FW: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 10:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

Jones—

You are too cynical IMHO.  LENR is a tough engineering problem.  LENR+ is much 
tougher.   The Nautilus did not break ice at the North Pole on a shoestring 
budget .  The modern Navy has had a long time to work on LENR+ with more than a 
shoestring budget.  Chubb was part of the Navy for a long time.

I think the difficult engineering is pretty well done, although not yet 
available to your dying group of researchers,  which  are more and more in 
number from my perspective. .

The Pd-D system is a red herring IMHO, a bit of a distraction.  The 
Establishment with its energy model is doing its best to poo-poo the LENR+ Ni 
alloy,  nano fuel systems.

I too will become cynical, if the Establishment is successful.

I hope that globalism with its multinational corporations and global energy 
Establishment will succumb to a new  nationalism with a competitive driver that 
thumbs its nose at the multinational corporate elite with their focus on 
generation of wealth with diminaimus trickle-down to the populous.

An interesting essay regarding this potential situation can be found at the 
following link:

The New Class War - American Affairs 
Journal

Bob Cook



Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

Kevin,

Storm's theory is partly right, but mostly lacking - and he has had
little new to add this century... as is that of Chubb (partly right) and
others including Takahashi, but they are mostly incomplete and let's
face it - the field is dying.

Your balloon analogy is helpful as well but much more is needed. The
theorists are mostly wrong because they have not given us a clue which
leads to a robust experiment to scientifically prove the effect.

Here is the best experiment, sad to say.

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

The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more
than a yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of
gain) was statistically very close to a null result in total (as an
average) and it did not point the way to a useful device. The "Roulette"
paper covers seven simultaneous runs of which 5 failed completely. They
ran for a long time – up to 152 days… and the one with biggest net gain
(the hero effort) did not see any excess energy at all for the first 60
days! No wonder funding dried up.

Fig. 7 of that paper shows that the average gain of the effort at about
one watt (low average due to the failed runs).

So there you have it - the field of LENR is a dying angel... in need of
a tourniquet, as they say.


Kevin O'Malley wrote:

 > Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now
Jed has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:24:45 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Hi Robin,
>
>Yes but your Geiger counter is covering a wide spectrum, and the 1000 
>counts are mostly at the low end... whereas the Focardi peak was fairly 
>sharp at 1.5 MeV if memory serves.
>
>That is an anomaly for sure, but a tiny one.
>
>However, maybe the Aussies are getting more rads than the rest of us. 
>Isn't there an ozone hole down under?

Sometimes, but not this far North (last time I checked). Furthermore the
background level varies quite a bit based on location. I suspect it has more to
do with radiation from the ground than from the air.

Particular isotopes in some areas (Radon?) could produce a weak peak in some
places.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

Ok, the numbers in this paper rule out the possibility of energy storage
during the experiment.
.
However, as I recall there is a story floating around that a certain batch
of Pd from the supplier seemed to work best.
If that is true then the energy storage might have happened prior to the
experiment when the Pd was processed
by the supplier.


Harry

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Please review the numbers in the paper, which is here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf
>
> For experiment 4, the excess heat lasted 70 days. The total experiment
> duration was 123 days. If there was a storage phase, it lasted 53 days.
> This would show up as an endothermic reaction, which would reduce power
> output by much more than the exothermic reaction that followed, because it
> would be shorter. Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic
> reaction of X watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts equally
> well.
>
> Energy storage is ruled out.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Jed Rothwell wrote

For experiment 4, the excess heat lasted 70 days. The total experiment 
duration was 123 days. If there was a storage phase, it lasted 53 
days. This would show up as an endothermic reaction, which would 
reduce power output by much more than the exothermic reaction that 
followed, because it would be shorter. Any calorimeter that can 
measure a positive exothermic reaction of X watts can measure an 
endothermic reaction of -X watts equally well.


Energy storage is ruled out.


Not really ruled out. Let's be exact: energy storage by the conventional 
chemical redox reaction is and always has been ruled out - OK - we can 
go that far.


However, if the storage mechanism is based on nuclear boosting/storage 
of some kind - such as weak force hypercharge pumping, then the delayed 
output can be greater than the input by a ratio of over a million to 
one. The gain is still delayed but also multiplied, when released.


This is especially true with palladium electrodes with a percentage of 
silver, since there is the well-known isotopic gap between 108Pd and 
110Pd. Both isotopes are plentiful and stable yet 109Pd is mysteriously 
not stable in Pd, with a puzzling short half-life AND with a strong 
gamma emission line in the vicinity of what is seen in the Focardi paper.


When one goes to investigate the underlying question of why 109Pd is not 
stable and in fact is exceedingly unstable - when the adjoining isotopes 
on either side (in amu) are very stable, then silver - and the weak 
force dynamics come into focus - and physics simply does not understand 
this yet. Not to mention the fifth force


https://news.uci.edu/research/uci-physicists-confirm-possible-discovery-of-fifth-force-of-nature/

There could easily be electroweak parameters which favor the silver 
isotope, 109Ag going into an unstable state when alloyed with Pd (it is 
nearly half of all silver). Or there could be internal dynamics which 
work to maintain an unknown isotopic balance when too little silver is 
present. This dynamic may favor a cathode composed of an alloy of 
palladium and silver. Of course, this could relate to the well known 
membrane alloy of JM. The two elements are like twins, found together in 
nature... and the weak force is the one factor which keeps them apart.


In conclusion, energy storage via weak force pumping is an alternative 
mechanism for delayed gain which has not been ruled out. Of course, many 
mechanisms have not been ruled out. Many experimenters have particularly 
espoused silver as being a necessary ingredient, including Russ 
George... but the bottom line is that no one knows and to confuse things 
even more, a fifth force seems to operate between the weak and strong.


Hi-yo silver ! [fade to The William Tell Overture]

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Please review the numbers in the paper, which is here:

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

For experiment 4, the excess heat lasted 70 days. The total experiment
duration was 123 days. If there was a storage phase, it lasted 53 days.
This would show up as an endothermic reaction, which would reduce power
output by much more than the exothermic reaction that followed, because it
would be shorter. Any calorimeter that can measure a positive exothermic
reaction of X watts can measure an endothermic reaction of -X watts equally
well.

Energy storage is ruled out.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

To be realistic, if the output heat was consistently showing up as say 
85% of input electrical power, then naturally the experimenter must 
"recalibrate" to show it as roughly even... 


After all, the accepted assumption is that input energy can't disappear 
or be stored, right?



H LV wrote:
Yes, but how to square this with the fact that the input energy 
balanced the output energy during the prep time. Could the combined 
margin error in both the input and output measurements allow for the 
storage of enough energy during the prep time?


harry

Jones Beenewrote:

Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France
could be operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in
nuclei for later release - at least as an alternate explanation
for the two runs which showed gain after months of what looks very
much like a battery being charged.

As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent
of cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact,
it may be more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without
radiation, since it involves "one less miracle."

For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood
properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which
(or both) arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical
current flow (in palladium electrolysis) over time and then the
accumulated energy released later.

In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not
come from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium
isotope after months of "hypercharging" ;-)

This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity
based on our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates
how little is known about the underlying mechanisms for the
unpredictable gain of cold fusion. There could be many. The
appearance of helium should never lead to the reflexive conclusion
of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Brian Ahern]

Good discussion Bob.


I have had a decade long experience with electron orbital degeneracy. It may 
come as a small surprise to the LENR community that all phase changes involve 
near approaches (in energy) of the LUMO and HOMO.


This includes magnetic transitions.


The transitions need not be static as materials can coexist in a state of 
fluctuations between two phases.  This is amply demonstrated in Perovskite 
minerals such as ferrites.


I am hereby advancing the concept that LENR is related to magnetic transitions 
interrogating the vacuum.

The weak energy output from Palladium and nickel may simply indicate that they 
are sub optimal magnetic hosts.

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 1:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature


Degeneracy is a major factor in all the LENR reactions, since it reduces the  
allowable space for all charged particles of a coherent system such as a 
crystal lattice  commonly found in LENR phenomena.



The odds of 2 or more particles in the same general location such that their 
electric charge fields interact is improved.  Strong magnetic fields can cause 
degeneracy in a crystal.



IMHO fission or fusion can occur in a coherent system as long as the potential 
energy (binding energy) can be distributed through all or some of the coherent 
system as kinetic energy---vibrations in the Chubb theory as in the Mossbauer 
Effect.  This kinetic energy is also called phonic energy of the lattice.  It 
is the result of higher orbital spin states of many electrons making up the 
lattice (crystal).  .



The beauty of the engineering of such a system is in the planning to allow 
hadron particle changes with a modified positive charge center with causing a 
major weakening of the lattice  with respect to

remaining in tact at high temperatures.



A range of lattice dimensions for the various nano-particles will alter the  
phonic resonances the various particles have, such that as degeneracy happens 
with changing ambient conditions all nano-particles do not react at the same 
time to sinter the particles together.



Cooling the particles IMHO depends upon convective heat transfer by Li vapor or 
Hydrogen gas to the reactor walls.  Maintaining the fuel—nanoparticles-- near 
the center of the reactor vessel with good mixing is also an engineering feat 
that relies on the thermal activity of the heat transfer agent and magnetic the 
ambient magnetic field—probably a field that varies in magnitude significantly 
above 0.



Bob Cook

















From: Axil Axil
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 11:20 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature



The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset of 
LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain 
fission in LENR? I don't think so.



On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:

In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for absorbing 
most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.







"...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in the 
symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve periodic 
order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a whole, in 
response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band theory [19] 
to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and leads to a huge 
degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are involved in these systems, 
implicitly, additional degeneracies are also present. The combined effects 
provide a means for particles to have appreciable overlap at many, periodically 
displaced “points” (as discussed below), simultaneously, for finite periods of 
time, in a manner that can result in new forms of collisions in which momentum 
is transferred from the locations where overlap can occur, rigidly to the 
lattice as a whole. When these idealized forms of motion are initiated by 
collisions resulting from the overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in 
forms of coupling that can cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small 
amounts of momentum and energy from many different locations are transferred 
coherently to the solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many 
different particles in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement 
with experiment, the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released 
without high-energy particles. "



On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:

In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He unsubscribed 
from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't the one who drove 
him 

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

Yes, but how to square this with the fact that the input energy balanced
the output energy during the prep time. Could the combined margin error in
both the input and output measurements allow for the storage of enough
energy during the prep time?

harry

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be
> operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
> charged.
>
> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of cold
> fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be more
> physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
> involves "one less miracle."
>
> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood properties
> - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both) arguably
> could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in palladium
> electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released later.
>
> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come from
> fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after months
> of "hypercharging" ;-)
>
> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on our
> lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known
> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.
>
> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
>  H LV wrote:
>
>
>  Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
>>> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a
>>> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
>>> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
>>> did not point the way to a useful device.
>>
>>
>> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
>> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
>> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
>> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
>> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
>> in line to take off.
>>
>> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know
>> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot
>> store that much energy.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
> "​You cannot store that much energy"​ is working hypothesis.
> ​That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
> Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the
> nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating
> how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism?
> Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally
> driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind
> the clock up.
>
> Harry​
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

More on gamma from LENR from Ed Storms

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ba21/eab904a52374a7fd9a10a498bcff62f82552.pdf

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> More on gamma from LENR
>
> http://coldfusion3.com/blog/smoking-gun-of-lenr-
> fleischmann-project-results-duplicated-in-one-day-celani-
> cell-verified-as-lenr-device
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the
>> production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time,
>> if memory serves.
>>
>>
>>
>> From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at
>> startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared
>> for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production
>> mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold
>> and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of
>> radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was
>> cold at those times.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his
>> design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the
>> reaction begins.
>>
>>
>>
>>  This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that
>> converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal
>> energy within the lattice.
>>
>>
>>
>> The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut
>> down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a
>> radiation suppression mechanism.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> MORE...
>>>
>>> In this Focardi
>>> 
>>>  experiment,
>>> when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated. This leads to
>>> the observation that the Polariton BEC is the mechanism that transforms the
>>> nuclear energy produced in the LENR reaction into heat.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs
 involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma
 radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a
 Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma
 radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.

 See

 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-Eviden
 ceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf

 On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene 
 wrote:

> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could
> be operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
> charged.
>
> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of
> cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be
> more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
> involves "one less miracle."
>
> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood
> properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or 
> both)
> arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in
> palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released
> later.
>
> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come
> from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after
> months of "hypercharging" ;-)
>
> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on
> our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is 
> known
> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.
>
> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
>  H LV wrote:
>
>
>  Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" -
>>> the very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself 

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

More on gamma from LENR

http://coldfusion3.com/blog/smoking-gun-of-lenr-fleischmann-project-results-duplicated-in-one-day-celani-cell-verified-as-lenr-device



On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the
> production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time,
> if memory serves.
>
>
>
> From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at
> startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for
> a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism
> will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the
> phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough.
>
>
>
> One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation
> during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those
> times.
>
>
>
> Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his
> design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the
> reaction begins.
>
>
>
>  This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that
> converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal
> energy within the lattice.
>
>
>
> The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut
> down also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a
> radiation suppression mechanism.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> MORE...
>>
>> In this Focardi
>> 
>>  experiment,
>> when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated. This leads to
>> the observation that the Polariton BEC is the mechanism that transforms the
>> nuclear energy produced in the LENR reaction into heat.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs
>>> involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma
>>> radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a
>>> Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma
>>> radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-Eviden
>>> ceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>>
 Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could
 be operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
 release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
 showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
 charged.

 As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of
 cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be
 more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
 involves "one less miracle."

 For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood
 properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both)
 arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in
 palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released
 later.

 In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come
 from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after
 months of "hypercharging" ;-)

 This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on
 our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known
 about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
 There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
 reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.

 BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
 "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
 terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
 really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
 LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
  H LV wrote:


  Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" -
>> the very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more
>> than a yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of
>> gain) was statistically very close to a null result in total (as an
>> average) and it did not point the way to a useful device.
>
>
> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced
> no heat 

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the
production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time,
if memory serves.



>From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at
startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a
second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism
will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the
phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough.



One problem of that early design was the generation of bursts of radiation
during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold at those
times.



Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts, and changed his
design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the
reaction begins.



 This tells me that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that
converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal
energy within the lattice.



The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down
also speaks to a radiation thermalization mechanism rather than a radiation
suppression mechanism.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> MORE...
>
> In this Focardi
> 
>  experiment,
> when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated. This leads to
> the observation that the Polariton BEC is the mechanism that transforms the
> nuclear energy produced in the LENR reaction into heat.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs
>> involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma
>> radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a
>> Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma
>> radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-Eviden
>> ceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be
>>> operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
>>> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
>>> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
>>> charged.
>>>
>>> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of
>>> cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be
>>> more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
>>> involves "one less miracle."
>>>
>>> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood
>>> properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both)
>>> arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in
>>> palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released
>>> later.
>>>
>>> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come
>>> from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after
>>> months of "hypercharging" ;-)
>>>
>>> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on
>>> our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known
>>> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
>>> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
>>> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.
>>>
>>> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
>>> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
>>> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
>>> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
>>> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
>>>  H LV wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Jones Beene wrote:

 The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than 
> a
> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
> did not point the way to a useful device.


 "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
 heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
 test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
 before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
 airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
 in line to take off.

 There is no energy 

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Hi Robin,

Yes but your Geiger counter is covering a wide spectrum, and the 1000 
counts are mostly at the low end... whereas the Focardi peak was fairly 
sharp at 1.5 MeV if memory serves.


That is an anomaly for sure, but a tiny one.

However, maybe the Aussies are getting more rads than the rest of us. 
Isn't there an ozone hole down under?




mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:54:29 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

  Axil Axil wrote:


In this Focardi

 experiment,
when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated.


This paper is curious and I had not seen it - but essentially it seems
to be of passing importance since even the authors did not pursue it
further. It is a mistake to think there is a more general lesson from
seeing 400 counts over 3 hours. There is probably a mundane explanation.

My Geiger counter picks up about a 1000 counts/hour of background radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:54:29 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>  Axil Axil wrote:
>
>> In this Focardi 
>> 
>>  experiment, 
>> when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated.
>
>
>This paper is curious and I had not seen it - but essentially it seems 
>to be of passing importance since even the authors did not pursue it 
>further. It is a mistake to think there is a more general lesson from 
>seeing 400 counts over 3 hours. There is probably a mundane explanation.

My Geiger counter picks up about a 1000 counts/hour of background radiation.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:52:05 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>The LENR reaction energy is stored on the surface of nanoparticles in the
>form of surface plasmon polariton entangled aggregation in a polariton BEC.
>These energized nanoparticles can be found in the LENR reaction ash as
>detected, deminstated, and characterized by Keith Fredericks. Their energy
>storage capacity is over a giga electron volts as measured through the
>ionization they produce in the particle track that they produce in their
>path through photographic emulsions.

You should ask Keith whether or not the photographic plates come in a packet
that is stapled shut.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

 Axil Axil wrote:

In this Focardi 
 experiment, 
when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated.



This paper is curious and I had not seen it - but essentially it seems 
to be of passing importance since even the authors did not pursue it 
further. It is a mistake to think there is a more general lesson from 
seeing 400 counts over 3 hours. There is probably a mundane explanation.


The problem is low counts (they admit to "low" but really they are 
extremely low) and the lack of correlation to excess heat. In fact there 
is an inverted relationship. That probably explains why they did not 
pursue the finding or even move to scale up.


Had the gamma counts been orders of magnitude higher, or coordinated 
with excess heat, the obvious next step is to scale up.

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

MORE...

In this Focardi

experiment,
when gamma radiation was generated, excess was not generated. This leads to
the observation that the Polariton BEC is the mechanism that transforms the
nuclear energy produced in the LENR reaction into heat.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs
> involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma
> radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a
> Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma
> radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.
>
> See
>
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-
> EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be
>> operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
>> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
>> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
>> charged.
>>
>> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of cold
>> fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be more
>> physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
>> involves "one less miracle."
>>
>> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood properties
>> - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both) arguably
>> could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in palladium
>> electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released later.
>>
>> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come
>> from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after
>> months of "hypercharging" ;-)
>>
>> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on
>> our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known
>> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
>> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
>> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.
>>
>> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
>> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
>> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
>> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
>> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
>>  H LV wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>>
>>> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
 very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a
 yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
 statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
 did not point the way to a useful device.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
>>> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
>>> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
>>> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
>>> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
>>> in line to take off.
>>>
>>> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know
>>> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot
>>> store that much energy.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "​You cannot store that much energy"​ is working hypothesis.
>> ​That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
>> Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the
>> nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating
>> how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism?
>> Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally
>> driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind
>> the clock up.
>>
>> Harry​
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

Gamma radiation does appear when a BEC is not formed between the SPPs
involved in a LENR reaction. Yes, the LENR reaction can produce gamma
radiation when the SPPs are not pumped to a level sufficient to establish a
Polariton BEC. This is why a cold LENR reaction will produce Gamma
radiation and a Hot LENR reaction will not produce Gamma radiation.

See

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdf

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be
> operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later
> release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which
> showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being
> charged.
>
> As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of cold
> fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be more
> physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it
> involves "one less miracle."
>
> For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood properties
> - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or both) arguably
> could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow (in palladium
> electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy released later.
>
> In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come from
> fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after months
> of "hypercharging" ;-)
>
> This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on our
> lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is known
> about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold fusion.
> There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead to the
> reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is absent.
>
> BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question,
> "average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but in
> terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it is
> really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere that
> LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?
>  H LV wrote:
>
>
>  Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
>>> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a
>>> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
>>> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
>>> did not point the way to a useful device.
>>
>>
>> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
>> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
>> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
>> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
>> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
>> in line to take off.
>>
>> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know
>> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot
>> store that much energy.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
> "​You cannot store that much energy"​ is working hypothesis.
> ​That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
> Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the
> nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating
> how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism?
> Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally
> driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind
> the clock up.
>
> Harry​
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

The LENR reaction energy is stored on the surface of nanoparticles in the
form of surface plasmon polariton entangled aggregation in a polariton BEC.
These energized nanoparticles can be found in the LENR reaction ash as
detected, deminstated, and characterized by Keith Fredericks. Their energy
storage capacity is over a giga electron volts as measured through the
ionization they produce in the particle track that they produce in their
path through photographic emulsions.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:31 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Kevin O'Malley's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:01:26 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Yes it can.   When 2 d's fuse and emit a gamma ray, that energy is
> absorbed
> >by the lattice.   Such energy absorption sometimes generates fission
> >products.I do not know the nuclear equation, but it would be gamma +
> Ni
> >---> decay products + heat
>
> If the energy of the original reaction is distributed to the lattice, then
> there
> are no gammas. If there are gammas, then you can't count on all of them
> being
> absorbed by nuclei. Ordinary radioactive isotopes prove that.
> In short, if there were gammas they would be detectable externally with
> ordinary
> detectors.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Harry, You seem to be suggesting that the experiments in France could be 
operating by (inadvertently) storing applied energy in nuclei for later 
release - at least as an alternate explanation for the two runs which 
showed gain after months of what looks very much like a battery being 
charged.


As unlikely as this possibility may sound at first to a proponent of 
cold fusion - the mechanism has not been eliminated. In fact, it may be 
more physical than suggesting nuclear fusion without radiation, since it 
involves "one less miracle."


For instance, the weak nuclear force has two poorly understood 
properties - weak hypercharge and weak isospin -- either of which (or 
both) arguably could be boosted or pumped up by electrical current flow 
(in palladium electrolysis) over time and then the accumulated energy 
released later.


In fact, the weak force could even supply helium (which does not come 
from fusion but from alpha decay of the heavier palladium isotope after 
months of "hypercharging" ;-)


This "weak force pumping" rationale, having its main validity based on 
our lack of understanding of the weak force - indicates how little is 
known about the underlying mechanisms for the unpredictable gain of cold 
fusion. There could be many. The appearance of helium should never lead 
to the reflexive conclusion of fusion, that is- when gamma radiation is 
absent.


BTW - In terms of defining an anomaly such as the one in question, 
"average" gain may not be as meaningful as peak intermittent gain, but 
in terms of a parameter which is leading towards commercialization - it 
is really the only meaningful metric. Is there any indication anywhere 
that LENR is closer to commercialization than it was in 1989 ?


 H LV wrote:


 Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beenewrote:

The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero
effort" - the very best result to have occurred in 28 years
was itself little more than a yawner. People tend to forget
that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was statistically
very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
did not point the way to a useful device.


"Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment
produced no heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100
W for 30 days in one test and 70 days in another. Computing the
average including the time before it turned on would be like
computing the average speed of an airplane including the time it
is sitting at the gate and the time waiting in line to take off.

There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We
know there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because
you cannot store that much energy.

- Jed



"​You cannot store that much energy"​ is working hypothesis.
​That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave 
the nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to 
speculating how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another 
coupling mechanism? Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in 
reverse where externally driven oscillations of the pendulum from 
outside the clock serve to wind the clock up.


Harry​

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[mixent]

In reply to  Kevin O'Malley's message of Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:01:26 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Yes it can.   When 2 d's fuse and emit a gamma ray, that energy is absorbed
>by the lattice.   Such energy absorption sometimes generates fission
>products.I do not know the nuclear equation, but it would be gamma + Ni
>---> decay products + heat

If the energy of the original reaction is distributed to the lattice, then there
are no gammas. If there are gammas, then you can't count on all of them being
absorbed by nuclei. Ordinary radioactive isotopes prove that.
In short, if there were gammas they would be detectable externally with ordinary
detectors.

 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[H LV]

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
>> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a
>> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
>> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
>> did not point the way to a useful device.
>
>
> "Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
> heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
> test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
> before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
> airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
> in line to take off.
>
> There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know
> there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot
> store that much energy.
>
> - Jed
>
>


"​You cannot store that much energy"​ is working hypothesis.
​That much energy could be stored in nuclei.
Is it such a leap to go from speculating about how energy can leave the
nucleus by imaging the nucleus as coupled to the lattice, to speculating
how energy can enter the nucleus by imagining another coupling mechanism?
Imagine a pendulum clock designed to work in reverse where externally
driven oscillations of the pendulum from outside the clock serve to wind
the clock up.

Harry​

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

more...

As illustrated in the post above, one of the peculiarities of muon
interaction with matter is that muon will induce both fusion in light
elements and fission when muons are absorbed in heavy elements. The LENR
reaction is very complex and confusing because it produces many secondary
nuclear reaction types without the usual energy signatures.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The so called Erosion 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
> losing 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: 341fig1.jpg]
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Reference:
>
>
> http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP2010045_87444817.pdf
>
>
> Study of the Electric Explosion of Titanium Foils in
>
> Uranium Salts
>
>
> One of the pivotal insight provided by Leonid I. Urutskoev in this study
> of the nature of the LENR reaction is that transmutation occurs at a
> distance and at a latter time from the source of the LENR reaction.
>
>
> Conclusions
>
>
> The key experimental results presented in this paper can
>
> be summarized as follows.
>
>
> 1) The electric explosion of a titanium foil in an uranyl
>
> salt entailed a marked distortion of the initial U isotope
>
> distribution in the solution. The “lower” sample ( ~ 2-3
>
> cm3) shows depletion in 235U (Rlw = 0.94  0.01), while
>
> the “upper” sample ( ~ 10 cm3) shows a more pronounced
>
> enrichment (Rup = 1.18  0.07).
>
>
> 2) The processes initiated by the electric explosion result
>
> in a decrease in the specific concentrations of both U
>
> isotopes but the 238U concentration decreases to a larger
>
> extent, giving rise to “enrichment effect”.
>
>
> 3) At the instant of electric explosion, no induced uranium
>
> fission is observed and no fission neutrons are detected.
>
>
> 4) Within 1-3 ms after the end of current pulse, gas
>
> counters filled with 3He detected some signals having, in
>
> all probability, electromagnetic origin.
>
>
> 5) At the instant of electric explosion, the 234Th secular
>
> equilibrium in the uranyl solution was disturbed. The
>
> most pronounced disturbance of the secular equilibrium
>
> was observed in “lower” samples, and subsequently the
>
> equilibrium was restored with the period T = 24.5 days.
>
> In the “upper” samples, the 234Th equilibrium was disturbed
>
> to a much lesser extent and the time variation was
>
> almost missing.
>
>
> 6) In some experiments, -measurements of the “upper”
>
> samples revealed disturbance of the equilibrium
>
> between the 234Th 92.5 keV doublet and the 1001 keV
>
> -line of its daughter product, 234mPa, i.e. within the
>
> proper thorium decay chain.
>
>
> As posited by Holmlid, LENR produces muons. This particles are highly
> penetrating and will induce nuclear reactions at a distance and delayed in
> time from the point of their creation. The bubbles in the Erzion phenomenon
> are likely helium bubbles produced by muon catalyzed fusion. Erzions are
> really muons that produce delayed nuclear reactions at a distance from
> their point of creation.
>
>
> The lack of gamma radiation might be explained through the entangled
> connection between the muons and the source of their creation. Energy
> produced by the muon induced nuclear reaction is transported back to the
> source of the LENR reaction.
>
>
> The Erzion experiment can be used to experimentally analyze the nature of
> the LENR reaction in great detail by placing various types of shielding
> between the LENR reaction and the bubble formation. The role of distance
> between the muon source 

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

The so called Erosion 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
losing 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: 341fig1.jpg]


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.


Reference:


http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP2010045_87444817.pdf


Study of the Electric Explosion of Titanium Foils in

Uranium Salts


One of the pivotal insight provided by Leonid I. Urutskoev in this study of
the nature of the LENR reaction is that transmutation occurs at a distance
and at a latter time from the source of the LENR reaction.


Conclusions


The key experimental results presented in this paper can

be summarized as follows.


1) The electric explosion of a titanium foil in an uranyl

salt entailed a marked distortion of the initial U isotope

distribution in the solution. The “lower” sample ( ~ 2-3

cm3) shows depletion in 235U (Rlw = 0.94  0.01), while

the “upper” sample ( ~ 10 cm3) shows a more pronounced

enrichment (Rup = 1.18  0.07).


2) The processes initiated by the electric explosion result

in a decrease in the specific concentrations of both U

isotopes but the 238U concentration decreases to a larger

extent, giving rise to “enrichment effect”.


3) At the instant of electric explosion, no induced uranium

fission is observed and no fission neutrons are detected.


4) Within 1-3 ms after the end of current pulse, gas

counters filled with 3He detected some signals having, in

all probability, electromagnetic origin.


5) At the instant of electric explosion, the 234Th secular

equilibrium in the uranyl solution was disturbed. The

most pronounced disturbance of the secular equilibrium

was observed in “lower” samples, and subsequently the

equilibrium was restored with the period T = 24.5 days.

In the “upper” samples, the 234Th equilibrium was disturbed

to a much lesser extent and the time variation was

almost missing.


6) In some experiments, -measurements of the “upper”

samples revealed disturbance of the equilibrium

between the 234Th 92.5 keV doublet and the 1001 keV

-line of its daughter product, 234mPa, i.e. within the

proper thorium decay chain.


As posited by Holmlid, LENR produces muons. This particles are highly
penetrating and will induce nuclear reactions at a distance and delayed in
time from the point of their creation. The bubbles in the Erzion phenomenon
are likely helium bubbles produced by muon catalyzed fusion. Erzions are
really muons that produce delayed nuclear reactions at a distance from
their point of creation.


The lack of gamma radiation might be explained through the entangled
connection between the muons and the source of their creation. Energy
produced by the muon induced nuclear reaction is transported back to the
source of the LENR reaction.


The Erzion experiment can be used to experimentally analyze the nature of
the LENR reaction in great detail by placing various types of shielding
between the LENR reaction and the bubble formation. The role of distance
between the muon source might be determined and muon detectors might be
used in the experiments.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset
> of LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain
> fission in LENR? I don't think so.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for
>> absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.
>>
>>
>>
>> "...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in

RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

You are too cynical IMHO.  LENR is a tough engineering problem.  LENR+ is much 
tougher.   The Nautilus did not break ice at the North Pole on a shoestring 
budget .  The modern Navy has had a long time to work on LENR+ with more than a 
shoestring budget.  Chubb was part of the Navy for a long time.

I think the difficult engineering is pretty well done, although not yet 
available to your dying group of researchers,  which  are more and more in 
number from my perspective. .

The Pd-D system is a red herring IMHO, a bit of a distraction.  The 
Establishment with its energy model is doing its best to poo-poo the LENR+ Ni 
alloy,  nano fuel systems.

I too will become cynical, if the Establishment is successful.

I hope that globalism with its multinational corporations and global energy 
Establishment will succumb to a new  nationalism with a competitive driver that 
thumbs its nose at the multinational corporate elite with their focus on 
generation of wealth with diminaimus trickle-down to the populous.

An interesting essay regarding this potential situation can be found at the 
following link:

The New Class War - American Affairs 
Journal

Bob Cook



Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 5:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

Kevin,

Storm's theory is partly right, but mostly lacking - and he has had
little new to add this century... as is that of Chubb (partly right) and
others including Takahashi, but they are mostly incomplete and let's
face it - the field is dying.

Your balloon analogy is helpful as well but much more is needed. The
theorists are mostly wrong because they have not given us a clue which
leads to a robust experiment to scientifically prove the effect.

Here is the best experiment, sad to say.

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

The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more
than a yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of
gain) was statistically very close to a null result in total (as an
average) and it did not point the way to a useful device. The "Roulette"
paper covers seven simultaneous runs of which 5 failed completely. They
ran for a long time – up to 152 days… and the one with biggest net gain
(the hero effort) did not see any excess energy at all for the first 60
days! No wonder funding dried up.

Fig. 7 of that paper shows that the average gain of the effort at about
one watt (low average due to the failed runs).

So there you have it - the field of LENR is a dying angel... in need of
a tourniquet, as they say.


Kevin O'Malley wrote:

 > Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now
Jed has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org

RE: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Degeneracy is a major factor in all the LENR reactions, since it reduces the  
allowable space for all charged particles of a coherent system such as a 
crystal lattice  commonly found in LENR phenomena.

The odds of 2 or more particles in the same general location such that their 
electric charge fields interact is improved.  Strong magnetic fields can cause 
degeneracy in a crystal.

IMHO fission or fusion can occur in a coherent system as long as the potential 
energy (binding energy) can be distributed through all or some of the coherent 
system as kinetic energy---vibrations in the Chubb theory as in the Mossbauer 
Effect.  This kinetic energy is also called phonic energy of the lattice.  It 
is the result of higher orbital spin states of many electrons making up the 
lattice (crystal).  .

The beauty of the engineering of such a system is in the planning to allow 
hadron particle changes with a modified positive charge center with causing a 
major weakening of the lattice  with respect to
remaining in tact at high temperatures.

A range of lattice dimensions for the various nano-particles will alter the  
phonic resonances the various particles have, such that as degeneracy happens 
with changing ambient conditions all nano-particles do not react at the same 
time to sinter the particles together.

Cooling the particles IMHO depends upon convective heat transfer by Li vapor or 
Hydrogen gas to the reactor walls.  Maintaining the fuel—nanoparticles-- near 
the center of the reactor vessel with good mixing is also an engineering feat 
that relies on the thermal activity of the heat transfer agent and magnetic the 
ambient magnetic field—probably a field that varies in magnitude significantly 
above 0.

Bob Cook








From: Axil Axil
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 11:20 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset of 
LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain 
fission in LENR? I don't think so.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for absorbing 
most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.



"...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in the 
symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve periodic 
order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a whole, in 
response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band theory [19] 
to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and leads to a huge 
degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are involved in these systems, 
implicitly, additional degeneracies are also present. The combined effects 
provide a means for particles to have appreciable overlap at many, periodically 
displaced “points” (as discussed below), simultaneously, for finite periods of 
time, in a manner that can result in new forms of collisions in which momentum 
is transferred from the locations where overlap can occur, rigidly to the 
lattice as a whole. When these idealized forms of motion are initiated by 
collisions resulting from the overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in 
forms of coupling that can cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small 
amounts of momentum and energy from many different locations are transferred 
coherently to the solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many 
different particles in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement 
with experiment, the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released 
without high-energy particles. "

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He unsubscribed 
from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't the one who drove 
him off.

Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed has 
uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org

It is compelling.   But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is above his 
pay grade.   Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.   It seems to 
cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.


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

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:


NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
***There have been some observances of radiation.  Not very much, but some.



Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are two 
entirely different processes producing different products. The 

[Vo]:Re: Top Ten Viewed Quora Writers List on Time Dilation.

[Jones Beene]

Harvey Norris wrote:

 Just made it to the bottom of the list.
Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - Quora 



Good work Harvey. I was looking to see if Fran Roarty made this list 
with his Casimir/time dilation connection - but did not see anything. 
Guess you have to post your thinking directly to that group to get counted.


Anyway this broader subject reminded me of why the second law of 
thermodynamics needs semantic attention once again. Nowadays, the LoT is 
often worded to state that the total entropy of an isolated system can 
only increase over time. This is better than saying energy cannot be 
created or destroyed, but still - it is lacking in coverage - in a 4D 
Universe. There are a few examples of Maxwell's demon and Feynman's 
Brownian ratchet which are being paraded about (google either subject). 
And ZPE is generally relegated to another dimension. The Law is in 
jeopardy and needs a tweak.


Typically, entropy must remain constant when every larger system or 
superset is considered, or in a state of equilibrium in a single 
dimension such as when undergoing a reversible process. Unless we can 
balance gain in one subsystem against loss in another, there is a 
problem... and this becomes evident with Dirac and the sea of negative 
energy, to the degree that we are dealing with anything less (or more) 
than 3-space. We should put Dirac on a higher pedestal than the LoT 
which is still a generalization, not a Law.


Historically, the second "law" was an empirical finding with no real 
justification, one which was accepted as a law over time by default, 
since statistical thermodynamics offered no contrary evidence. That is 
no longer the case and contrary evidence is showing up around the edges. 
Dirac, or Dirac-reinterpreted, may hold the answer to a better definition.


Query: does a deeper heat sink violate a physical Law?  ANS: Only if we 
revert to the older version, where energy cannot be destroyed or created.


Indeed, it appears that energy can indeed be destroyed... and destroyed 
in such a way that energy elsewhere appears to have been created 
disproportionately.


Time will tell, so to speak.

[Vo]:Top Ten Viewed Quora Writers List on Time Dilation.

[Harvey Norris]

 Just made it to the bottom of the list.Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - 
Quora
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - Quora
   |   |

  |

  |

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

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the
> very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more than a
> yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of gain) was
> statistically very close to a null result in total (as an average) and it
> did not point the way to a useful device.


"Average" is not meaningful in this context. The experiment produced no
heat for a while, then it turned on and produced ~100 W for 30 days in one
test and 70 days in another. Computing the average including the time
before it turned on would be like computing the average speed of an
airplane including the time it is sitting at the gate and the time waiting
in line to take off.

There is no energy storage during the time before it turns on. We know
there is none because the energy balance is zero, and because you cannot
store that much energy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Jones Beene]

Kevin,

Storm's theory is partly right, but mostly lacking - and he has had 
little new to add this century... as is that of Chubb (partly right) and 
others including Takahashi, but they are mostly incomplete and let's 
face it - the field is dying.


Your balloon analogy is helpful as well but much more is needed. The 
theorists are mostly wrong because they have not given us a clue which 
leads to a robust experiment to scientifically prove the effect.


Here is the best experiment, sad to say.

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

The intractable problem in cold fusion is that this "hero effort" - the 
very best result to have occurred in 28 years was itself little more 
than a yawner. People tend to forget that this result (almost 300 MJ of 
gain) was statistically very close to a null result in total (as an 
average) and it did not point the way to a useful device. The "Roulette" 
paper covers seven simultaneous runs of which 5 failed completely. They 
ran for a long time – up to 152 days… and the one with biggest net gain 
(the hero effort) did not see any excess energy at all for the first 60 
days! No wonder funding dried up.


Fig. 7 of that paper shows that the average gain of the effort at about 
one watt (low average due to the failed runs).


So there you have it - the field of LENR is a dying angel... in need of 
a tourniquet, as they say.



Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now 
Jed has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

As discussed previously:

Similarly, with billions of H
>>> atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
>>> energy gets absorbed by the lattice.  That's how we end up with
>>> transmutations.


On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset
> of LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain
> fission in LENR? I don't think so.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for
>> absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.
>>
>>
>>
>> "...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in
>> the symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve
>> periodic order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a
>> whole, in response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band
>> theory [19] to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and
>> leads to a huge degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are
>> involved in these systems, implicitly, additional degeneracies are also
>> present. The combined effects provide a means for particles to have
>> appreciable overlap at many, periodically displaced “points” (as discussed
>> below), simultaneously, for finite periods of time, in a manner that can
>> result in new forms of collisions in which momentum is transferred from the
>> locations where overlap can occur, rigidly to the lattice as a whole. When
>> these idealized forms of motion are initiated by collisions resulting from
>> the overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in forms of coupling that
>> can cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small amounts of momentum
>> and energy from many different locations are transferred coherently to the
>> solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many different particles
>> in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement with experiment,
>> the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released without
>> high-energy particles. "
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He
>>> unsubscribed from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't
>>> the one who drove him off.
>>>
>>> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed
>>> has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org
>>>
>>> It is compelling.   But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is
>>> above his pay grade.   Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.
>>> It seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRconvention.pdf
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

>
>
> NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
>
 ***There have been some observances of radiation.  Not very much, but
 some.




> Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are
> two entirely different processes producing different products. The name is
> only used to distinguish between the two different processes.
>
 ***I think I see where the difference lies.  Let's say we had a million
 balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a
 lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in.  Now, in the
 middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them.  Would you be able to
 hear the explosion?  Probably not, because the emitted energy would be
 absorbed by the lattice & other baloons.  Similarly, with billions of H
 atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
 energy gets absorbed by the lattice.  That's how we end up with
 transmutations.

 But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy
 lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the
 explosion?  Yes.  The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the
 surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions &
 emissions.  That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice,
 only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice,
 thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy).

 Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion
 emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity.





>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

Yes it can.   When 2 d's fuse and emit a gamma ray, that energy is absorbed
by the lattice.   Such energy absorption sometimes generates fission
products.I do not know the nuclear equation, but it would be gamma + Ni
---> decay products + heat

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset
> of LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain
> fission in LENR? I don't think so.
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for
>> absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.
>>
>>
>>
>> "...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in
>> the symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve
>> periodic order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a
>> whole, in response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band
>> theory [19] to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and
>> leads to a huge degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are
>> involved in these systems, implicitly, additional degeneracies are also
>> present. The combined effects provide a means for particles to have
>> appreciable overlap at many, periodically displaced “points” (as discussed
>> below), simultaneously, for finite periods of time, in a manner that can
>> result in new forms of collisions in which momentum is transferred from the
>> locations where overlap can occur, rigidly to the lattice as a whole. When
>> these idealized forms of motion are initiated by collisions resulting from
>> the overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in forms of coupling that
>> can cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small amounts of momentum
>> and energy from many different locations are transferred coherently to the
>> solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many different particles
>> in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement with experiment,
>> the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released without
>> high-energy particles. "
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He
>>> unsubscribed from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't
>>> the one who drove him off.
>>>
>>> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed
>>> has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org
>>>
>>> It is compelling.   But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is
>>> above his pay grade.   Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.
>>> It seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRconvention.pdf
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms 
 wrote:

>
>
> NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
>
 ***There have been some observances of radiation.  Not very much, but
 some.




> Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are
> two entirely different processes producing different products. The name is
> only used to distinguish between the two different processes.
>
 ***I think I see where the difference lies.  Let's say we had a million
 balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a
 lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in.  Now, in the
 middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them.  Would you be able to
 hear the explosion?  Probably not, because the emitted energy would be
 absorbed by the lattice & other baloons.  Similarly, with billions of H
 atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
 energy gets absorbed by the lattice.  That's how we end up with
 transmutations.

 But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy
 lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the
 explosion?  Yes.  The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the
 surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions &
 emissions.  That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice,
 only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice,
 thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy).

 Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion
 emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity.





>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Axil Axil]

The problem with this fusion idea is that it does not explain the subset of
LENR experiments that show fission is occurring. Can this theory explain
fission in LENR? I don't think so.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for
> absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.
>
>
>
> "...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in the
> symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve periodic
> order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a whole, in
> response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band theory
> [19] to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and leads
> to a huge degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are involved in
> these systems, implicitly, additional degeneracies are also present. The
> combined effects provide a means for particles to have appreciable overlap
> at many, periodically displaced “points” (as discussed below),
> simultaneously, for finite periods of time, in a manner that can result in
> new forms of collisions in which momentum is transferred from the locations
> where overlap can occur, rigidly to the lattice as a whole. When these
> idealized forms of motion are initiated by collisions resulting from the
> overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in forms of coupling that can
> cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small amounts of momentum and
> energy from many different locations are transferred coherently to the
> solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many different particles
> in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement with experiment,
> the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released without
> high-energy particles. "
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He
>> unsubscribed from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't
>> the one who drove him off.
>>
>> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed
>> has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org
>>
>> It is compelling.   But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is
>> above his pay grade.   Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.
>> It seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.
>>
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRconvention.pdf
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.

>>> ***There have been some observances of radiation.  Not very much, but
>>> some.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are
 two entirely different processes producing different products. The name is
 only used to distinguish between the two different processes.

>>> ***I think I see where the difference lies.  Let's say we had a million
>>> balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a
>>> lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in.  Now, in the
>>> middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them.  Would you be able to
>>> hear the explosion?  Probably not, because the emitted energy would be
>>> absorbed by the lattice & other baloons.  Similarly, with billions of H
>>> atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
>>> energy gets absorbed by the lattice.  That's how we end up with
>>> transmutations.
>>>
>>> But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy
>>> lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the
>>> explosion?  Yes.  The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the
>>> surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions &
>>> emissions.  That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice,
>>> only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice,
>>> thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy).
>>>
>>> Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion
>>> emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

In particular, this paragraph seems to support my Balloon analogy for
absorbing most of the high energy emissions into the lattice.



"...as in the Mossbauer effect, through a real effect, implicit in the
symmetry associated with rigid lattice translations that preserve periodic
order, it is possible for a lattice to “recoil” elastically, as a whole, in
response to a collision at a point. In the generalization of band theory
[19] to many-body, finite systems, the same symmetry is invoked and leads
to a huge degeneracy. Because indistinguishable particles are involved in
these systems, implicitly, additional degeneracies are also present. The
combined effects provide a means for particles to have appreciable overlap
at many, periodically displaced “points” (as discussed below),
simultaneously, for finite periods of time, in a manner that can result in
new forms of collisions in which momentum is transferred from the locations
where overlap can occur, rigidly to the lattice as a whole. When these
idealized forms of motion are initiated by collisions resulting from the
overlap between d’s in IBS’s, they can result in forms of coupling that can
cause nuclear fusion to take place in which small amounts of momentum and
energy from many different locations are transferred coherently to the
solid as a whole and subsequently transferred to many different particles
in a cooperative fashion. As a consequence, in agreement with experiment,
the associated nuclear energy is predicted to be released without
high-energy particles. "

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He
> unsubscribed from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't
> the one who drove him off.
>
> Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed
> has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org
>
> It is compelling.   But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is
> above his pay grade.   Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.
> It seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.
>
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRconvention.pdf
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
>>>
>> ***There have been some observances of radiation.  Not very much, but
>> some.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are two
>>> entirely different processes producing different products. The name is only
>>> used to distinguish between the two different processes.
>>>
>> ***I think I see where the difference lies.  Let's say we had a million
>> balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a
>> lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in.  Now, in the
>> middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them.  Would you be able to
>> hear the explosion?  Probably not, because the emitted energy would be
>> absorbed by the lattice & other baloons.  Similarly, with billions of H
>> atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
>> energy gets absorbed by the lattice.  That's how we end up with
>> transmutations.
>>
>> But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy
>> lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the
>> explosion?  Yes.  The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the
>> surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions &
>> emissions.  That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice,
>> only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice,
>> thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy).
>>
>> Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion
>> emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

In this old thread, we discussed BECs with Edmund Storms.   He unsubscribed
from Vortex soon after this interaction, hopefully I wasn't the one who
drove him off.

Anyways, at the time I did not have access to Chubb's theory but now Jed
has uploaded his Ion Band State Theory (IBST)  paper onto Lenr-Canr.org

It is compelling.   But I am disheartened that Jones Beene said it is above
his pay grade.   Now I think it is two layers above my pay grade.   It
seems to cover all the bases and it uses conventional physics.


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

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Edmund Storms 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> NO!!! That is not the issue Cold fusion produces He4 without radiation.
>>
> ***There have been some observances of radiation.  Not very much, but
> some.
>
>
>
>
>> Hot fusion produces a mixture of energetic fragments of He.These are two
>> entirely different processes producing different products. The name is only
>> used to distinguish between the two different processes.
>>
> ***I think I see where the difference lies.  Let's say we had a million
> balloons all filled with air, and around those million balloons there is a
> lattice of tinker toys such that each balloon is boxed in.  Now, in the
> middle of all those balloons, you pop one of them.  Would you be able to
> hear the explosion?  Probably not, because the emitted energy would be
> absorbed by the lattice & other baloons.  Similarly, with billions of H
> atoms trapped in Palladium lattices, when 2 of them fuse, the emitted
> energy gets absorbed by the lattice.  That's how we end up with
> transmutations.
>
> But if you had a million balloons in a big room (with no tinker toy
> lattice) and you exploded 50,000 of them at one time, would you hear the
> explosion?  Yes.  The emitted energy would not be fully absorbed by the
> surrounding matter, and indeed could even lead to further explosions &
> emissions.  That's the difference between cold fusion (tinker toy lattice,
> only very few fusion events) and hot fusion (no tinker toy lattice,
> thousands of fusion events leading up to a large emission of energy).
>
> Imposing the conclusions of hot fusion emitted energy onto cold fusion
> emitted energy is where your observation loses its validity.
>
>
>
>
>