasma frequency in the X-ray region or above in these 
>> materials or structures?
>> 
>> If so what happens with X-ray or gamma emissions which typically have 
>> frequencies below the plasma frequencies? 
>> Are Evanescent X-rays or Gammas produced?
>> What happens to Bremsstrahlung emissions in this region?
>> Could near field or far field interactions of these evanescent waves lead to 
>> resonance with particular nucleus energy level transitions for example? 
>> Could it lead to collective behaviour and or resonances?
>> 
>> I suppose this could topic could relate to the SPP mentioned by Axil in some 
>> way too. 
>> 
>> Perhaps the maths or physics forbids this kind high energy evanescence, 
>> hopefully a good Physicist or enthusiast knowledgable about this field 
>> knows. Maybe Axil can enlighten me I hope? 
>>  
> 

[Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Chris Zell]

There was a guy named Adamenko who produced results similar to Shoulders.

http://rexresearch.com/adamenko/adamenko.htm

Judging from the discussion here, it sounds as if people are looking for a 
particle to explain things - a particle similar to Shoulders charge clusters.
It's so sad...his patent evinced so much careful work, a real labor of love 
- and it could give us unlimited energy and transmutation. Instead, it's mostly 
an obscurity.

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Axil Axil]

On the contrary, the storage of energy is at the core of the LENR reaction.
Photons are stored in the SPPs and on hydrogen Rydberg matter. X-rays
occurs when SPPs release their energy. When the SPP are coherent in a BEC,
heat photons are released.

If the BEC of SPP is destroyed, all the energy stored in the BEC would be
released in a burst. I predict that when excess heat is produced in a LENR
experiment, if a very large magnetic field is applied to that BEC, all the
stored energy will be released as XUV and x-rays in a burst as the BEC is
destroyed by the externally applied magnetic field.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>>
>
> I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy storage
> in this system. I think you seeing a deficit in the first 19 hours because
> the calorimetry does not capture all of the heat.
>
>
>
>> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> stored and released using just chemistry?
>>
>
> What chemistry? Why hasn't it been seen before?
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Electron plasma frequency

[Axil Axil]

https://www.caltech.edu/news/topolariton-new-half-matter-half-light-particle-48222

A topolariton is a one way flow of photons into a topological defect in a
metal. All the photons move to that point and collect. They form a soliton.
A solution is an huge single wave. When heat and gamma enter this soliton,
their frequencies are upshifted and downshifted by mutual interference to
match the frequency of the soliton.

This soliton is the SPP. When the soliton is not coherent, its life is
short and it breaks up and all the photons are released can then be seen to
the far field. The wavelengths of the solitons take on random values as the
 solitons are formed and destroyed at random. This is where the random
frequency distribution seen in the MFMP results come from.

When a condensate of the SPPs form, the SPPs become metastable and they
release energy as hawking radiation which is thermal. The solitons leak
their energy into the vacuum. No gamma level EMF is released because the
photons are constrained indefinitely in a dark mode.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Apparently Silver or copper has a plasma frequency in the UV region which
> is why it reflects light of below these frequencies
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
>
> If i understand correctly at frequencies below the plasma frequency photon
> emission no longer propagates but instead becomes evanescent.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
>
> This is probably a crazy idea but:
>
> Could very high electron plasma densities be reached in some materials or
> structures perhaps in the vicinity of NAE, Highly Hydrogenated materials,
> Rydberg matter or UDD or UDH for example?
>
> Is there a possibility for the electron density to be sufficiently dense
> that it can have a plasma frequency in the X-ray region or above in these
> materials or structures?
>
> If so what happens with X-ray or gamma emissions which typically have
> frequencies below the plasma frequencies?
> Are Evanescent X-rays or Gammas produced?
> What happens to Bremsstrahlung emissions in this region?
> Could near field or far field interactions of these evanescent waves lead
> to resonance with particular nucleus energy level transitions for example?
> Could it lead to collective behaviour and or resonances?
>
> I suppose this could topic could relate to the SPP mentioned by Axil in
> some way too.
>
> Perhaps the maths or physics forbids this kind high energy evanescence,
> hopefully a good Physicist or enthusiast knowledgable about this field
> knows. Maybe Axil can enlighten me I hope?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Axil Axil]

My ideas about analog black holes and EVs as dark matter are supported by
the work of Ken Shoulders. It is unfortunate that these ideas make many
people very nervous and hostile so I don't express those incendiary ideas
very often. However, hawking radiation is how I believe that gamma
radiation confined in a dark mode within a soliton is converted to thermal
EMF by hawking radiation,

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> Since you guys bring this up,  the subject of radioactive decay constants
> has been a puzzlement for much of my adult life.
>
>
>
> On the one hand, you have the near absolute standard of Rutherford/Emery
> in which you can’t do anything practical about using radioactive materials
> as a power source through stimulation.
>
> OTOH, there have been some credible observations in the other direction:
>
>
>
> http://rexresearch.com/leimer/leimer.html
>
>
>
> That one even made it into Scientific American long ago.  You also have
> Papp, Shoulders, Paul Brown, and Moray – which appear to be based on
> triggering radioactive decay.  I think the Moray device was very credible,
> in particular.  Some Tesla coil experiments seemed to show an odd delay
>
> In decay – that rose and fell, well after the stimulus.
>
>
>
> Intuitively, I have long felt that there is something here, working as an
> exception – but I have no idea what or how such a thing would be possible.
> I do think the Shoulders patents may explain some of the radioactive
> effects of Cold Fusion.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Axil Axil]

Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression on Atomic Decay Rates”.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1638v1.pdf

This theory when put in simple terms connects negative vacuum energy with
radioactive decay rates.

When an imbalance is produced in the vacuum energy by increasing vacuum
energy in one spot in the vacuum, a corresponding reduction must apply to
another spot of the vacuum. The increase in EMF photons produce this
imbalance and that imbalance produces changes in the nuclear decay rates.

I reference nanoplasmonic based experiments here to show how the
confinement of polaritons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a
nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6
microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission without neutrons. This
shows that strong EMF concentration is a cental part of the LENR reaction.
See references:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t=j==s=1=web=1=rja=2=0CC4QFjAA=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA=bv.46471029,d.dmQ


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> While some patents are complete BS, there are a few that assert
> revolutionary ideas together with lengthy specifics that add to their
> credibility such as Barker, also Shoulders and Correa.
>
>
>
> There have been some folks experimenting with Tesla coils and claiming to
> stimulate radioactive decay but some of them are Creationists seeking to
> dethrone radioactive dating methods, so they are ignored.
>
>
>
> I recall an obscure paper from the American University in which a
> physicist stimulated beta decay using a high voltage antenna feed but that
> was only 10 -5 power stuff, so small potatoes.
>
>
>
> Nucell folks made big claims, years ago, about using radioactive materials
> as a stimulated power source but I never could figure out if this was
> complete fraud or if they truly stumbled onto something big.
>
>
>
> These days nobody can experiment with stuff like that on their own because
> of fear of automatically being called a ‘terrorist’,  You can’t do
> chemistry on your own either because it’s automatically a meth lab.
>
> I hear laboratory glassware is flat out illegal in some parts of the US
> now.
>
>
>

[Vo]:LENR DISCOVERIES ARE NOT BORN EQUAL

[Peter Gluck]

I am a peaceful old man. however what I say here is not so.In my Notes.
There a re News too.
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-26-2016-lenr-discoveries-are-not.html

peter


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

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

The interpretation (or in this case the mis-interpretation) of the metric can 
me more important than the metric itself.

For instance, as Rothwell says, “There are many reports of experiments that 
produced massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the 
limits of chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation.” What he 
should have said is “no measured radiation”.

Otherwise that would mean that there is no connection between excess heat and 
radiation – if the heat can happen w/o radiation, but the logical error in that 
conclusion is in “measurable”. Not always are radiation measurements done as 
well as here, and even then it is all in the interpretation.

Few experiments used the lead bricks that Alan had and not all of them have 
access to a sophisticated device with multiple channels to cover a wide 
spectrum. And an additional device is supposedly on the way. 

For instance, use of lead is one of the best ways to capture muons before they 
decay, and it so happened that when the present setup was moved further away, 
the fall-off was dramatic, as I recall - and consistent with muon decay, far 
more so than with inverse square. Yet if you do not believe in Holmlid’s muons, 
you would probably ignore this detail and try to find another explanation.

Jones


From: Bob Higgins 

As an experimentalist, I think you are wrong.  It is extremely frustrating to 
run an experiment and have the outcome produce 0 useful metric.  This is the 
usual case in early LENR development when the metric is heat COP because it is 
so hard to measure with precision and accuracy. 

Radiation measurement is capable of discerning whether nuclear events are being 
created.  It could also tell if high energy supra-chemical events are happening 
(<509keV).  Even in Pd-D electrolytic cells, CR39 studies show that these 
reactions are at least accompanied by high energy emissions - making such 
radiations a tag of the LENR.  This is far better than having no useful metric, 
which is what most experimenters have when they begin evaluating LENR recipes.  
Also, I ask you, "Why does Rossi incorporate so much lead in his reactors?" 
(reportedly 5cm).  It could be that all Ni-H LENR is accompanied by some form 
of radiation, perhaps high energy at startup, evolving to lower energy 
radiation that is easily thermalized in the reactor materials as the reaction 
is tuned to its sweet spot.  Defkalion also reported radiation.  Focardi and 
Piantelli have reported radiation.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
Bob Higgins  wrote:
 
OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.

I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced massive 
excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits of 
chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation. That is the opposite 
of "excellent."

What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks for 
his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows. Just 
because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good metric, 
since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is occurring.

- Jed

[Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Chris Zell]

Since you guys bring this up,  the subject of radioactive decay constants has 
been a puzzlement for much of my adult life.

On the one hand, you have the near absolute standard of Rutherford/Emery in 
which you can't do anything practical about using radioactive materials as a 
power source through stimulation.
OTOH, there have been some credible observations in the other direction:

http://rexresearch.com/leimer/leimer.html

That one even made it into Scientific American long ago.  You also have Papp, 
Shoulders, Paul Brown, and Moray - which appear to be based on triggering 
radioactive decay.  I think the Moray device was very credible, in particular.  
Some Tesla coil experiments seemed to show an odd delay
In decay - that rose and fell, well after the stimulus.

Intuitively, I have long felt that there is something here, working as an 
exception - but I have no idea what or how such a thing would be possible.  I 
do think the Shoulders patents may explain some of the radioactive effects of 
Cold Fusion.

RE: [Vo]:Electron plasma frequency

[Stephen Cooke]

Hi Bob
Yup regarding the evanescent fields… thats kind of the point. But maybe you 
wanted to clarify what I wrote in which case thanks ;)
Interesting point about Capacitance and Inductance. I did not know that.

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:13:11 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electron plasma frequency
From: rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Like local DC magnetic fields, evanescent fields quickly decay to 0.  These are 
non-propagating local fields.  These are the fields responsible for inductance 
and capacitance.  It is the opposite of a radiating field.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Stephen Cooke  
wrote:



Apparently Silver or copper has a plasma frequency in the UV region which is 
why it reflects light of below these frequencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
If i understand correctly at frequencies below the plasma frequency photon 
emission no longer propagates but instead becomes evanescent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
This is probably a crazy idea but:
Could very high electron plasma densities be reached in some materials or 
structures perhaps in the vicinity of NAE, Highly Hydrogenated materials, 
Rydberg matter or UDD or UDH for example? 
Is there a possibility for the electron density to be sufficiently dense that 
it can have a plasma frequency in the X-ray region or above in these materials 
or structures?
If so what happens with X-ray or gamma emissions which typically have 
frequencies below the plasma frequencies? Are Evanescent X-rays or Gammas 
produced?What happens to Bremsstrahlung emissions in this region?Could near 
field or far field interactions of these evanescent waves lead to resonance 
with particular nucleus energy level transitions for example? Could it lead to 
collective behaviour and or resonances?
I suppose this could topic could relate to the SPP mentioned by Axil in some 
way too. 
Perhaps the maths or physics forbids this kind high energy evanescence, 
hopefully a good Physicist or enthusiast knowledgable about this field knows. 
Maybe Axil can enlighten me I hope? 

  

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

As an experimentalist, I think you are wrong.  It is extremely frustrating
to run an experiment and have the outcome produce 0 useful metric.  This is
the usual case in early LENR development when the metric is heat COP
because it is so hard to measure with precision and accuracy.

Radiation measurement is capable of discerning whether nuclear events are
being created.  It could also tell if high energy supra-chemical events are
happening (<509keV).  Even in Pd-D electrolytic cells, CR39 studies show
that these reactions are at least accompanied by high energy emissions -
making such radiations a tag of the LENR.  This is far better than having
no useful metric, which is what most experimenters have when they begin
evaluating LENR recipes.

Also, I ask you, "Why does Rossi incorporate so much lead in his reactors?"
(reportedly 5cm).  It could be that all Ni-H LENR is accompanied by some
form of radiation, perhaps high energy at startup, evolving to lower energy
radiation that is easily thermalized in the reactor materials as the
reaction is tuned to its sweet spot.  Defkalion also reported radiation.
Focardi and Piantelli have reported radiation.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>
>> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
>>
>
> I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced
> massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits
> of chemistry and yet which produced *no measurable radiation*. That is
> the opposite of "excellent."
>
> What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks
> for his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows.
> Just because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good
> metric, since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is
> occurring.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

Nucell folks made big claims, years ago, about using radioactive materials
> as a stimulated power source but I never could figure out if this was
> complete fraud or if they truly stumbled onto something big.


My working hypothesis is that Papp was stimulating alpha decay by causing
electric arcing between electrodes with thorium deposited on them (among
other radioisotopes that he used at different points).  The energetic
alphas in turn excited the working fluid of noble gasses as they were
stopped.  The common understanding is that Feynman debunked Papp, but when
you read the history it is hard to draw that conclusion, even on the basis
of his own account.

It is surely true that much of the explanation provided by Papp in his
patents was unphysical.  But not necessarily all of it -- he did refer to
stimulating radioactivity, which means that his potentially correct
explanation predates that of Barker.  (I think there are some famous
physicists who suggested that this could be done prior to Papp.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>
>
> I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy storage in
> this system.

In principle the nucleus has a tremendous capacity for absorbing energy.

>I think you seeing a deficit in the first 19 hours because the
> calorimetry does not capture all of the heat.

>
>>
>> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> stored and released using just chemistry?
>
>
> What chemistry? Why hasn't it been seen before?

I just want to be sure that it is impossible.

Harry

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

Jack,
thanks for the links.
The calibration curves seem to indicate that the temperature
difference is significantly smaller then the temperature difference
which occurs during the experimental run so my interpretation is still
valid.

Harry

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> Harry,
> Here is an animated chart of the calibrations.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kZ295dXF0cTVLSW8/view
>
> It doesn't appear that it was calibrated empty, but rather had an alumina
> rod inserted.  It's not completely clear to me what they did, but they did
> do 4 calibrations it appears.
> http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2
>
> Jack
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM H LV  wrote:
>>
>> Jack,
>>
>> Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both
>> calibrated empty?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>> > Harry,
>> >
>> > I can see where you would think that based on the active side being
>> > lower
>> > than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
>> > differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
>> > during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
>> > experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last
>> > more
>> > than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
>> > experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
>> > temperatures where you expect them to occur.
>> >
>> > Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
>> > case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating
>> > coil
>> > has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
>> > together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
>> > relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
>> > alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
>> > calorimetry.
>> >
>> > Jack
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3
>> >>
>> >> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets
>> >> over
>> >> time?
>> >>
>> >> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> >> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> >> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>> >>
>> >> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> >> stored and released using just chemistry?
>> >>
>> >> Harry
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Vo]:Stimulated Decay

[Chris Zell]

While some patents are complete BS, there are a few that assert revolutionary 
ideas together with lengthy specifics that add to their credibility such as 
Barker, also Shoulders and Correa.

There have been some folks experimenting with Tesla coils and claiming to 
stimulate radioactive decay but some of them are Creationists seeking to 
dethrone radioactive dating methods, so they are ignored.

I recall an obscure paper from the American University in which a physicist 
stimulated beta decay using a high voltage antenna feed but that was only 10 -5 
power stuff, so small potatoes.

Nucell folks made big claims, years ago, about using radioactive materials as a 
stimulated power source but I never could figure out if this was complete fraud 
or if they truly stumbled onto something big.

These days nobody can experiment with stuff like that on their own because of 
fear of automatically being called a 'terrorist',  You can't do chemistry on 
your own either because it's automatically a meth lab.
I hear laboratory glassware is flat out illegal in some parts of the US now.

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

OTOH, presence of gamma rays (for example in an electrolytic cell), not due to 
natural background, is a convincing indicator of a nuclear effect, as often 
stated by others.

Ludwik

===



On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>  
> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
> 
> I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced 
> massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits 
> of chemistry and yet which produced no measurable radiation. That is the 
> opposite of "excellent."
> 
> What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks for 
> his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows. Just 
> because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good metric, 
> since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is occurring.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.
>

I do not think so. There are many reports of experiments that produced
massive excess heat, easily measured, orders of magnitude beyond the limits
of chemistry and yet which produced *no measurable radiation*. That is the
opposite of "excellent."

What you are suggesting is similar to the joke about that drunk who looks
for his keys under the streetlight even though he lost them in the shadows.
Just because radiation is easy to measure, that does not make it a good
metric, since it is often missing even when we know the phenomenon is
occurring.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jack Cole]

Harry,
Here is an animated chart of the calibrations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxJkjesxe4kZ295dXF0cTVLSW8/view

It doesn't appear that it was calibrated empty, but rather had an alumina
rod inserted.  It's not completely clear to me what they did, but they did
do 4 calibrations it appears.
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

Jack

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:29 AM H LV  wrote:

> Jack,
>
> Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both
> calibrated empty?
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> > Harry,
> >
> > I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower
> > than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
> > differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
> > during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
> > experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last more
> > than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
> > experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
> > temperatures where you expect them to occur.
> >
> > Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
> > case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating
> coil
> > has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
> > together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
> > relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
> > alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
> > calorimetry.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:
> >>
> >> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3
> >>
> >> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets
> over
> >> time?
> >>
> >> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> >> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> >> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
> >>
> >> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> >> stored and released using just chemistry?
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

Jack,

Okay that would explain it. Were the active and null sides both
calibrated empty?

Harry

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
> Harry,
>
> I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower
> than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
> differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
> during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
> experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last more
> than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
> experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
> temperatures where you expect them to occur.
>
> Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
> case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating coil
> has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
> together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
> relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
> alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
> calorimetry.
>
> Jack
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:
>>
>> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>>
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3
>>
>> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over
>> time?
>>
>> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
>> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
>> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>>
>> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
>> stored and released using just chemistry?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Bob Higgins]

You on touching on one of the fundamental issues with experimental LENR -
what do you use for a metric?  If you want to progress from no results or
poor results in your experiment, you need to have a way to measure whether
you are getting better or worse as you introduce changes - you need a
metric, a measure of performance.  In the early stages of LENR development,
using excess heat as your metric is a terrible choice.  The reason is that
measuring the output heat, and sometimes the input energy are very hard to
do with sufficient accuracy to provide a confident measure of performance.
What you end up getting from your COP metric is basically noise, tending to
steer you in a random direction.

OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric.  X-rays, gamma rays,
and neutron flux do not come from chemical action.  When using starting
materials that do not contain radioisotopes, observing radiation is a sure
sign of LENR.  Test setups can be made that are able to detect radiation
(and hence LENR) at very low levels.  It is a reasonable plan to use the
radiation metric to adjust your experiment until you are confidently
creating LENR with every experiment; and once you are, then optimize for
excess heat or maximum COP.

In the GS5.2 case, LENR occurred.  The measured radiation showed that LENR
occurred, and the nature of the measured radiation provides another clue to
the mechanism of the reaction at the same time.  The COP GS5.2 produced was
probably in the thermal measurement noise.  The question now is, can GS5.2
be repeated?  Then, can it be made better?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, H LV  wrote:

> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3
>
> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over
> time?
>
> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>
> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> stored and released using just chemistry?
>
> Harry
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: H LV 

MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data What 
story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over time? My 
reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy for the first 
19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for the last 9hrs.  'Excess 
Heat' is not evidentBased on this reading, is it possible to explain the 
amount of energy stored and released using just chemistry?

Harry,

MFPF is most definitely providing a valuable role in this research, but as you 
imply - they appear to have "jumped the gun" on this announcement. The end 
result is that the lack of convincing evidence feeds into the agenda of the 
Mary Yugo's of the world - just the opposite of what was intended.

And the skeptics are right this time - there is nothing at all to get excited 
about here... yet. The heat is in the noise level and the radiation has been 
known for over a decade. Anyone can make a much better case for LENR by using 
Rothwell's Library. 

We respect Greenyer's efforts. We hope that he is correct that there will be 
more to come shortly. I think that there will be better evidence coming to 
light shortly. It's just too bad that he raised expectations high 
prematurely... and then had to scurry around to explain the fizzle. Mary gloats.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>

I doubt there is a mechanism that would allow significant energy storage in
this system. I think you seeing a deficit in the first 19 hours because the
calorimetry does not capture all of the heat.



> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> stored and released using just chemistry?
>

What chemistry? Why hasn't it been seen before?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[Jack Cole]

Harry,

I can see where you would think that based on the active side being lower
than null to start and later higher.  However, there was already the
differential with the active side reading lower than the null side even
during the calibration.  Also, chemistry effects in these types of
experiments are fairly clear when they happen and usually don't last more
than 30 mins (certainly less than 1 hour).  I base that on numerous
experiments I have conducted, and the chemistry effects are seen at the
temperatures where you expect them to occur.

Were I to imagine a scenario where the excess heat was not real in this
case, it would go like the following: at lower temperature, the heating
coil has more space between the windings; at higher temperature, it pulls
together beneath the TC producing a higher temp at that spot.  Then it
relaxes when it cools off.  Of course that is imaginary, but a plausible
alternative.  That is why it would be good to do at least conduction
calorimetry.

Jack

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:37 AM H LV  wrote:

> MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3
>
> What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over
> time?
>
> My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
> for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
> the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.
>
> Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
> stored and released using just chemistry?
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

[H LV]

MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data.

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3

What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over time?

My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy
for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for
the last 9hrs.  'Excess Heat' is not evident.

Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy
stored and released using just chemistry?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Electron plasma frequency

[Bob Higgins]

Like local DC magnetic fields, evanescent fields quickly decay to 0.  These
are non-propagating local fields.  These are the fields responsible for
inductance and capacitance.  It is the opposite of a radiating field.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Apparently Silver or copper has a plasma frequency in the UV region which
> is why it reflects light of below these frequencies
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
>
> If i understand correctly at frequencies below the plasma frequency photon
> emission no longer propagates but instead becomes evanescent.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
>
> This is probably a crazy idea but:
>
> Could very high electron plasma densities be reached in some materials or
> structures perhaps in the vicinity of NAE, Highly Hydrogenated materials,
> Rydberg matter or UDD or UDH for example?
>
> Is there a possibility for the electron density to be sufficiently dense
> that it can have a plasma frequency in the X-ray region or above in these
> materials or structures?
>
> If so what happens with X-ray or gamma emissions which typically have
> frequencies below the plasma frequencies?
> Are Evanescent X-rays or Gammas produced?
> What happens to Bremsstrahlung emissions in this region?
> Could near field or far field interactions of these evanescent waves lead
> to resonance with particular nucleus energy level transitions for example?
> Could it lead to collective behaviour and or resonances?
>
> I suppose this could topic could relate to the SPP mentioned by Axil in
> some way too.
>
> Perhaps the maths or physics forbids this kind high energy evanescence,
> hopefully a good Physicist or enthusiast knowledgable about this field
> knows. Maybe Axil can enlighten me I hope?
>
>

[Vo]:Electron plasma frequency

[Stephen Cooke]

Apparently Silver or copper has a plasma frequency in the UV region which is 
why it reflects light of below these frequencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_oscillation
If i understand correctly at frequencies below the plasma frequency photon 
emission no longer propagates but instead becomes evanescent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
This is probably a crazy idea but:
Could very high electron plasma densities be reached in some materials or 
structures perhaps in the vicinity of NAE, Highly Hydrogenated materials, 
Rydberg matter or UDD or UDH for example? 
Is there a possibility for the electron density to be sufficiently dense that 
it can have a plasma frequency in the X-ray region or above in these materials 
or structures?
If so what happens with X-ray or gamma emissions which typically have 
frequencies below the plasma frequencies? Are Evanescent X-rays or Gammas 
produced?What happens to Bremsstrahlung emissions in this region?Could near 
field or far field interactions of these evanescent waves lead to resonance 
with particular nucleus energy level transitions for example? Could it lead to 
collective behaviour and or resonances?
I suppose this could topic could relate to the SPP mentioned by Axil in some 
way too. 
Perhaps the maths or physics forbids this kind high energy evanescence, 
hopefully a good Physicist or enthusiast knowledgable about this field knows. 
Maybe Axil can enlighten me I hope?