Re: [Vo]:Can 'Apollo Fusion' Bring Us Clean Nuclear Energy?

[Bob Cook]

Like Jones says Apollo is DOA.   To make something for mass marketing with
fissionable isotopes--Pu-239 from U-238 for example and neutrons  is a
 security problem and very expensive.  There is no competing with LENR with
no neutrons IMHO.

Bob Cook

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:55 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Robin,
>
> You and I shared similar hybrid design thoughts on a modular mass-produced
> sub-critical reactor 15 years ago... but the basis of the Apollo design
> goes back before "cold fusion" and is still not very smart IMO -- since it
> depends on 3He and extremely expensive magnets. It is DOA even after 28
> years of planning since it retains most of the disadvantages of fusion.
> Here is some history.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261511370_Apollo_-_
> An_advanced_fuel_fusion_power_reactor_for_the_21st_century
>
> The main goal for lowest net cost nuclear power from U - and this has been
> obvious for 40 years to almost everyone in the industry - is to to avoid
> the huge problem where 30% and up of the net cost of new plant goes to
> bankers. Instead of one-off, there needs to be a single modular design,
> smaller in capacity for use as multiple units, built on a batch flow
> (aircraft style) production line at a rate of many per month. Financiers
> sometimes get more than half of the net cost in the USA, since the reactor
> itself takes 10 years to complete and they want to drag it out. A modular
> design can be rail mounted and actually removed at the end of service.
>
> The next obvious design goal is go subcritical - use natural U fuel with
> no enrichment and use multiple small makeup sources of neutrons to avoid
> the extreme cost of a reactor built to contain a meltdown. The "tabletop
> accelerator" was never fully developed for mass production, but it would
> work in multiples as neutron generators in a subcritcal design that
> benefits from overlapping neutron multiplication ratios - and is especially
> suitable as a thermionic topper.
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Jack Cole's message:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>>> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo
>>> -fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/
>>>
>> Not much on the company website. I wonder if they are going to implement
>> the model I suggested here on vortex a little while back? ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

What is the mode of "decay" of free muons and, separately, in condensed matter?

They seem not to produce any high energy EM nor radioactive products.   If they 
did, I would assume this would have been reported unless it was intended to 
remain a secret.


I consider based on reported muon models of Hatt and Stubbs and deep elastic 
electron scattering experiments with muons and protons, electons and positrons 
should be observed during muon decay, if high energy gammas do not show up.


Regarding these ideas, I question the designation of a muon as a lepton 
(primary) particle.  The scattering experiments suggest a different type of 
particle--more akin to a proton or a neutron.


Bob Cook




From: Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons


The idea that the muons are interacting in solid matter with the electrons not 
the nuclei of atoms is very compelling to me. Indeed this may well explain two 
mysteries of my cold fusion muon/mischegunons, that is that very few are 
escaping the experiment cells. That what I have detected is the dwindling 
remains of the reaction is very compelling and as well explains why so few cold 
fusion experiments have detected any such emanations. The time dilation effect 
that effectively increases the cross-section of materials just works very well 
indeed.



This speaks to the growing revelations on silver being a valuable constituent 
in a range of experiments. Silver of course has a very complete electron cloud, 
as such it might well be the best material for engaging with the 
muon/mischugenon nuclear ash. This would help me a lot in understanding why it 
just happens that I have found silver so useful (as has Mills) it is not the 
neutron cross section of silver it is the muon cross-section!





From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons



In this discussion, Jones presumes muons to be traveling at light speed:

The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which is 
an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this would 
mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and decaying in 
an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor.



There are a number of things wrong with this.  First, most commonly encountered 
muons are cosmogenic and have 100MeV-GeV energies.  At these energies, the muon 
is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (but not at the 
speed of light) and as such experiences time dilation in its decay.  Because of 
time dilation, the stationary observer sees the cosmogenic muon decay to be 
much longer than 2.2 microseconds.  This is why cosmogenic muons can travel 
50-100 miles to the Earth's surface without having decayed.

What Holmlid has reported is "10MeV/u" as a measurement for his muons - this is 
a measure of velocity squared.  One u (atomic mass unit) is 931 MeV/c^2.  In 
Holmlid's units of measure (MeV/u), call the amount measured X, then the 
velocity of the particle is sqrt(X/931)*c.  For Holmlid's report of a measure 
of 10 MeV/u, one gets sqrt(10/931)*c = 0.104c.  This is only an approximation 
for small velocity compared to c; as the velocity increases special relativity 
must be invoked in the solution.  Special relativity would reduce the velocity 
from this equation as it started approaching c, so the actual velocity will be 
somewhat less than 0.1c for Holmlid's particles, and a slight time dilation 
would be experienced.

So, if Holmlid's particles were muons, and if Mills was creating the same at a 
v^2 of 10MeV/u, then the range in a vacuum would be on the order of 60 meters.  
However, muons being charged, are well stopped in condensed matter because the 
particle doesn't have to run into a nucleus to be scattered, just run into the 
dense electronic orbitals.  The more dense the condensed matter, the greater 
the stopping power for the muon.

If muons were being generated with a v^2 of 10MeV/u, I doubt any would escape 
Mills' reactor vessel.





On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are related, 
no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further thought from 
the fringe ... about one of the possible implications. Holmlid has suggested 
that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt laser beam.

Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the Suncell® 
at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo will be 
needed... therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more than PR 
fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much lo

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

Muons, if they osuffer the same ccur in LENR reactions will be a real problem 
for LENR+.  The technology will suffer the same issues as fission reactor 
technology minus one big disadvantage--raidioactive waste.  However, that 
relative advantage IMHO would be significant with respect to current nuclear 
power.  It would put lots of nails in the coffin of current nuclear technology.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

Unsolicited observations of identical experimental consequences lends
credence to the production of a common causative reaction. For
example, Defkalion saw not advantage in reporting a major problem that
they suffered in the testing and demonstration of their system that
later ture up in other systems. ME356 explained why his testing
instruments and sensors were malfunctioning 3 meters away from his
reaction. This is very similar to what Defkalion had reported.

Now Holmlid tells why such observations are a result of muon
production. Now, the picture becomes a little clearer, a common thread
can be drawn to the point that if ionization production is not
observed in a LENR experimental situation, then the power production
of the reaction and even its existence is rightly questioned.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
> Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter, Mills
> also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously like
> a 'Me too' response to .
>
> the E
>
> The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If
> this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'.
>
> 
> From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil  If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban
> housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will
> produce a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.
> 
>
> There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide
> extra energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive.
>
> The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very
> thick. The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete.
>
> 10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of
> iron ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low
> grade heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for
> places like northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat.
> A dollar of lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

[Bob Cook]

Muon decay in bodily tissue should create a source of 0.51 Mev EMR equal to 
about 103 electron-positron annihilations.  This is brobably sufficient to 
cause genetic damage, initiation of bad cancer cells, particularly in older 
folks whose immune system is not as good as it might have been in younger 
years.  As far as I know the ICRP ignores muon exposure.   (It's statistically 
a never-mind exposure.)


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons

More...

One thing that Holmlid, ME356, Eros, and Defkalion all have detected
is a high state of ionization as muons interacted with matter and
ionized it. There must be a huge flux of muons produced to disable
electronic equipment at meters away from the LENR reaction.

If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban housing situation,
then a dense field of general muon interference will produce a
impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The rule of thumb for light speed propagation is one foot per
> nanosecond. For the muon, a decay time on the average of 2.2
> microseconds implies that the field of muon decay is on the order of
> 2200 feet. muon decay can happen inside this 2200 foot sphere or far
> outside it based on the vagaries of radioactive decay.  The muon will
> not induce fusion until its energy is reduced enough to be captured by
> an atom. otherwise it will pass through less dense material without
> interaction.
>
> Because of entanglement, the fusion energy will be sent back to the
> source of the muon as a mechanism of the way LENR works so the fusion
> reaction will be hard to detect in the far field. In detail, no
> neutrons or gamma will be produced or detected.
>
> But as eros has found, if a heavy shield of lead and iron is placed in
> the flight path of the muon, the muon slows down and begins to react
> with atoms. Eros, a LENR experimenter with a functioning reactor began
> to detect nuclear reactions just outside the heavy lead and iron
> shield using a copper covered radiation counter. The dense matter is
> ionized enough to slow the muon flight quickly and produce rapid
> secondary nuclear reaction in the near field.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> For those who suspect that the Holmlid effect and the Mills effect are
>> related, no matter what the proponents of each may think, here is a further
>> thought from the fringe … about one of the possible implications. Holmlid
>> has suggested that a very high flux of muons can be produced by a subwatt
>> laser beam.
>>
>> Mills uses an electric arc and will probably offer a real demo of the
>> Suncell® at some point. No one doubts that it works but an extended demo
>> will be needed… therefore, even if everything seen thus far is little more
>> than PR fluff, we could have a worrisome situation in response to a much
>> longer demo.
>>
>> Since Mills is applying higher net power to reactants (even if Holmlid’s
>> laser provides more localized power) there is a chance that some portion of
>> the energy produced escapes the sun-cell as muons. If Holmlid gets millions
>> of muons per watt of coherent light, what will be the corresponding rate be
>> from an electric arc? If anything like this scenario turns out to be the
>> accurate, then any muons produced will decay at a predictable distance away
>> from the reactor, thus they could have been missed by BrLP in testing thus
>> far.
>>
>> The muon is an unstable fermion with a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, which
>> is an eternity compared to most beta decays. Ignoring time dilation, this
>> would mean that muons, travelling at light speed, would be dispersing and
>> decaying in an imaginary sphere about 600 meters from the reactor. Thus, the
>> effect of radioactive decay could be significant at unexpected distance– and
>> Mills may never had imagined that this is a problem. Fortunately, humans are
>> exposed to a constant flux of muons due to cosmic rays, and the flux is
>> well-tolerated.
>>
>> Nevertheless, this detail is worth noting – and should Mills or his
>> associates start to feel a bit ill from the exposure – possibly an
>> unseasonal sun tan, then we can identify a culprit.
>>
>> The effects could be felt more in a remote office - than in the lab … which
>> is curious.

Re: [Vo]:Tritium generation in LENR

[Bob Cook]

Jones--


You should review the scope of NRC's authority.


IMHO NRC regulates "by products" of nuclear fission reactors, but not tritium 
produced by other methods.  Thus radioactive materials naturally occurring that 
are not fissile materials are not regulated.  Tritium resulting from LENR is 
not regulated by NRC IMHO.


However a device producing neutrons may very well be regulated by NRC, since it 
could be considered a device for the production of fissile materials--for 
example, Pu-239 from U-238 or U-233 from Th-232.   With this in mind I would be 
surprised to see an invention in the unclassified arena that involves 
production of neutrons.


A wise LENR inventor should avoid producing neutrons by his invention.


Bob Cook




From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 7:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Tritium generation in LENR


Speaking of the Sun-Cell and its early commercialization...

Tritium generation is the gold standard of proof in LENR. There is nothing else 
which comes close to the certainty afforded by finding a reaction which 
produces tritium at lower energy input. But the experiment itself becomes 
radioactive and rather dangerous since tritium is hydrophilic and carcinogenic 
-- and is therefore seldom performed today.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created to ensure the safe use of 
radioactive materials for civilian purposes. The NRC regulates all commercial 
uses of nuclear materials, even the small amounts of tritium (micrograms) used 
in nuclear medicine.

The signature of tritium is a well-known beta decay with a short and 
predictable half-life which cannot happen naturally, and also is easy to detect 
with inexpensive meters. Discovery of the tritium signature is thus rock-solid 
proof of a nuclear reaction. The signal has been reported many times in peer 
reviewed experiments from the early days. These experiments have been generally 
ignored by the mainstream.

It may surprise many LENR advocates to learn that one of the first claimants of 
tritium production in light water electrolysis was none other than Randell 
Mills, who published his results in the highly regarded Fusion Technology 
Magazine over twenty-four years ago - long before there was even a company 
called Blacklight Power. Mills of course would love to have the world ignore 
this detail about tritium today, since he wants nothing to do with anything 
that smacks of "nuclear" and wishes to portray the Sun Cell as completely 
non-nuclear.

Yet the possibility that tritium occurs as an inherent result of the Mills 
effect will not be erased until he permits an independent observer to monitor 
the experiment for tritium (which has not happened). Any level of secrecy 
creates a problem for eventual certification of the Sun Cell - if it should 
bring the results into the purview of the NRC.

BTW - the legacy of tritium discovery by Mills lives on in US Patent 6,024,935 
- where the inventor himself quotes many varied and different sources to 
support the discovery of tritium in nickel-light water electrolysis (curiously 
ignoring Claytor and LANL) in favor of:

1)  Notoya, "Tritium Generation . . . Nickel Electrodes", Fusion 
Technology, vol. 26.

2)  Oka, et. al., "D2O-fueled fusion power reactor using 
electromagnetically induced...Deuterium-tritium reactions-- Fusion Technology, 
vol. 16, No. 2, Sep. 1989, pp. 263-267.

3)  Srinivasan, et. al., "Tritium and Excess Heat Generation during 
Electrolysis of Aqueous Solutions of Alkali Salts with Nickel Cathode", 3rd 
Annual Conference on Cold Fusion.

4)  Chien, et. al., "On an Electrode . . . Tritium and Helium", J. 
Electroanal Chem., 1992, pp. 189-212.

5)  Storms, et. al., "Electroyltic Tritium Production", Fusion Technology, 
vol. 17, Jul. 1990, pp. 680-695.

Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Bob Cook]

Peter--


How does HOH worl as a catalyst?  What is the mechanism?


I think Jones has a mechanism in mind for the Ag as a catalyst?


Bob Cook



From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl <pjvannoor...@caiway.nl>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 9:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

Hello Jones
Silver is not the catalyst. It is only the silver that makes the water(vapour)  
conductive. It is the HOH molecule that is the catalyst.

Peter

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 4:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area


The recent revelation from Mills/ BrLP ... that after 25 years and $100 million 
spent, the most effective catalyst found thus far is silver... and he uses it 
in the form of vapor by passing an electric arc... this scenario raises the 
question of an alternative method which could be implemented at lower operating 
parameters.

The boiling point of silver is almost 4000F  (2190 C) which is out of the 
question for most experimenters. An alternative to thermal vaporization would 
be a mist or fog - possibly created from the liquid state by ultrasonics - 
similar to the foggers are used with water. In the case of silver, the melting 
point is high as a pure metal; however, silver is notorious for forming 
eutectics with markedly lower m.p.

The most interesting eutectic found so far for LENR would be lithium-silver; 
since lithium may catalytic in a different way as well as active for a fusion 
reaction. Thus a lithium-silver eutectic which melts at less than 300 C could 
be irradiated with ultrasound to produce a catalytic fog or mist in a near 
vacuum chamber which is much easier to pull off on a small scale than the 
massive arc required to vaporize silver. Ionization would be initiated using a 
radioactive isotope and become self-sustained at a higher level by EUV emission.



Deze email is gecontroleerd door CAIWAY Internet Virusvrij.
Voor meer informatie, zie http://www.caiway.nl/

Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Bob Cook]

Mills may have designed his device wisely to avoid nuclear fusion, especially, 
if the fusion reaction produced neutrons and other hazardous penetrating 
radiation.


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 6:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area


From: Axil

>   A cavitation based bubble compression process using a mix of Lithium 7 
> fluoride  and lithium 7 hydride salt using ultrasound might also work.

Too bad the Flynn device was not reduced to practice circa 1982. The patent is 
older than cold fusion.  Cavitation, in this case, would imply a gain from hot 
fusion dynamics (Lawson criteria) -- but without the benefit of the Mills 
effect. In retrospect, it would appear to be more expedient (and avoid the use 
of a pure isotope) to employ the Mills effect first, and then use that strong 
gain from EUV emission to implement fusion as a secondary effect of hydrogen 
redundant ground states.

If Mills is correct, one could imagine a combination of the two where there is 
net gain without fusion, but a larger gain (“yuge”) with both in a 
bootstrapping arrangement. The Flynn reactor with lithium-silver eutectic would 
feed an adjoining upper chamber with the eutectic mist of catalyst.

Of course, Mills would avoid nuclear fusion at all costs… even to his own 
detriment.

--

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and 
reactor therefor  US 4333796 A (aka “Flynn”)

ABSTRACT

Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed. Each comprises 
a chamber containing a liquid (host) metal such as lithium or an alloy thereof. 
Acoustical horns in the chamber walls operate to vary the ambient pressure in 
the liquid metal, creating therein small bubbles which are caused to grow to 
maximum sizes and then collapse violently in two steps. In the first stage the 
bubble contents remain at the temperature of the host liquid, but in the second 
stage the increasing speed of collapse causes an adiabatic compression of the 
bubble contents, and of the thin shell of liquid surrounding the bubble. 
Application of a positive pressure on the bubble accelerates this adiabatic 
stage, and causes the bubble to contract to smaller radius, thus increasing 
maximum temperatures and pressures reached within the bubble. At or near its 
minimum radius the bubble generates a very intense shock wave, creating high 
pressures and temperatures in the host liquid. These extremely high pressures 
and temperatures occur both within the bubbles and in the host liquid, and 
cause hydrogen isotopes in the bubbles and liquid to undergo thermonuclear 
reactions. In one type of CFR the thermonuclear reaction is generated by 
cavitation within the liquid metal itself, and in the other type the reaction 
takes place primarily within the bubbles. The fusion reactions generate energy 
that is absorbed as heat by the liquid metal, and this heat is removed from the 
liquid by conduction through the acoustical horns to an external heat 
exchanger, without any pumping of the liquid metal

https://www.google.com/patents/US4333796

[https://www.google.com/patents?id==frontcover=1=1]<https://www.google.com/patents/US4333796>

Patent US4333796 - Method of generating energy by acoustically induced 
cavitation fusion and reactor therefor<https://www.google.com/patents/US4333796>
www.google.com
, and of the thin shell of liquid surrounding the bubble. Application of a 
positive pressure on the bubble accelerates this adiabatic stage, and causes 
the bubble to contract to smaller radius, thus increasing maximum temperatures 
and pressures reached within the bubble. At or near its minimum radius the 
bubble generates a very intense shock wave, creating high pressures and 
temperatures in the host liquid. These extremely high pressures and 
temperatures occur both within the bubbles and in the host liquid, and cause 
hydrogen isotopes in the bubbles and liquid to undergo thermonuclear reactions. 
In one type of CFR the thermonuclear reaction is generated by cavitation within 
the liquid metal itself, and in the other type the reaction takes place 
primarily within the bubbles. The fusion reactions generate energy that is 
absorbed as heat by the liquid metal, and this heat is removed from the liquid 
by conduction through the acoustical horns to an external heat exchanger, 
without any pumping of the liquid metal.


Jones Beene wrote:

The recent revelation from Mills/ BrLP … that after 25 years and $100 million 
spent, the most effective catalyst found thus far is silver… and he uses it in 
the form of vapor by passing an electric arc… this scenario raises the question 
of an alternative method which could be implemented at lower operating 
parameters.

The boiling point of silver is almost 4000F  (2190 C) which is out of th

Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Bob Cook]

An additional thought regarding the potential for BEC's is that Cooper pairs of 
hydrinos from Mill's reactor are able to fuse with Li-6 in a duplex BEC (per 
Kim's theory) and result in Be-8 and hence 2 energetic back-to-back alphas 
without any neutrons or gammas.


This may be similar to the reaction suggested for the Ni lattice system of 
Rossi earlier in this thread.


Bob Cook



From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 6:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area


I would not want to get F involved in the technology.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 10:19 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

A cavitation based bubble compression process using a mix of Lithium 7 fluoride 
 and lithium 7 hydride salt using ultrasound might also work.

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and 
reactor therefor
US 4333796 A
ABSTRACT
Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed. Each comprises 
a chamber containing a liquid (host) metal such as lithium or an alloy thereof. 
Acoustical horns in the chamber walls operate to vary the ambient pressure in 
the liquid metal, creating therein small bubbles which are caused to grow to 
maximum sizes and then collapse violently in two steps. In the first stage the 
bubble contents remain at the temperature of the host liquid, but in the second 
stage the increasing speed of collapse causes an adiabatic compression of the 
bubble contents, and of the thin shell of liquid surrounding the bubble. 
Application of a positive pressure on the bubble accelerates this adiabatic 
stage, and causes the bubble to contract to smaller radius, thus increasing 
maximum temperatures and pressures reached within the bubble. At or near its 
minimum radius the bubble generates a very intense shock wave, creating high 
pressures and temperatures in the host liquid. These extremely high pressures 
and temperatures occur both within the bubbles and in the host liquid, and 
cause hydrogen isotopes in the bubbles and liquid to undergo thermonuclear 
reactions. In one type of CFR the thermonuclear reaction is generated by 
cavitation within the liquid metal itself, and in the other type the reaction 
takes place primarily within the bubbles. The fusion reactions generate energy 
that is absorbed as heat by the liquid metal, and this heat is removed from the 
liquid by conduction through the acoustical horns to an external heat 
exchanger, without any pumping of the liquid metal
https://www.google.com/patents/US4333796

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

The recent revelation from Mills/ BrLP … that after 25 years and $100 million 
spent, the most effective catalyst found thus far is silver… and he uses it in 
the form of vapor by passing an electric arc… this scenario raises the question 
of an alternative method which could be implemented at lower operating 
parameters.

The boiling point of silver is almost 4000F  (2190 C) which is out of the 
question for most experimenters. An alternative to thermal vaporization would 
be a mist or fog – possibly created from the liquid state by ultrasonics – 
similar to the foggers are used with water. In the case of silver, the melting 
point is high as a pure metal; however, silver is notorious for forming 
eutectics with markedly lower m.p.

The most interesting eutectic found so far for LENR would be lithium-silver; 
since lithium may catalytic in a different way as well as active for a fusion 
reaction. Thus a lithium-silver eutectic which melts at less than 300 C could 
be irradiated with ultrasound to produce a catalytic fog or mist in a near 
vacuum chamber which is much easier to pull off on a small scale than the 
massive arc required to vaporize silver. Ionization would be initiated using a 
radioactive isotope and become self-sustained at a higher level by EUV emission.

Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Bob Cook]

Axil--


Your idea about a fermion poison  to the LENR reactions suggests that the 
reaction involves a BEC--Li-6 for example.  The reacting BEC may only involve a 
small number of bosons--those that will fit into a Ni unit cell or a small 
cavity within the Ni lattice of the nano particle.  The poisoning effect is 
based on statistics of the Li isotopes mixing in the vapor.  The clumping or 
segregation of the 2 isotopes in a gaseous form would probably be a function of 
the temperature, their respective mobility through the Ni lattice, magnetic 
fields, etc.   However, once a "critical BEC" is formed, it reacts instantly.  
Hopefully there would be a negative temperature coeff. associated with the BEC 
formation.  And of course no penetrating EM radiation or neutrons.


  Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:31 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

Regarding:

Enigmatic  E-Cat of Andrea Rossi and the Unitary Quantum Theory
by Leo G. Sapogin, Vladimir A. Dzhanibekov, Yuri A. 
Ryabovhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BVWZyRGdZemRfdTduZWZQUnBlQTc0Z3hVOF9V/view?usp=sharing
OALibE-cat.pdf<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BVWZyRGdZemRfdTduZWZQUnBlQTc0Z3hVOF9V/view?usp=sharing>
drive.google.com



Did you notice the term “catalyst poisoning”. This is caused when a fermion 
isotope(Lithium 6) is mixed in with a boson isotope (lithium 7) Did you also 
notice that Rossi did not answer Hank Mills request for info November 2, 2016 
at 10:13 PM This is Rossi's secret to getting his reaction going without 
meltdown. That is, the proper adjustment of the Lithium 6 to Lithium 7 ratio in 
the fuel.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Axil Axil 
<janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A rewrite of the foregoing posts to revise and extend.

Another way to produce high pressure gas bubbles

49 minutes 
ago<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/4547-Trick-or-Treat-Give-The-E-Cat-Some-Intergranular-Hydrogen-Filled-Bubbles-To-Eat-/?postID=40941#post40941>

A cavitation based bubble compression process using a mix of Lithium 7 fluoride 
and Lithium 7 hydride salt using ultrasound might also work. A reaction using a 
nickel impeller should also be attempted.

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and 
reactor therefor

US 4333796 A

ABSTRACT

Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed. Each comprises 
a chamber containing a liquid (host) metal such as lithium or an alloy thereof. 
Acoustical horns in the chamber walls operate to vary the ambient pressure in 
the liquid metal, creating therein small bubbles which are caused to grow to 
maximum sizes and then collapse violently in two steps. In the first stage the 
bubble contents remain at the temperature of the host liquid, but in the second 
stage the increasing speed of collapse causes an adiabatic compression of the 
bubble contents, and of the thin shell of liquid surrounding the bubble. 
Application of a positive pressure on the bubble accelerates this adiabatic 
stage, and causes the bubble to contract to smaller radius, thus increasing 
maximum temperatures and pressures reached within the bubble. At or near its 
minimum radius the bubble generates a very intense shock wave, creating high 
pressures and temperatures in the host liquid. These extremely high pressures 
and temperatures occur both within the bubbles and in the host liquid, and 
cause hydrogen isotopes in the bubbles and liquid to undergo thermonuclear 
reactions. In one type of CFR the thermonuclear reaction is generated by 
cavitation within the liquid metal itself, and in the other type the reaction 
takes place primarily within the bubbles. The fusion reactions generate energy 
that is absorbed as heat by the liquid metal, and this heat is removed from the 
liquid by conduction through the acoustical horns to an external heat 
exchanger, without any pumping of the liquid metal


google.com/patents/US4333796<https://www.google.com/patents/US4333796>

Another way to create a cavitation bubble is to use an electric arc, preferably 
a very low voltage high amperage arc as used by Mills. Mills has shown that the 
use of a low voltage high amperage arc eliminates x-ray production such as 
produced in the defkalion system. Such reactions are produced in current systems

see

newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf<http://www.newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf>

HIGH-ENERGETIC METAL NANO-CLUSTER PLASMOID AND ITS SOFT X-RADIATION

Klimov A., Grigorenko A., Efimov A., Sidorenko M.,Soloviev A., Tolkunov B., 
Evstigneev N., Ryabkov O. Limited Liability Company ”New Inflow”

Also see


enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-1333.pdf<http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-1333.pdf>

Plasma-Assisted Reaction of Heterogen

Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Bob Cook]

I would not want to get F involved in the technology.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 10:19 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

A cavitation based bubble compression process using a mix of Lithium 7 fluoride 
 and lithium 7 hydride salt using ultrasound might also work.

Also see

Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and 
reactor therefor
US 4333796 A
ABSTRACT
Two different cavitation fusion reactors (CFR's) are disclosed. Each comprises 
a chamber containing a liquid (host) metal such as lithium or an alloy thereof. 
Acoustical horns in the chamber walls operate to vary the ambient pressure in 
the liquid metal, creating therein small bubbles which are caused to grow to 
maximum sizes and then collapse violently in two steps. In the first stage the 
bubble contents remain at the temperature of the host liquid, but in the second 
stage the increasing speed of collapse causes an adiabatic compression of the 
bubble contents, and of the thin shell of liquid surrounding the bubble. 
Application of a positive pressure on the bubble accelerates this adiabatic 
stage, and causes the bubble to contract to smaller radius, thus increasing 
maximum temperatures and pressures reached within the bubble. At or near its 
minimum radius the bubble generates a very intense shock wave, creating high 
pressures and temperatures in the host liquid. These extremely high pressures 
and temperatures occur both within the bubbles and in the host liquid, and 
cause hydrogen isotopes in the bubbles and liquid to undergo thermonuclear 
reactions. In one type of CFR the thermonuclear reaction is generated by 
cavitation within the liquid metal itself, and in the other type the reaction 
takes place primarily within the bubbles. The fusion reactions generate energy 
that is absorbed as heat by the liquid metal, and this heat is removed from the 
liquid by conduction through the acoustical horns to an external heat 
exchanger, without any pumping of the liquid metal
https://www.google.com/patents/US4333796

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

The recent revelation from Mills/ BrLP ... that after 25 years and $100 million 
spent, the most effective catalyst found thus far is silver... and he uses it 
in the form of vapor by passing an electric arc... this scenario raises the 
question of an alternative method which could be implemented at lower operating 
parameters.

The boiling point of silver is almost 4000F  (2190 C) which is out of the 
question for most experimenters. An alternative to thermal vaporization would 
be a mist or fog - possibly created from the liquid state by ultrasonics - 
similar to the foggers are used with water. In the case of silver, the melting 
point is high as a pure metal; however, silver is notorious for forming 
eutectics with markedly lower m.p.

The most interesting eutectic found so far for LENR would be lithium-silver; 
since lithium may catalytic in a different way as well as active for a fusion 
reaction. Thus a lithium-silver eutectic which melts at less than 300 C could 
be irradiated with ultrasound to produce a catalytic fog or mist in a near 
vacuum chamber which is much easier to pull off on a small scale than the 
massive arc required to vaporize silver. Ionization would be initiated using a 
radioactive isotope and become self-sustained at a higher level by EUV emission.

Re: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area

[Bob Cook]

More practical than a radioactive source would be a tuned pulsed laser to 
ionize Ag, if that is all that is necessary to create an effective catalyst.


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 8:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:A "eutectic mist" for maximum catalytic surface area


The recent revelation from Mills/ BrLP ... that after 25 years and $100 million 
spent, the most effective catalyst found thus far is silver... and he uses it 
in the form of vapor by passing an electric arc... this scenario raises the 
question of an alternative method which could be implemented at lower operating 
parameters.

The boiling point of silver is almost 4000F  (2190 C) which is out of the 
question for most experimenters. An alternative to thermal vaporization would 
be a mist or fog - possibly created from the liquid state by ultrasonics - 
similar to the foggers are used with water. In the case of silver, the melting 
point is high as a pure metal; however, silver is notorious for forming 
eutectics with markedly lower m.p.

The most interesting eutectic found so far for LENR would be lithium-silver; 
since lithium may catalytic in a different way as well as active for a fusion 
reaction. Thus a lithium-silver eutectic which melts at less than 300 C could 
be irradiated with ultrasound to produce a catalytic fog or mist in a near 
vacuum chamber which is much easier to pull off on a small scale than the 
massive arc required to vaporize silver. Ionization would be initiated using a 
radioactive isotope and become self-sustained at a higher level by EUV emission.

Re: [Vo]:Hi-Yo Silver- the smoking gun of LENR emerges?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--


In passing you noted the unusual high spin state of  Ag-108m.  A little extra 
spin (like that added by NMR machines to selected isotopes) may be enough to 
catalyze a nuclear reaction and transition of spin energy to other forms of 
kinetic energy in a multi-body entangled system.   For example,  phonic energy 
of a metal lattice's electrons.


This idea suggests that other quasi-stable isotopes because of their high spin 
may also act as a catalysts for LENR.  Long-lived or stable high-spin isotopes 
may be more practical than Ag-108m (418 year half-live).  Good control of radio 
energy input frequency and the ambient magnetic field (as NMR machines are 
designed to provide) may be the key technology to allow use of other high-spin 
stable isotopes as LENR catalysts.


The change of Ag-108 in Pd electrodes as a function of energy produced should 
be  determined to further address your ideas about its importance.


IMHO a real-time mass spec instrument is warranted for LENR research.   And any 
entity having expertise in NMR technolgy (GE and Siemans for example) should be 
proficient in evaluating this potential LENR mechanism.  In addition any 
government laboratory with such proficiency would be able to add to the 
knowledge base.  There are probably a dozen in the US alone.


Bob Cook




From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 7:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Hi-Yo Silver- the smoking gun of LENR emerges?


Fire up a rousing version of "The William Tell Overture" in order to appreciate 
the latest contention (you heard it first on vortex) that SILVER (not the horse 
but the shiny element 47) is the almost-hidden key to success in cold fusion... 
and also the Mills effect as well ! Or is it a coincidence that Randy 
absolutely depends on silver in his recent announcements?

At first, the large amount of silver used in the Sun Cell was said to be an 
electrical contact, but now Ag is admitted to be the only catalyst necessary 
for hydrogen redundancy/reactivity. The only parameter which is required for 
the reaction to self-sustain, according to Mills own statement (see the latest 
video on YT) - is “sufficient vapor pressure of silver in the presence of 
hydrogen”. That’s right – silver is the only catalyst needed.

Imagine that … but now imagine it in the context of cold fusion. Palladium and 
silver are very similar and often found together in nature. A silver-palladium 
alloy is superior to palladium for hydrogen diffusion or as a membrane 
purification. The palladium alloy Pd77 Ag23 is considered the best alloy for 
hydrogen diffusion, with technical superiority pure metal. The best alloy from 
J-M is called “Type A” and contains 23% silver.

Martin Fleischmann was adamant about the need for silver. This was a perennial 
subject on vortex for years in the past and Jed Rothwell’s comments are worth 
reviewing. "Type A" is the palladium J-M developed in the 1930s for their 
hydrogen filters. Fleischmann sez: "Look at the data from Miles. What does it 
tell you? When Uncle Martin gives you palladium, it works. When you get the 
palladium from somewhere else, it doesn't work! Why don't people pay attention 
to that?!?" He was referring to Table 10 in this document, which -- as Martin 
says -- no one seems to pay any attention to:

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

ANOMALOUS EFFECTS IN DEUTERATED 
SYSTEMS<http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf>
lenr-canr.org
1 Miles, M. and K.B. Johnson, Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems, Final 
Report. 1996, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. NAWCWPNS TP 8302


It is now looking like the element silver, which adjoins Pd in the periodic 
table, could be the key to excess heat in both cold fusion and the Mills 
effect. But why? It is not likely that it works in a different way for Mills 
than it does for P

One thing is superconductivity. It is known in the early nineties that Pd-D is 
superconductive when loaded above 70%, but the highest transition state is 
found in the Pd-Ag alloy known as Type A, which is well above pure Pd. Yup … 
the same alloy we have been talking about. Coincidence?

Silver also has numerous metastable states with the most stable being Ag-108m 
with a half-life of 418 years. If you subscribe to the “virtual neutron” of 
Widom-Larsen or the DDL, or the UDH of Holmlid, then silver would possibly go 
to the 108m metastable isotope by absorption of dense hydrogen and it could 
absorb as a halo nucleus. Ag-108m  is said to have an extremely high spin state 
of 6 (but I cannot find a citation for that).

In conclusion, if you follow the cutting edge between LENR and Mills, and can 
find the one overwhelming detail of similarity - then it is most likely silver 
and the fact that the gain is coming from Ag either as a catalyst or as a 
reactant.

In Mills, sil

Re: [Vo]:Rossi reactor configuration

[Bob Cook]

Jed--


It's common practice to design a hydraulic system to measure pressure in a cool 
leg attached hydraulically to the system being measured.  It is not necessary 
and in some regards foolish to subject a pressure transducer to non-ambient 
temperatures when the differential pressure head associated with the cold leg 
compared to the hot leg is minor.


I think you seem to raise issues without reasonable understanding of thermal 
hydraulic system engineering.


Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi reactor configuration

Let me add: They used an Omega model PX-309 pressure gauge with an operating 
temperature -40 to 85°C, in water that was ~103°C

http://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX309.pdf
all stainless steel transducer multimedia 
compatibility<http://www.omega.com/pressure/pdf/PX309.pdf>
www.omega.com
all stainless steel transducer multimedia compatibility HigH-performance 
silicon tecHnology 0-1 to 0-10,000 psi 0-0.07 to 0-690 bar 100 mV, 0 to 5 V,

Re: [Vo]:Ah hah.... dark matter internal to common matter

[Bob Cook]

Photons also acquire mass when they combine to create a positron and an 
electron--the opposite of annihilation.


Hatt's massification processes is describe in his theory as involving enough 
electrons and positrons to form protons and neutrons--around 1800 for neutrons 
and one less electron for protons.  This massification process may require high 
energy gamma rays--energy equivalent to something greater than the the mass of 
a proton or neutron.   It would be interesting to look for a paucity of photons 
in a star generation spectrum equivalent to one half the mass of a proton or 
something a little less to account for energy loss of the  photons as they 
leave a massive structure.Hatt's theory also accounts for the mass of muons 
by the same basic massification process.  Thus there should also be a paucity   
of high energy photons corresponding to their mass.  Such an observation would 
reveal the stability of matter with respect to antimatter in star formation.  I 
believe Hatt's theory accounts for this favored massification process.


Do the photons captured by the Rydberg matter also become massive anti 
matter--positrons or other anti-leptons?


Bob Cook





From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 1:31 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/335/4/L94.full

Magnetic field in the intracluster medium: Rydberg matter with almost free 
electrons

Metalized hydrides can be a candidate for Dark matter. The important 
contributor to mass is photons captured in a superconductor. These photons 
aquire mass.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Bob Cook 
<frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Bob and Russ--


Have you ever seen a number for the effective energy associated with one quanta 
of angular momentum?  Are those "fairy particles" merely spin quanta of energy 
only separated from their off spring photons, brother gravitons and kissing 
cousins magnitons and electons?


It seems to me that the poor quarks and their associates, gluons, are just 
"fairy fairies" IMHO with other fairies all the way down as some think.


Phillipe Hatt's theory about the the sexuality of leptons--electrons and 
positrons at least--gives a better prediction of the nature of protons and 
neutrons and other "heavy particles" than the "quark fairy tale" and does not 
involve "fairies".   The issue of sexuality of course is still a mystery  yet 
to become apparent as we grow older. (: -)


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, Octobr 1, 2016 9:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter

They are proposing MOND as a new/old solution.  The trouble is that MOND has 
adjustable parameters and does not explain why this occurs, only provides a 
means to fit an equation to the modification of Newtonian mechanics.  Michael 
McCulloch wrote a book about his MiHsC theory that derives from first 
hypothesis how inertial mass (Mi) can differ from gravitational mass.  The 
prediction seems to fit pretty well with the data without adjustable parameters 
- a very nice plus.  But, after reading his book (Physics from the Edge), I 
decided that what he proposed violated causality.  I wrote to him about it, and 
he agreed that it did violate causality but he was working on an explanation 
for that.  Perhaps his equations are right, but for the wrong reason.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Russ George 
<russ.geo...@gmail.com<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A new series of observations on the behavior of 153 galaxies defies the usual 
dark matter suspect being some mystery rogue fairy particle scampering about 
the universe in numbers many times that of common matter yet unobservable, what 
a common human mythological fantasy transformed into “science dogma.”

https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-understanding-dark-matter?source=realclearscience.com

More plausible it seems is that internal to common matter, inside that 
marvelous and mysterious bag of quarks that is everything, there are some bits 
that have eluded our mundane/egotistical observational methods which the 
collective faithful have steadfastly proclaimed as near perfect. Believe us 
they say, we are the learned majority not merely lemmings,  this is the way it 
is, and by the way if you would like to buy a nice bridge I can get you one at 
a deep discount or perhaps you’d rather a super-conducting super collider which 
comes with my pension plan.

There are so many forbidden mysteries are served so well by the notion that we 
haven’t invented every theory and tool that is possible to invent.

Re: [Vo]:Ah hah.... dark matter internal to common matter

[Bob Cook]

Bob and Russ--


Have you ever seen a number for the effective energy associated with one quanta 
of angular momentum?  Are those "fairy particles" merely spin quanta of energy 
only separated from their off spring photons, brother gravitons and kissing 
cousins magnitons and electons?


It seems to me that the poor quarks and their associates, gluons, are just 
"fairy fairies" IMHO with other fairies all the way down as some think.


Phillipe Hatt's theory about the the sexuality of leptons--electrons and 
positrons at least--gives a better prediction of the nature of protons and 
neutrons and other "heavy particles" than the "quark fairy tale" and does not 
involve "fairies".   The issue of sexuality of course is still a mystery  yet 
to become apparent as we grow older. (: -)


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 9:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter

They are proposing MOND as a new/old solution.  The trouble is that MOND has 
adjustable parameters and does not explain why this occurs, only provides a 
means to fit an equation to the modification of Newtonian mechanics.  Michael 
McCulloch wrote a book about his MiHsC theory that derives from first 
hypothesis how inertial mass (Mi) can differ from gravitational mass.  The 
prediction seems to fit pretty well with the data without adjustable parameters 
- a very nice plus.  But, after reading his book (Physics from the Edge), I 
decided that what he proposed violated causality.  I wrote to him about it, and 
he agreed that it did violate causality but he was working on an explanation 
for that.  Perhaps his equations are right, but for the wrong reason.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Russ George 
<russ.geo...@gmail.com<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
A new series of observations on the behavior of 153 galaxies defies the usual 
dark matter suspect being some mystery rogue fairy particle scampering about 
the universe in numbers many times that of common matter yet unobservable, what 
a common human mythological fantasy transformed into "science dogma."

https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-understanding-dark-matter?source=realclearscience.com

More plausible it seems is that internal to common matter, inside that 
marvelous and mysterious bag of quarks that is everything, there are some bits 
that have eluded our mundane/egotistical observational methods which the 
collective faithful have steadfastly proclaimed as near perfect. Believe us 
they say, we are the learned majority not merely lemmings,  this is the way it 
is, and by the way if you would like to buy a nice bridge I can get you one at 
a deep discount or perhaps you'd rather a super-conducting super collider which 
comes with my pension plan.

There are so many forbidden mysteries are served so well by the notion that we 
haven't invented every theory and tool that is possible to invent.

Re: [Vo]:The Quantum internet

[Bob Cook]

The key to LENR is to design an entangled system and then induce a change in 
that system that causes instaneous new energy states, which subsequently allow 
decay via radiation from the entire entangled system--making heat in the nearby 
material and/or entangled systems.  A nano Ni particle may be such a system.   
Introducing electrons or protons or deuterons may be the ticket to initiating 
such energy state changes.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:21 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The Quantum internet


Quantum mechanical entanglement will provide instantaneous communication 
without regard to distance no matter how large that distance may be.

High temperature Bose condensation is the KEY. If two systems that share a 
common Bose condensation condition can be separated with one condensation 
transceiver in the control room and one in the spacecraft, then the control 
room can direct the control and discovery function of the spacecraft in real 
time using remote quantum mechanical based control.

In the longer term instantaneous QM based teleportation of matter and energy 
might be configured.

An amplitude modulated signal could be established where the sender system  
created and destroyed an amount of entanglement on a periodic basis. The 
requirement is that this amount of entanglement be reflected in the receiver. 
Information is carried in the amount of entanglement not in the values carried 
by the entanglement.

If information can be manipulated in a quantum computer, that information might 
be transferred over distance, that being the number of qubits not the content 
of the qubits.

http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quantum-internet-solid-state-network.html

[https://www.bing.com/th?id=OVP.Vd97220a49f38aa3c941bc842310f7cc9=Api]<http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quantum-internet-solid-state-network.html>

'Quantum Internet': Towards realization of solid-state 
...<http://phys.org/news/2013-04-quantum-internet-solid-state-network.html>
phys.org
Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank



'Quantum Internet': Towards realization of solid-state quantum network

The less than the speed of light relativistic requirement is paid when the two 
quantum transceivers are separated at under the speed of light as the 
spacecraft moves away from the control room.

Next, the coherent increase in entanglement between each quantum communication 
transceiver is the feature of the quantum network that is critical to verify. 
The entangled qubits need to reproduce themselves like microbes that divide. 
Polaritons might be able to increase their entanglement with others of their 
kind.

This feature is seen in LENR when a single powered master reactor (Mouse) can 
drive N numbers of unpowered slave reactors(Cats) to produce increased 
coefficient of performance (COP). This is the essence of the Mouse/Cat reactor 
protocol as invented by Rossi.

There is a ton of money going into research into quantum computers and 
networks, and even more into entangled communications, because no connection 
path is needed between sender and receiver.

"'Secondly, teleportation offers the possibility of sending information in a 
completely secure way. With teleportation, the information does not travel 
through the intermediate space and therefore cannot be intercepted."

The N.S.A will like that very much...meaning lots of R Where there is money, 
there is hope.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Bob Cook]

It could be that the solar boost box creates resonances that increase the 
spectrum of the incoming solar energy that is converted to usable current/cell 
voltages--in other words makes a solar photon conversion more probable.


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 3:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu 
Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

>From their video, it looks like they were trying to find a way to eliminate 
>electron recombination in the silicon lattice to improve efficiency.  They may 
>be planning to do that with fields created with the pyroelectric films.  Since 
>the typical delta T from front to back in the panel is 26C, there is the 
>opportunity to have a pyroelectric film to generate a field for use in their 
>function.  In the mean time, they may be applying the bias with an electrical 
>circuit to model the effects of the pyroelectric film on the panel efficiency 
>(in the manner they developed to eliminate the electron recombination).

It is interesting technology.  If they are able to simulate, what would keep 
them from deploying the electronic method?

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Stephen,

I’m not sure the E field is static. It could look more like electronic noise. 
The inventor – Kumar - also has other patent apps which indicate the way he is 
going.

20150108851 Photovoltaic systems with shaped high frequency electric pulses
At least one photovoltaic (PV) cell comprising a semiconductor material having 
p-n junctions formed therein, and configured to generate a PV output voltage in 
response to light; and a pulse generator coupled to receive a PV output voltage 
and generate electric output pulses therefrom.

20150107644 Photovoltaic efficiency using high frequency electric pulses
A system can include at least one solar cell comprising a semiconductor 
material having p-n junctions formed therein; and a pulse generator 
electrically coupled to the solar cell and configured to apply electric pulses 
to dynamically alter a band gap of the semiconductor material as photons are 
received

Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Bob Cook]

It could be that the solar boost box creates resonances that increase the 
spectrum of the incoming solar energy that is converted to usable current/cell 
voltages--in other words makes a solar photon conversion more probable.


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu 
Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected


Terry,



They seem to contradict themselves: elsewhere they claim “the Efficoat 
technology” provides 15-20% improvement in power production from ordinary solar 
panels over the course of a typical day.” This would lead one to believe that 
the panels are coated.



If the coating is not on the panels but contained in a remote box, then why not 
sell the box to Tesla and let the cars get 20% more out of the battery pack ? 
Who needs the solar panels?



Hmmm … do we know that Tesla doesn’t do this already ?



From: Terry Blanton

Is there a better description of their tech?  Say, a patent app?  'Cuz I don't 
get the impression that they do anything to the solar cell itself.  From the 
FAQ:

Is the Pyroelectric coating on the panel directly?

No, the Pyroelectric glass and coating reside inside the sealed Ultrasolar 
QuantunBoost™ device. There are no user serviceable parts in the device that 
need to be accessed by the user or field technician.

How does Pyroelectric help increase the power of a solar cell?

We create electric field from a coating of pyroelectric material on glass. The 
field is applied on the solar cell using the electrodes of the solar cell. The 
applied electric field removes electrons and holes from traps and accelerates 
them towards the electrodes. This increases the current resulting in increase 
of DC power from the panel.



So, er, has anyone tried substituting a battery for the solar cells?  After 
all, as Monty Python says, "Every electron is special."  So the origin should 
not matter.  (It was 'electron', right?)



Okay, I'll stop.  Bollocks!

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Bob Cook]

I would add that the efficiency of the battery system to take up energy and 
then deliver it as usable electricity is another parameter that must be 
factored in.


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 8:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs 
Plunging Faster Than Expected

It looks like an interesting technology.  However, the real metric is not in 
panel efficiency or system efficiency, it is total$/kWh.  This has to include 
the longevity of the panel.  The total cost/kWh over the life of the panel is 
its installed cost (+maintenance costs) amortized over the life of the panel 
divided by the total kWh produced during its lifetime.  Most solar 
installations on Earth are not limited by available area, they are chosen based 
on the cost per kWh produced.

This shows up, for example, in comparison of poly-crystalline panels to thin 
film panels.  Thin film are much cheaper per kW, but their lifetime is less 
than half that of the poly panels, making their total cost per kWh higher.

It will be interesting to see if this technology has a business case in the end.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Jones Beene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
This brings to mind a local company (SF Bay) with an add-on product for solar 
cells which they claim increases the power and efficiency. The technology uses 
a pyroelectric coating for the cells and a feedback mechanism.

The company is UltraSolar. It has been mentioned before here, but it may not 
yet be ready for prime time as initial products received complaints.

http://www.ultrasolar.com/files/Videos/QB%20Demo%20Video.ogv

http://www.ultrasolar.com/technology.html


From: Blaze Spinnaker

http://rameznaam.com/2016/09/21/new-record-low-solar-price-in-abu-dhabi-costs-plunging-faster-than-expected/

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--


If the system is coherent, i.e.,a quantum system, the boundary would be linked 
instaneously.  For example, light emitted from a distant object that is bent by 
a massive object in one direction from Earth is still coordinated with its 
orginal wave front coming directly from the source and from a different 
direction.  The distance that the wave front traveled as it arrived from 
different directions may be  be different by light years.  However, it is still 
coordinated.  This is like spooky action at a distance associated with a 
quantum system extending across the Universe.   The same thing on a smaller 
scale happens in a semi conductor or a crystal when an electron enters the 
material system that makes up that semi conductor or crystal.  The whole 
coordinated system recognizes the electron, and the energy states across the 
material (macroscopic in size in some cases that are so engineered) change 
instantaneously--again spooky action at a distance associated with a 
coordinated (some called it entangled) quantum system.


IMHO the nano particles associated with successful LENR reflect a coherent 
quantum system that can change energy states across the particle during the 
correct resonant conditions created by either magnetic fields or electric 
fields or both. The entire system is coordinated--entangled--and changes from a 
greater potential energy to a greater kinetic energy or spin energy state 
associated with electron orbital motion and/or small bits of kinetic energy 
(emitted to the environment outside the material system in the form of photons 
and maybe neutrinos) occur.   The major changes of energy in the system occur 
among the electrons and happen one small Planck constant of angular 
momentum--spin energy--at a time.  This amounts to an increase of entropy for 
the entire system, whatever it entails.


Spin waves may be involved in the conditions that allow the transitions in a 
given nano particle, coupling the spin energy of the nuclei with the orbital 
spin energy of the electrons.  Spin waves for me are a new concept with no 
discussion of them in my physics classes as I remember.


What does McCulloch say about spin waves?  You probably were not trained about 
spin wave concepts either.


You now have my outlandish (but not off the cuff) opinion.


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave phenomena 
that doesn't seem to match up with his theory.  In his theory, he drops out 
wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in the frequency 
domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the object depending 
on acceleration.  However, in the time domain these waves would have to 
propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before any cancellations 
could occur.  The boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, 
for a free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced by an 
acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the time to the 
discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 
should not know of the boundary for at least 20 years.  If the object 
instantaneously experienced a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate 
causality by this theory.

I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this understanding.  
Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole 
<jcol...@gmail.com<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-radiation-confirmed.html

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Bob Cook]

Jones--


I doubt that Rossi's device meets the definition of a boiler in the Florida 
code.  In addition I would expect that his testimony (deposition) could be 
taken remotely, if he were out of the country.   That deposition would 
substitute for his presence at the trial.


In addition the misdemeanor charge may be a nit in the big picture that Peron 
sees.  I would guess his lawyers would agree.  He may even get immunity to such 
a charge from the Florida district attorney, since the issue is mute.


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 1:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!


From: Peter Gluck



Ø  dear Jones, some 10% of the sum in dispute usually goes to the attorney, 
lawyers, hudges...everywhere.



Very funny. I mistook this for a serious discussion... unless you are implying 
that this trial will cost Rossi and IH together about $10 million,  no matter 
what the verdict. That is 10% of ~100 million and probably not far off.



Otherwise, you must be referring to Romania. In the USA, the sum in dispute is 
meaningless and often inflated - so consequently, you are either paying on the 
clock (exorbitant hourly fee) or there is a contingency agreement in place ... 
which is typically one third of the actual judgment which is awarded, plus 
costs and fees. In the USA, contingency fees are based on the jury award, not 
the amount in dispute.



One of the beauties of capitalism, no? Few lawyers would touch Rossi's case on 
contingency, given his history of legal problems. Most likely the situation is 
that he is being bled, drop by drop by high hourly fees and his attorney would 
like to drag that blood-letting out as long as possible. Same on the other side.



Looking ahead, I agree with Brian Ahern who has opined that as soon as it comes 
time to produce Penon for deposition, if he does not show up - then the entire 
case will be tossed... since Penon's testimony is critical and no data can be 
introduced at trial without his physical presence.



It is futile to quibble over these small details about the filings, motions and 
posturing, until the depositions. Bottom line: both sides are being fleeced by 
the legal system. And both are probably deserving of that predicament, but for 
different reasons.



BTW - If Penon shows up for deposition, and holds up against the IH legal team, 
then there could be a settlement, but chances are that he will be unavailable. 
It is clear that Penon is facing misdemeanor charges in Florida for operating a 
boiler without a license and failing to have US certification as a practicing 
engineer. Actual fraud has been mentioned by IH.



If you were Penon, would you return?

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Bob Cook]

I agree with Axil.  However, Jed must feel it is worthwhile pontificating like 
he does with the same old same old.


Bob Cook



From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 5:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Well then, your whole line of argument involving half filled pipes, ventilation 
holes, fans, people dying from heat exhaustion really is a waste of time for 
yourself and everybody else.

What are you talking about? Rossi claimed the device was producing 1 MW. He did 
not say it was producing 23 kW. Even if he had said that, we know that it 
produced no excess heat at all. We also know that Rossi made huge mistakes. And 
how do we know this? Because the pipe was half empty, and people were not dying 
from the heat. That's proof.

It is not a "line of argument" that the pipe was half full. It is a physical 
fact.

Why do you suddenly claim it is not proof or it does not matter? I think you 
need to get back to denying it the facts, and to claiming there is a magical 
endothermic reaction that swallows up the heat. Be consistent! You have made 
assertions that are contrary to the conservation of energy, and that any 
engineer or scientist on earth knows cannot be true. You believe these things 
only because Rossi said them. If anyone else had claimed there is magic 
endothermic process, you would instantly dismiss that.

Either you stick with what you Rossi said, or you admit he is wrong. Do not 
suddenly say that his claims don't matter because hypothetically it might have 
been 23 kW. He said it was 1 MW. His calorimetry showed that, because the pipe 
was half full, and for various other reasons.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

[Bob Cook]

Revision/addition of recent message to Stephen--

Stephen—

I agree that the data from the magnetars are important.  It may be important in 
getting to a unified theory linking gravity and EM fields.   The absence of 
spectra may even identify dark matter—hydrinos for example.   Mills’s theory 
may see the light of day from magnetars.

The data, combined with the note from the recent Pam Mosier-Boss etal  paper 
summarizing the Pd-D work over the years for everybody—including for DOD 
presentation for Congress in a couple weeks—regarding super conductivity, is 
intriguing to say the least.  Alain’s (of Paris) early note about this paper 
being important is right on..

The large magnetic fields should make it possible to discern spin energy states 
associated with various nuclear species.  Their separation—differential 
energies—in a strong gravitational field may show how angular momentum 
associated with spin are linked to mass energy and hence gravity.  It may be 
that Plank’s quanta of angular momentum (h/2pi) is noticeably greater at the 
surface of a magnetar.   The study of such stars with different 
magnetic/gravitational fields will become the focus of cosmology soon, if not 
already the focus as you suggest—a hot topic.

I continue to speculate that the coupling of spin energy to orbital spin energy 
states of electrons in a metal lattice is key to understanding how the LENR 
occurs without much normal 2-body high energy physics radiation—neutrons, 
gammas etc.

Bob Cook

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

From: Bob Cook<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:26 AM
To: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>; 
vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

Stephen—

I agree that the data from the magnetars are important.  It may be important in 
getting to a unified theory linking gravity and EM fields.   The absence of 
spectra may even identify dark matter—hydrinos for example.

Tis data combined with the note from the recent Pam Mosier-Boss paper 
summarizing the Pd-D work over the years for everybody—including for DOD 
presentation for Congress in a couple

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

From: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

Thank you very much for this link Bob.

It looks like an interesting paper.

It looks like the phenomena on the surface of magnetars is a hot topic this 
year.

I wonder if this can be an effective data source forand analogue for 
conditions present in LENR? At the very least they should give some insight 
about the magnetic nature of physical processes involved in particle decays and 
interactions that may be applicable even in lower magnetic fields.

Perhaps the local magnetic field in a nucleus at fm distances has impacts on 
nucleon stability and decay rates either directly or through resonance 
phenomena, perhaps at quark level.

If so it would be interesting to know if there can still be significant 
influence say at a few hundred fm if the magnetic moment and available energy 
states are high.

I wonder if their are any other interesting observational indicators on 
Magnetars it would be interesting maybe to see if the spectra can reveal the 
isotope ratios of elements. I suppose this might be easily possible for lighter 
elements and maybe due to the magnetic field from fine structure 
characteristics of the spectra. UV and X-Ray spectra could also be interesting 
especially if they can reveal something about the excitation state of the 
electrons in the atoms and the nucleus excitation states, as well as more 
macroscopic X-ray and RF radiation effects due to the plasma effects. Even 
though it's very different place and overall conditions than a LENR device, 
perhaps there are a lot of LENR physics analogues at macro scale that are 
applicable to LENR on micro scale that can be observed there.



On 07 Sep 2016, at 06:33, Bob Cook 
<frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Another free document regarding much of the same theory and data regarding 
reactions in high magnetic fields can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1603.01898

Note the importance of spin energy and the energy released by neutrinos; also 
the significant data regarding reaction parameters for mid-mass nuclei.

This adds to the idea of the large magnetic fields created locally by SPP’s on 
metal surfaces or lattice cavities.

Bob Cook



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

From: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com&l

RE: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

[Bob Cook]

Stephen—

I agree that the data from the magnetars are important.  It may be important in 
getting to a unified theory linking gravity and EM fields.   The absence of 
spectra may even identify dark matter—hydrinos for example.

Tis data combined with the note from the recent Pam Mosier-Boss paper 
summarizing the Pd-D work over the years for everybody—including for DOD 
presentation for Congress in a couple

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

From: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

Thank you very much for this link Bob.

It looks like an interesting paper.

It looks like the phenomena on the surface of magnetars is a hot topic this 
year.

I wonder if this can be an effective data source forand analogue for 
conditions present in LENR? At the very least they should give some insight 
about the magnetic nature of physical processes involved in particle decays and 
interactions that may be applicable even in lower magnetic fields.

Perhaps the local magnetic field in a nucleus at fm distances has impacts on 
nucleon stability and decay rates either directly or through resonance 
phenomena, perhaps at quark level.

If so it would be interesting to know if there can still be significant 
influence say at a few hundred fm if the magnetic moment and available energy 
states are high.

I wonder if their are any other interesting observational indicators on 
Magnetars it would be interesting maybe to see if the spectra can reveal the 
isotope ratios of elements. I suppose this might be easily possible for lighter 
elements and maybe due to the magnetic field from fine structure 
characteristics of the spectra. UV and X-Ray spectra could also be interesting 
especially if they can reveal something about the excitation state of the 
electrons in the atoms and the nucleus excitation states, as well as more 
macroscopic X-ray and RF radiation effects due to the plasma effects. Even 
though it's very different place and overall conditions than a LENR device, 
perhaps there are a lot of LENR physics analogues at macro scale that are 
applicable to LENR on micro scale that can be observed there.



On 07 Sep 2016, at 06:33, Bob Cook 
<frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Another free document regarding much of the same theory and data regarding 
reactions in high magnetic fields can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1603.01898

Note the importance of spin energy and the energy released by neutrinos; also 
the significant data regarding reaction parameters for mid-mass nuclei.

This adds to the idea of the large magnetic fields created locally by SPP’s on 
metal surfaces or lattice cavities.

Bob Cook



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

From: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

Hi Eric

You might be right and if so it will be interesting. Apart from the interesting 
effects on the magnetic and electric fields I suppose those high density 
fluctuations may couple with the soft x-ray radiation through coupling with the 
plasma frequency if the electron density can get sufficiently high enough to 
approach that of degenerate matter.

I wonder if there is a way we could measure those fluctuations externally would 
there be apparent signature in the EMF or something?

Even though this paper is looking at quite extreme conditions with regards the 
magnetic field the fact it affects the decay rates seems to indicate something 
about how that decay works in general. I know similar studies have also been 
performed on the decay of Neutrons in strong magnetic fields but these would be 
free neutrons and so would probably align easier with the external field.

Has any one identified what kind of magnetic field strengths we get in side a 
nucleus with in a few fm of a Nucleon? And what its strength would be fort her 
out at a few hundred fm or more?

I do appreciate this question is simplistic as I probably need to consider the 
wave function in detail to understand the process and the implications of all 
the possible spin and angular momentum states etc but I'm not up to speed there 
unfortunately. So this is rather more a conceptual question regarding the 
dipole magnetic field from a particle.

Stephen


From: eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:56:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>

Yes, modification of decay rates is a topic of great interest to

RE: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

[Bob Cook]

Another free document regarding much of the same theory and data regarding 
reactions in high magnetic fields can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1603.01898

Note the importance of spin energy and the energy released by neutrinos; also 
the significant data regarding reaction parameters for mid-mass nuclei.

This adds to the idea of the large magnetic fields created locally by SPP’s on 
metal surfaces or lattice cavities.

Bob Cook



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

From: Stephen Cooke<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface

Hi Eric

You might be right and if so it will be interesting. Apart from the interesting 
effects on the magnetic and electric fields I suppose those high density 
fluctuations may couple with the soft x-ray radiation through coupling with the 
plasma frequency if the electron density can get sufficiently high enough to 
approach that of degenerate matter.

I wonder if there is a way we could measure those fluctuations externally would 
there be apparent signature in the EMF or something?

Even though this paper is looking at quite extreme conditions with regards the 
magnetic field the fact it affects the decay rates seems to indicate something 
about how that decay works in general. I know similar studies have also been 
performed on the decay of Neutrons in strong magnetic fields but these would be 
free neutrons and so would probably align easier with the external field.

Has any one identified what kind of magnetic field strengths we get in side a 
nucleus with in a few fm of a Nucleon? And what its strength would be fort her 
out at a few hundred fm or more?

I do appreciate this question is simplistic as I probably need to consider the 
wave function in detail to understand the process and the implications of all 
the possible spin and angular momentum states etc but I'm not up to speed there 
unfortunately. So this is rather more a conceptual question regarding the 
dipole magnetic field from a particle.

Stephen


From: eric.wal...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 07:56:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Co59 Beta decay rates on Magnetar surface
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Yes, modification of decay rates is a topic of great interest to me.

This is a theoretical paper, apparently working within the current assumptions 
of physics.  In order for most LENR observations to be explained by induced 
decay, I think that one or more of those assumptions will need to be revisited 
somewhat. One example: how high the electron density can get for short periods 
of time in metals under nonequilibrium conditions.

Eric


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Stephen Cooke 
<stephen_coo...@hotmail.com<mailto:stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I wonder if the following linked recent paper can be interesting to some here 
especially Axil and Eric?

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-016-2830-0

It's concerning changes in beta decay rates in the presence of  magnetic fields 
on magnetars.

I have so far only read the abstract but I think it could be interesting.

Stephen

Re: [Vo]:The key to LENR is strong coupling between the hydrogen atom and light.

[Bob Cook]

And the key to strong coupling is a strong magnetic (B) field and appropriate 
resonances to change coherent system energy and angular momentum states IMHO.  
The SPP's suggested are the key to the magnetic field and coupling to the 
many-body coherent system.


Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 12:01 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:The key to LENR is strong coupling between the hydrogen atom and 
light.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160822152626.htm>

For more detail see as follows:

arxiv.org/pdf/1604.08297v1.pdf<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.08297v1.pdf>

Abstract

Nonperturbative coupling of light with condensed matter in an optical cavity is 
expected to reveal a host of coherent many-body phenomena and states [1-7]. In 
addition, strong coherent light-matter interaction in a solid-state environment 
is of great interest to emerging quantum-based technologies [8, 9]. However, 
creating a system that combines a long electronic coherence time, a large 
dipole moment, and a high cavity quality (Q) factor has been a challenging goal 
[10-13]. Here, we report collective ultrastrong light-matter coupling in an 
ultrahigh-mobility two-dimensional electron gas in a high-Q terahertz 
photonic-crystal cavity in a quantizing magnetic field, demonstrating a 
cooperativity of ?360. The splitting of cyclotron resonance (CR) into the lower 
and upper polariton branches exhibited a ? ne-dependence on the electron 
density (ne), a hallmark of collective vacuum Rabi splitting. Furthermore, a 
small but definite blue shift was observed for the polariton frequencies due to 
the normally negligible A 2 term in the light-matter interaction Hamiltonian. 
Finally, the high-Q cavity suppressed the superradiant decay of coherent CR, 
which resulted in an unprecedentedly narrow intrinsic CR linewidth of 5.6 GHz 
at 2 K. These results open up a variety of new possibilities to combine the 
traditional disciplines of many-body condensed matter physics and cavity-based 
quantum optics.


The key to LENR is strong coupling between the hydrogen atom and light. When 
the cavity that holds the hydrogen is the optimum size, vacuum energy provides 
most of the energy to delocalized electrons from protons to form metalized 
hydrogen. The optimum cavity size does the same job as extreme pressure to form 
metalized hydrogen.

If hydrogen is packed into a Nano cavity of the ideal size a strong coupling 
state might be achieved between the protons in the hydrogen and the light. In 
this way a state of superconductive coherence of protons might be formed: a 
proton condinsate.

This state of superconductivity has been detected by Holmlid and Miley in iron 
oxide. The high temperature proton BEC might produce a super-dense state of 
hydrogen as measured by Holmlid where the electrons and protons are delocalized 
from each other, this state of charge delocalization has been seen in water 
inclusions inside a crystal.

physics.aps.org/articles/v9/43<http://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/43>
Water Molecule Spreads Out When Caged

[http://physics.aps.org/assets/2ffd09ee-e786-4c72-844f-9b1a7df49a75/e43_1.png]<http://physics.aps.org/assets/2ffd09ee-e786-4c72-844f-9b1a7df49a75/e43_1.png>

What actually compresses the protons into a condinsate is vacuum energy because 
the cavity squeezes the light/matter condensate greatly.

As described in the referenced article by looking for a hydrogen BEC in 
cavities, a LENR researcher could find the ideal dimensions of the Nano cavity 
that produces the condensed hydrogen and engineer a material that produces this 
ultra-dense hydrogen crystal in abundance.

Currently in LENR reactors, pure chance produces metalized hydrogen in a highly 
porous metal that feature a wide range of cavity sizes which include the 
optimum cavity size that is made widely available by random chance.

What really compresses hydrogen to the LENR active ultra-dense metalized state 
is not high pressure, but the ideal combination of cavity shape/size, light 
frequency, EMF environment and vacuum energy.

RE: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

Dzve--

Good pressure sensors are usually designed to avoid flow velocity effects on 
the determination of a static pressure.  In other words they account for your 
concern.

Bob

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: David Roberson
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

It is not simple to figure out how to explain the temperature reading 102.8 C 
while the pressure shows atmospheric and at the same time find the steam wet.  
That is the only way to explain how the observers were faked out so readily.

I suspect that there is a way to make this happen and I have been revealing the 
trick within my postings.  Please realize that when anyone claims that the data 
is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect.  
Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the 
demonstration.  It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data 
to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met.

Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that 
case.  My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the 
correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet.  If my understand of 
Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C 
at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is 
approximately 0 bar at the output port.

All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe 
location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the 
pressure gauge.  That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power.  The other 
missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water 
by a second problem.  This flow issue has less support at the moment.

Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, 
and 0 bar were accurate?  How could you conclude the steam was wet under that 
condition?   That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he could 
fake it.

The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no evidence 
it was.

They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no evidence 
that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power could have 
been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked at how many gauges, 
the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- 
it doesn't have to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather 
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous 
difference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam line.  That would have been 
diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either steam or water, of 
course).

On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You have put together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow access to the 
customer site being one that bothers me the most.  Why not go to that little 
effort in order to receive $89 million?  I can not understand that type of 
logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were viewing 
the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am 
attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to how this can happen 
right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a similar scam and 
get $100 million!! [;-)]   Naw, that is not something that I would ever 
consider seriously.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson > wrote:

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half 
without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of 
correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual 
devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.

Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half the 
reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See Exhibit 5. 
I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that 
part of his data. We should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

AA--


The moisture carry-over depends upon the mixing of the liquid phase (small 
droplets) with the super heated steam phase.  The mixing depends upon the 
friction of the conduit down stream of the point in the reactor where the steam 
is heated, baffles or other devices that catch and remove the liquid phase the 
velocity of the mixture and the pressure drop along the steam pipe to the 
customer's facility.


The condenser at the end of the steam line creates a negative pressure to drive 
the flow of steam.  Common dynamics and control (D programs are used to design 
the feedback to provide inherient stability in the system.


If as I suspect, reactor control depends upon magnetic resonances within the 
reactor, I may take only one reactor to maintain power within a small band of 
total reactors output.  The reactors may even exhibit a negative temperature 
coeff. and thereby establish a steady power output inherient to the reactor 
design, given a steam demand fixed by condenser pressure/temperature.


Bob Cook


From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

No.  At 102.8C and atmospheric pressure the stem would be dry without a water 
separator.


On 8/23/2016 11:48 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Bob,

I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be ensured 
that there is a moisture separator in the proper location.  Have you seen any 
evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is 
probably working much as he states.

My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence 
to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is 
dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is not clear that the fluid 
flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof.

I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of 
steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. 
states with respect to the temperature and pressure values.  I am hoping there 
is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific and 
reasonable manner.  Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com><mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com><mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Dave--

The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liquid phase 
and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 bar at a temperature 
above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.

Bob

From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:l...@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him t

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

Dave--


The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liquid phase 
and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 bar at a temperature 
above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.


The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.


Bob


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

Dave--


Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook





From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I followed the calculation below with an additional one to further my research. 
 For the second calculation I used the flow rate information supplied by 
Engineer48 for the 24 pumps that were manually set from the front panel.  With 
this data I determined that the power delivered to the customer would be 30.1 
kW under the following assumptions:

Twenty two of the pumps were delivering full flow of 18 kg per hour while two 
were operating at 1/2 full rate of 9 kg per hour.  The total was therefore 414 
kg per hour which translates to .115 kg/second.

The temperature of the water inside all of the ECAT sections was controlled at 
130 C, which is in line with what was seen during several of Rossi's single 
unit demonstrations.

All of this water then escaped through a restrictive, pressure dropping orifice 
such that some of the liquid flashed into steam according to the below analysis.

The resulting water filled vapor flow was sent to the customer with a pressure 
reading of approximately atmospheric and a temperature of 102 C as below.  In 
this case the gauges would read correctly.

Water finally returned from the customer at 68 C, in liquid form, back to the 
Rossi system.

A further calculation of the power delivered to the customer if it is assumed 
that all of the water is in the form of vapor with zero water at 102 C and 
atmospheric pressure would be  275 kW.  Within this scenario the water returns 
at 68 C as before.

The purpose of these calculations is to seek a possible hypothesis as to how 
the power being sent to the customer could be dramatically less than one might 
calculate if he depended upon the gauge readings and did not have a method to 
verify that the mass supplied to the customer was dry steam.   If it can be 
shown that a steam quality measuring device was located between the Rossi 
system and the customer that indicated dry steam then the power delivered would 
be much closer to the 275 kW level.  If not, then 30.1 kW could well be 
possible.

Detailed calculation are available upon request.

Dave



On 8/20/2016 1:51 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Today I made an interesting calculation that some may find relevant to the 
ongoing discussions.

According to steam tables, the following could be possible, assuming that I did 
not make a mistake in my calculations.

Assume you have 1kg of water inside a solid container at 130 C and 39.2 psi 
absolute.  Then you place a restriction device that allows all of the liquid to 
eventually escape.  Some of the liquid will immediatly flash into vapor while 
most of the 1 kg remains in the liquid form as it exits the restriction.  If 
you assume that the resulting mixture ends up at 102 C and 15.75 psi absolute 
then it is possible to calculate the amount of vapor and liquid that is present 
at that location.

The internal energy of the initial liquid at 130 C is 546.388 kj/kg which in 
this case yields 546.388 thousand joules.  I am assuming that this same amount 
of energy remains within the liquid and vapor combintation of the lower 
temperature and pressure stream.

When I solved the equation relating the quality of the mixture to the various 
heat contents I determined that there would be .053 kg or vapor and .947 kg of 
liquid water at the output.  On first glance, this result suggests that it 
should be easy to separate the water from the steam, but actually calculating 
the two volumes makes that not so evident.

The volume of the vapor would be .053 kg * 1.565 cubic meters per kg = .0826 
cubic meters.  The volume of the liquid water would be .947 kg* .001045 cubic 
meters per kg = .000989 cubic meters.

Using the above numbers it appears that you would have 83.488 times as much 
vapor by volume as liquid.  This is quite a large ratio which suggests that it 
might well be possible to mistake a stream of mass with this consistency as 
consisting of only vapor.  Especially if a visual technique were used.

I am not saying that this calculation reveals the source of the Rossi test 
confusion, but that perhaps it might open discussions that have not been 
considered so far.  I do recall that on earlier demonstrations that the 
temperature within the ECATs was reported to be in the range of 130 C.

Perhaps some of our mathematically inclined vortex residents can take a few 
moments to verify that my assumptions and calculations make sense.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:A super nickel powder LENR catalyst.

[Bob Cook]

In reading the patent I wondered if the fast sintering processes are used in 
the Rossi Effect to heat the Ni nano lattice uniformly--e.g., the DC pulsing 
fast sintering process described in the Patent?  The process was such as to 
maintain the nano structure and the catalytic properties of the Ni.


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A super nickel powder LENR catalyst.


Axil,

You call this a Rossi secret? The inventor filed his initial disclosure 5 years 
before Rossi came on the scene, so it ostensibly cannot be called a "Rossi 
secret" unless SDC Materials is in fact the "customer" which Rossi does not 
want to be known. Is that what you are contending?

That would be unlikely given the numerous Press Releases from the company and 
their backers. They are not flying under the radar. This is a plasma spray 
process and there are dozens of similar ones listed as prior art, so it will be 
hard to enforce.

Notably the document speaks of cold fusion and palladium and palladium-silver 
as coatings to nanopowder, which may be the search criteria which brought the 
document up, but the listed metals for converting into nano are nickel iron and 
cobalt. Notably one of the company's consultants was indeed a Johnson-Matthey 
executive.

His name is not Bass :) but he could have been a big catch...

From: Axil Axil

Another Rossi secret revealed as follows:

google.com/patents/US9023754<http://google.com/patents/US9023754>

Nano-skeletal catalyst US 9023754 B2

google.com/url?sa=t=j=<http://google.com/url?sa=t=j=>...hw=bv.129759880,d.eWE

A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. APPLICATIONS

This super nano nickel powder is Rossi's powder as shown in the Lugano demo. It 
is about 100 times better than the Ni carbonyl powder that MFMP uses.


The specific surface area values using BET method show that the chemically 
processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> 60 m2/g), which 
recommend them for electrical applications, especially for electrode 
applications. For Ni carbonyl powder the specific surface area was found 0.68 
m2/g.

The evaluation of the chemisorption characteristics by using hydrogen selective 
adsorption method shows that the modified Ni powder exhibits high power of 
hydrogen adsorption (600µgH2/g), which recommend them as catalysts in hydrogen 
addition reaction.

[http://www.google.com/patents?id==frontcover=1=1]<http://google.com/patents/US9023754>

Patents - Google Books<http://google.com/patents/US9023754>
google.com
A method of producing a catalyst material with nano-scale structure, the method 
comprising: introducing a starting powder into a nano-powder production 
reactor, the ...

Re: [Vo]:Johnson Matthey, Plc

[Bob Cook]

Th<http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf>e paper (link identified by 
Axil) is as follows:
<http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdfhttp://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf>


<http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdfhttp://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf>

http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdfhttp://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf


This addresses Ni fab techniques.


 Separately, note should be made of the comment in the 1989 JM patent 
application about enrichment of the Pd with Li-?--the specific isotope of Li is 
left out of the statement for some reason?


I could not find a reference to the issue of Li enrichment in the old 
Miles--NRL document.  However, it is a lengthy document and the Li addition may 
be hiding or just in the dark.


This would be a good question for someone to pose to Melvin from MFMP.


Bob Cook



A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POW DER FOR ELECTRICAL ... - 
JOAM<http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf>
joam.inoe.ro
A new family of nickel powder for electrical engineering applications 949 
consists in NiAl grains of stoichiometric compositions having at the grain 
boundaries ...

A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POW DER FOR ELECTRICAL ... - 
JOAM<http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf>
joam.inoe.ro
A new family of nickel powder for electrical engineering applications 949 
consists in NiAl grains of stoichiometric compositions having at the grain 
boundaries ...





From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Johnson Matthey, Plc


One perplexing thing about this palladium alloy discussion over the years is 
that the answer could be hiding in plain sight.

Johnson-Matthey applied for a patent in England in 1989 within months of the 
SLC announcement -- but then withdrew the application without explanation a few 
years later. It probably contains all anyone needs to know, unless it was a 
decoy.

Fortunately, the application is still available. Google seldom forgets.

https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1

[https://www.google.com/patents?id==frontcover=1=1]<https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1>

Patent WO1990015415A1 - Improvements in 
materials<https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1>
www.google.com
Materials which are effective to support cold fusion when loaded with deuterium 
are palladium materials modified to change the local environment for deuterium 
under cold fusion conditions. Particular modifications are alloys or 
dispersions of Pd with Ce, Ag, LaNi5 and Ti. Other modifications concern the 
grain size. Excess heat, and tritium and neutrons have been observed.


From: Terry Blanton

>   Every decade or so, I ask if anyone knows the secret to the Johnson 
> Matthey metals used by F

Looks like you are a bit ahead of schedule this time:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg34410.html

Re: [Vo]:Johnson Matthey, Plc

[Bob Cook]

It could have been that the retraction of the J-M patent was a government (GB) 
action to make the technology dark--the same as happened in the US to submerge 
the CF technology.


A few well designed FOIA's may bring out the truth of the US actions back then. 
 Much of the information should be subject to declassification and release.  
Maybe the MFMP knows how to get such information--particularly from GB sources.


Bob  Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Johnson Matthey, Plc


One perplexing thing about this palladium alloy discussion over the years is 
that the answer could be hiding in plain sight.

Johnson-Matthey applied for a patent in England in 1989 within months of the 
SLC announcement -- but then withdrew the application without explanation a few 
years later. It probably contains all anyone needs to know, unless it was a 
decoy.

Fortunately, the application is still available. Google seldom forgets.

https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1

From: Terry Blanton

>   Every decade or so, I ask if anyone knows the secret to the Johnson 
> Matthey metals used by F

Looks like you are a bit ahead of schedule this time:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg34410.html

Re: [Vo]:Johnson Matthey, Plc

[Bob Cook]

Terry and Jones--


Thanks for your recalls.  Great information.


The same fabrication metal fabrication processes may be used for Ni.  The 
Romanian research into Ni powers in the the 2004 time frame reported on the EGO 
Out blog identify this report.




Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 8:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Johnson Matthey, Plc


One perplexing thing about this palladium alloy discussion over the years is 
that the answer could be hiding in plain sight.

Johnson-Matthey applied for a patent in England in 1989 within months of the 
SLC announcement -- but then withdrew the application without explanation a few 
years later. It probably contains all anyone needs to know, unless it was a 
decoy.

Fortunately, the application is still available. Google seldom forgets.

https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1

[https://www.google.com/patents?id==frontcover=1=1]<https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1>

Patent WO1990015415A1 - Improvements in 
materials<https://www.google.com/patents/WO1990015415A1>
www.google.com
Materials which are effective to support cold fusion when loaded with deuterium 
are palladium materials modified to change the local environment for deuterium 
under cold fusion conditions. Particular modifications are alloys or 
dispersions of Pd with Ce, Ag, LaNi5 and Ti. Other modifications concern the 
grain size. Excess heat, and tritium and neutrons have been observed.


From: Terry Blanton

>   Every decade or so, I ask if anyone knows the secret to the Johnson 
> Matthey metals used by F

Looks like you are a bit ahead of schedule this time:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg34410.html

Re: [Vo]:Neuglu confirmed

[Bob Cook]

Jones--


How do you explain the transfer of the excess energy  to the metal lattice as 
heat ?


The lattice vibrations you talk about (phonons) I believe are associated with 
orbital spin states of the lattice electrons and hence the associated angular 
momentum.


 How does your model handle conservation of angular momentum---the poor 
neglected parameter in many models focusing on energy conservation?


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neuglu confirmed


To summarize a formative hypothesis of the modality of a 5th force boson 
(labeled "neuglu") as the necessary component of Pd-D fusion, here is a summary 
...

The neuglu boson would be attracted to down quarks and equally repelled by up 
quarks, so that it will have net binding force for neutrons but repel protons. 
Neutron - 1 up quark, 2 down quarks; Proton - 2 up quarks, 1 down quark. This 
property would indicate that neuglu is related to the W and Z bosons.

In the interstices of the palladium lattice which has absorbed deuterons to an 
active ratio near 1:1, a heavier (neutron rich) isotope such as Pd-110 would 
release the neuglu boson as a natural response to deuteron loading. This 
requires borrowed energy.

4He, as the ash of a depleted fusion reaction, would derive from a two-step 
process in which neuglu plays a vital role by creating an initial binding 
state. The final fusion reaction does not produce gamma radiation since most of 
the mass-deficit has been used up in advance (quantum borrowing) in the process 
of removing the neuglu from the host. Time reversed reactions are 
characteristic of quantum mechanics (retrocausality).

In the first stage with a loaded metal matrix, the neuglu boson begins the 
reaction by binding the two terminal neutrons of two separated deuterons. 
Following that initial binding, a second stage follows where the bound 
deuterons are further compressed into 4He. This can be due to fluctuations in 
the internal pressurization of the metal matrix caused by vibration and in 
particular - by anharmonic lattice oscillation. Since the neuglu is lost to the 
host metal, its mass energy is deducted in the final energy balance.

In terms of energy balance, this situation works out according to observation, 
since the mass deficit of helium following deuterium fusion would normally be 
24 MeV from which the mass-energy equivalent of neuglu is deducted, estimated 
to be about 17 MeV. The pressurization energy of the second stage, due to 
phonon anharmonic vibration, somewhat in the manner of Hagelstein's theory, 
would balance the books without a gamma, which is easier to justify in the 
depleted state.

The hypothesis is falsifiable via loading of deuterium in palladium which is 
enriched in the heavy isotope Pd-110 to be compared against a matrix which is 
depleted in 110. A simple Arata-style pressure experiment should be sufficient 
for confirmation of greater excess heat in the heavier enrichment. Eventually 
the heavier isotope may become depleted in neuglu - which would help to explain 
why there has been inconsistency in results.

Re: [Vo]:Neuglu confirmed

[Bob Cook]

Jones--


I think Arnold Gulko also discusses the binding force of 2 neutrons in  
U-238--see the current issue of infinite energy.


Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Neuglu confirmed


Yesterday, it was announced than another group had tentatively confirmed the 
existence of a so-called fifth (or sixth) force.

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

[https://news.uci.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hubble_friday_05132016.jpg]<https://news.uci.edu/research/uci-physicists-confirm-possible-discovery-of-fifth-force-of-nature/>

UCI News - UCI physicists confirm possible discovery of fifth force of 
nature<https://news.uci.edu/research/uci-physicists-confirm-possible-discovery-of-fifth-force-of-nature/>
news.uci.edu
Light particle could be key to understanding dark matter in universe


When we discussed this discovery back in May on Vortex - following the initial 
announcement, this new bosonic force (or particle) was semi-humorously labeled 
as "Neuglu" since it binds neutrons and repels protons, kind of like a 
quark-selective gluon; plus - there already was a claimant a fifth force 
designation, so this one needed a name.

Hamdi Ucar mentioned a paper which could add another level of understanding to 
a magnetically-mediated force which falls between the two stronger nuclear 
forces: "Derivation of strong and weak forces from magnetic interactions in 
quantum electrodynamics (QED)" by Barut (paywalled).

But the big deal for LENR, almost unmentioned by any other group at the time is 
that a putative fifth force (as characterized by neuglu), which acts only 
between neutrons -- would be able to bind 2 deuterons within in a metal matrix, 
and would bind at a distance *without nuclear fusion* into an agglomerations of 
predictable mass (4,6,8 etc) which mimics helium in the case of mass-4 (if the 
binding is strong enough) and provides plenty of excess energy on decay without 
gammas (like cold fusion) and does not work with protium. Thus neuglu can fully 
explain LENR for those who do not accept the claim that real 4He was seen in 
the prior testing of the ash of cold fusion.

The mass-energy of neuglu is about 10 million times greater than chemical 
energy. Thus, everything fits ... except an understanding of how to engineer a 
neuglu formative process, such as in electrolysis.

It is conceivable that a few neutron-rich isotopes naturally operate like tiny 
factories for neuglu. Candidate isotopes for producing the neuglu boson include 
Pd-110 and Ni-64. If this happens only in column 10 of the periodic table, 
where these isotopes have their outermost electrons only in d-orbitals with no 
p-orbital electrons, then platinum-198 would be another predicted isotope 
(speculation but testable) which would be a strong candidate for LENR (but 
because of high cost has not been singled out heretofore).

The best way to falsify or confirm this prediction, and also the validity of a 
neuglu modality - would be to obtain palladium which is enriched in 110 and 
compare against a matrix which is depleted 110. A simple Arata-style pressure 
test should be sufficient for confirmation. The platinum alternative would also 
work if cost is not problem.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

[Bob Cook]

Peter--


Me thinks arrogance and stupidity are brothers in the same family.


Bob  Cook


From: Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:50 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

who has inspired you to this idea of reducing  the volume of water drained. No, 
with the know n data 10-20 cu.m of warm 40-50 cu.m water will be drained per 
hour I am traanslating a long Russian ppaer fror my Blog when ready will make 
calculations.
Go to ECtaWorld you will see more considerations- for example Abd has 
understood much faster than you tthe soluton.
The idea is that the 1MW heat is NOT an unmanageable problem and you have to 
see endothermic largo sensu.
For the sake of your reputation, please get the facts faster.
Peter

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com<mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat exchangers 
work.

Explain how a heat exchanger would reduce the total volume of water needed to 
remove the heat. With 1 heat exchange, to cool 1 MJ down to the legal limit of 
80°C you need 239 L/min. Explain why the total volume of water would be reduced 
with a series of exchangers instead of one.

Go ahead, please. You are a chemical engineer. Enlighten us.

- Jed




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

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

Dave

A design drawing of the piping system as well as a schematic diagram and design 
flow calculations should come out in the trial as deposed information.

Bob Cook

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

From: David Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely accurately 
monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the flow setting 
component to be located downstream of the flow meter which should be down 
stream of the main pumping function.  The pump would then ensure that positive 
pressure is applied to the flow meter.

But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the water 
flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  As previously 
stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait until the proper system 
information is released.

Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not the flow 
through the meter is continuous or in bursts.  A burst system , if present,  
will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I recall discussion of 
dynamic pump control for each module as being part of the overall control 
system.

Dave



-Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David

You noted the following:
"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."

I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.

The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:l...@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:l...@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with Rossi, the 
ERV and the other Rossi helper?   I think that  they were part of the IH team 
Rossi frequently spoke of.   As I recall they were impressed with the plant’s 
performance.

I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape.  It 
seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on to 
insure against naysayers.   That’s what I would have done,  if I were spending 
a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary to earn the 
additional $89 M.

As I have said before,  if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would 
upstage the E-Cat.  However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP Rossi 
was selling to IH IMHO based on  reading the Agreement.  The one- year test was 
not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology.

Bob Cook

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

From: a.ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the 
ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.


On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something 
about it until after the test was completed.

It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things long 
before the test ended.

Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that means 
they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does not exist. 
This is a delusion.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still no 
piping diagram, still no ERV report.

1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data. It 
is as believable as the ERV report itself.

2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the 
summary is inadequate.

3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report, you 
would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are lying 
when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible we read a 
column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source except Rossi. So 
there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the ERV report. You would 
insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are forgeries.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was on any 
particular day is another story.

The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As 
Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single day, 
including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned off, and 
days when witnesses saw it was off.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee means 
Vaughn was not a legal manager.

Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a court 
case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

David


You noted the following:

"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.



The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.


Bob Cook


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.

That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.

By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think 32,400 kg is 
used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, why not 20% or 90%?

It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated temperatures and 
1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog said the reactor was turned 
off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was actually off. If you are going to commit 
fraud, you should at least try to make it look convincing. These people were 
just phoning it in!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Another slant on hole superconductivity

[Bob Cook]

Regarding Axil's comment, I consider that SPP,s would be a better bet for 
creation of high energy electrons and Brem


The collapse would also create energetic electrons and Brem...


The light speed at the surface of the medium supporting the SPP's would 
important in the creation of Brem...   The higher the refractive index the more 
Brem... one should expect.


Bob Cook


PS:  This is more like a traditional Vortex blog subject.


FRC


From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 6:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Another slant on hole superconductivity


One of the leading experts on HTSC is the controversial hands-on theorist Joe 
Eck. In his latest installment, Eck adds to his emerging theory – called the 
Periodic Compression Theory…

http://www.superconductors.org/AEOHTSC.htm

Eck’s theory asserts that metals of disparate weights but identical oxidation 
states will produce superconductivity when positioned on opposite sides of an 
oxygen atom. Periodic compression from lattice vibrations causes the balance of 
valence to shift, creating a HOLE at the oxygen site. The positively-charged 
ion then facilitates the pairing of electrons in the hole, producing 
superconductivity via the Cooper pair.

END

Comment: Ironically, it can be observed that heat causes the vibration which 
causes the hole which causes the electron pairing – so heat actually causes the 
superconductivity, in a way. The implication is that temperature control will 
always be needed in HTSC. Hopefully it can be as simple as fans.

PRIOR post on HTSC: It may be worth noting that “hole superconductivity” may 
end up being broader than Hirsch’s theory. For instance, Hirsch mentions “ring 
current” several times in his many papers, which is somewhat of a middle ground 
between electron and hole superconductivity. In fact, he tries to explain 
everything under one banner, but I have yet to find a coherently worded 
explanation which placates all the possibilities. [Eck’s theory could do that]

These views on room temperature superconductivity come together in LENR, at 
least at the low end of the temperature scale – and when aromatic catalysts are 
involved. They are probably not relevant to Parkhomov or high temperatures.

This is particularly interesting to me since phenanthrene has been mentioned by 
Hirsch and others in the context of both ring current and hole 
superconductivity. However, I agree with Mark that Bremsstrahlung is unlikely 
from either type and would be self-quenching. Nevertheless, moderately fast 
electrons are possible so long as high temperature is avoided.

Moreover, the advent and maintenance of RTSC (localized as ring current) would 
serve to explain why some types of LENR are difficult to pull off at the low 
end of the temperature scale (such as in Craven’s NI-Week demo). The experiment 
must find the narrow region of temperature where a localized Meissner effect 
can coexist with optimized proton exchange and H3+ formation. This range 
probably peaks about 100° but finding it could be more meaningful than the high 
temperatures of the Parkhomov experiment, since self-sustaining heat is 
possible.

From: Mark Jurich

The radiation extends above 0.511 MeV in Trace #7 and this doesn't seem to fit 
with Hirsch's Theory (i.e., Hole Superconductivity as described in DOI: 
10.1088/0953-8984/19/12/125217 ).  Perhaps if the electrons were heavy 
(dressed) it could be valid.  I would need to take a closer look.

Also, I don't see Hirsch justifying Brems during creation of HSC, but a peak @ 
0.511 MeV.

... I'm just glancing over things right now, so I may chime back.

- Mark Jurich

-- Original Message --

From: "Axil Axil"

The x-radiation seen in the MFMP experiment called the "seventh segment signal" 
may have been caused by the initiation of "hole superconductivity" when the 
meissner effect expels electrons from the center of the superconducting 
material thereby producing x-rays through Bremsstrahlung. Also when the Hole 
superconductor is quenched, the same process produces electron collapse into 
the center of the dying superconductor also producing Bremsstrahlung.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Bob Cook]

Another question is whether there was a feed water pump that would maintain a 
constant pressure on the flow meter and a full meter no matter what the 
orientation.


I would think such a system would require a constant flow and heat transfer 
coeff. for the heat exchangers to maintain stability.


There may also be an orifice to assure constant flow.


A flow diagram of the system should be in hand before concluding issues about 
flow.


Bob Cook


From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 7:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis) should be 
vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is fully filled.

I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis coaxial 
with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports for the rotor shaft.  Then 
there is an electrical or mechanical coupling of the rotor rotation to measure 
the flow speed usually out the side of the flow tube.

If the flow tube were mounted horizontally and the pipe was half full, to first 
order it would indicate twice the flow as actual.  Second order effects have to 
take into account the turning resistance of the turbine, which is usually very 
low.  Again, the turbine is measuring the speed of the flowing medium whether 
it is full or not (to first order).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to have a 
pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake for use of 
this type of flow meter).

Umm . . . I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean the pipe should be 
vertical? I don't know what you mean by having the flow meter vertical. Like, 
sideways? It is a rotor smack in the middle of the pipe . . . so I don't get 
what you mean.

The pipe was horizontal and the flow meter face plate is up. As far as I know.


If the flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the 
turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full) - since 
a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in error by the 
volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the pipe partly filled 
volume.

I believe the error can be complicated. It is not like: "the pipe is half full 
so the actual flow rate is half of what is indicated." A partially full pipe 
can produce a huge error. That is my impression reading about flow meters and 
using them myself, but I have no specific information on the extent of the 
error in Rossi's setup. (I think I.H. does have this information.) As you saw, 
I estimated it has to be at least 3. That seems plausible to me.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The deep tunnel vision of Big Fizz

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

I think you found an important, long-term theoretical source of information on 
new physics.  Good work.  I tend to agree with your veiled suggestion that the 
Big Fizz groupie is about to go flat and lose its tangy appeal to its 
underwriters.

The Cooper paring proposed by Matti rings true IMHO.  The linear nature of the 
nuclear entities
associated with the magnetic tubes would introduce new coupling mechanisms for 
the system, whatever you want to call it.

How spin and angular momentum is conserved by Matti’s theory would be important 
in designing an engineered system to facilitate reactions via appropriate 
resonances considering the calculated coupling mechanisms.

Bob Cook




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

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:34 AM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The deep tunnel vision of Big Fizz

scitechdaily.com/reinterpretat…bose-einstein-condensate/
<http://scitechdaily.com/reinterpretation-cold-dark-matter-bose-einstein-condensate/>

The Reinterpretation of Cold Dark Matter as a Bose-Einstein Condensate

Any particle that has no mass travels at the speed of light, any particle
that has mass travels at a speed below the speed of light. The Bose
condensate gives photons mass and that is why light slows down inside the
Bose condensate, inside the condensate photons have mass. There is a theory
of dark matter that says that galaxies contain huge expanses of space that
are Bose condensates. In that space, photons have mass and move at a
speed less than light.

What causes those condensates to form? It is dusty plasma that pervades
vast stretches of space. In that plasma, SPPs form and produce a Bose
condensate. You can expect that in LENR, light will move slow and have
mass. In vast stretches of space, LENR is going on and producing dark
matter in the form of photons with mass.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> You may have seen this story (if you follow “dark matter” on google
> alerts)
>
> *http://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists-invisible-dark.html*
> <http://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists-invisible-dark.html>
>
> The deep underground experiment failed to find WIMPs once again…
> surprise, surprise… and that is doubly punny since “wimpy” is emblematic
> of Big-Fizzix these days. Just look at the array of 3-letter boondoggles which
> are role models for LUX (WIMPs) – NIF, ITER, JET, LHC… with almost nothing
> provable to show for the 10s of billions invested.
>
> LUX will waste another $50,000,000 next go-round, most of that going
> generous retirement funds -- but if they weren’t so close-minded to the
> alternatives … and did not fear identifying the most likely candidate for
> DM, which is dense hydrogen (UDH), then they could invite Holmlid to the
> party … to perform an experiment nearby which could cost less than a
> tenth of a percent of budget. That would be one of many possibilities
> which will never be tried because the burden of eventual success will be
> too heavy for the wimpy … since it will be a tacit admission of the dense
> hydrogen connection to LENR. They might even have to admit that Matti has
> something to say on the topic…
>
>
> *http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2016/05/very-strong-support-for-tgd-based-model.html*
> <http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2016/05/very-strong-support-for-tgd-based-model.html>
>
> Heaven forbid that the chosen ones should forego reeling in 5 more years
> of excess, instead of taking the blinders off … WIMPs were a brain-dead
> invention from day one insofar as they ignore dense hydrogen in favor of
> another acronym whose main purpose is big bucks for Big Fizz.
>

RE: [Vo]:The principle of the mutual energy

[Bob Cook]

For what it’s worth, my recollection is that the 1/r loss applies to an 
infinite linear antenna.  Thus it’s only an approximation for a real antenna.

As for evanescent waves, I have not seen a measurement of their speed of 
initiation relative
to the distance to the source that generates them.  Are the evanescent fields 
established instantly as part of an entangled (coherent) system?

They may be involved in coupling spin/angular momentum quanta exchange between 
orbital electrons and
nuclear entities.  The local B field in that it modifies the entangled energy 
states may be the mouse in the Rossi effect to produce necessary resonances to 
allow reaction to proceed or to stop reactions by eliminating resonant 
conditions.

Bob Cook





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

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The principle of the mutual energy

I may be remembering wrong, but I believe that the evanescent magnetic
field strength falls off as 1/r^3 and the coupled evanescent power falls
off as 1/r^6.  For the propagating field, the strength of the magnetic
field falls off as 1/r in free space and the coupled power falls off as
1/r^2.  In cluttered environments, the propagating field falls off more
quickly.  The insertion loss of the coils is proportional to the loaded Q
to unloaded Q ratio.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:55 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> Robin,
>
> It is my experience that the coupling falls off as 1/r to the third power
> at large distances.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mixent <mix...@bigpond.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Wed, Jul 20, 2016 12:04 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:The principle of the mutual energy
> >For example in my past self resonant coil experiments very efficient
> energy
> >transfer between two air coils at a distance does not fit to magnetic
> coupling
> >working for transformers, nor to standard electromagnetic wave
> transmission
> >despite of presence of substantial electric and magnetic fields. These
> fields
> >are now known as evanescent waves. May the coupling through evanescent
> waves
> >have a similarity with the handshake described on this paper.
> >OTH, I think self resonant coils (Tesla coils) could not be substituted
> by a LC
> >tank. Coils can resonate in multiple frequencies at the same time and may
> cause
> >some odd effects depending to waveshape and to geometry.
> >BTW, Imrecons appears specialized in computer tomography.
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08710
>
> It is also well known that the energy transfer between resonant air coils
> drops
> off as 1/R rather than 1/R^2. That's why I think it's possible that many so
> called free energy experiments actually make use of resonance with the
> protons
> in the inner Van Allen belt. The resonance wavelength may be about the
> same as
> the altitude of the inner Van Allen belt for some protons.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - Melvin Miles - The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium: (ColdFusionNow)

[Bob Cook]

Axil and Ruby—

One feature of LENR that is neglected is the mechanism for distribution of 
nuclear scale energy to the material around the reaction site without 
destruction of the material by melting or mechanical deformation.  Energetic 
particles with significant kinetic energy do not fit the bill, since they will 
cause undesirable electromagnet radiation—hard x-rays and higher energy EM 
radiation.

This suggests to me that the entangled QM system that Axil often suggests is a 
key physical feature that allows the modification of electric and magnetic 
field energy to spin energy—I.E., the phonic orbital energy of lattice 
electrons of the entangled system.  The nuclear kinetic energy of certain 
particles of the entangled system is given up to phonic energy—thermal 
energy—of the entangled lattice electrons.  This happens at the same time as 
the more stable nucleons appear—He, Ni-64 or any more sable set of particles.  
In some cases the entangled system produces low energy radiation which gets 
absorbed as heat without escaping the confines of the reactor.  Energy, spin 
and angular momentum must be conserved during the reaction, including the 
consideration of any EM radiation produced that escapes the entangled system, 
for example the blue light that Rossi claims to see or the muons claimed by 
others.

The resonances associated with the many bodied system of the entangled system 
require engineering to provide LENR ambient conditions to support the changes  
of any entangled system, including its control.   Axil’s sub atomic particle 
condensation is IMHO shorthand for the changes of particle types in an 
entangled system along with an increase in phonic energy of the electrons of 
the lattice—thermal energy.

I have often called an entangled QM system a coherent system.  I think they 
mean the same thing.

Bob Cook











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

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2016 11:12 AM
To: vortex-l<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New on YouTube: Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems - 
Melvin Miles - The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium: (ColdFusionNow)

Rossi's transmutation results imply that the mechanism for nucleon transfer
comes by way of energy transfer and sub atomic particle condensation inside
the nucleus, and not particle transfer coming through the coulomb barrier..

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote:

> THANK YOU Esa for giving those few seconds of sweet music.  I can't wait
> to work with you more on the next movie.
>
> Love Love LOVE,
> Ruby
>
>
> On 7/9/16 3:16 AM, Esa Ruoho wrote:
>
> Hi guys!
>
> Any thoughts on this documentary? Ruby from ColdFusionNow used two of my
> tunes in it, briefly, and it is apparently a nice documentary or something.
> Here's some information:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/anomalous-effects-in-deuterated-systems-melvin-miles-the-correlation-of-excess-heat-and-helium/
>
>
> *Anomalous Effects in Dueterated Systems* documents the work of Dr. Melvin
> Miles, a US Navy electrochemist who first correlated the excess heat
> generated from palladium-deuterium systems with the production of helium as
> a nuclear product.
>
> *Anomalous Effects* takes Cold Fusion Now! video to a new evolution with
> the addition of title music by the excellent Esa Ruoho a.k.a. Lackluster,
> an electronic musician based in Etelä-Suomi, Finland. I hope you found the
> sounds elevating as I did.
>
> Vist Esa’s website here <http://www.lackluster.org/> and purchase music
> by Esa at
> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com/.
>
> Your support is crucial to artists.--
> ---
> http://twitter.com/esaruoho //  <http://lackluster.bandcamp.com>
> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 //
> skype:esajuhaniruoho // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com/ // iMessage:
> esaru...@gmail.com //
>
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob—

Your comments are right along the lines of mine.  However, I have a thought 
that the resonances that exist in the Ni particle lattice are important in the 
coupling that allows the change of  potential energy of the system to phonic 
kinetic energy of the lattice.

My hypothesis for a reaction with added D would be to see a change in the 
resonances and hence the coupling conditions.  More heat or less heat may be 
the result.

The pathway of mobile H in the Ni lattice would also change with addition of D, 
given its added mass and would change the electric field seen by the average 
H+.  This would also change the wave length of the H+ and associated coupling 
resonances necessary for the LENR.

Bob Cook

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

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 5:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

Bob, This is exactly the type of experiment I had in mind.  Add about 10%
LAD to the LAH and re-run the series of experiments to see how the XH
compares to plain LAH.

You are also correct that this may tell us a lot about what reaction is
occurring.  It has been held by many LENR researchers that LENR cannot be
obtained with H, only with D.  They claim that the XH produced in Ni-H
reactions is really reaction with the residual D in the naturally isotopic
H (0.0156 atomic %).  If when adding 10% LAD (a D increase of 640x) you get
much more heat, it would support evidence for the theory that it was only
the D that was reacting.  If you do not get much more heat, then either: 1)
only the H is reacting, or 2) as Dennis Letts describes, the reaction is
confined to NAE and there are not enough NAE to support reaction with the
greater amount of D.

That is why I asked AP the question about tests with added D.  Based on his
response, I have suggested to Mathieu Valat that he share his LAD with AP.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bob H—
>
>
>
> Why not do an experiment with a small concentration of D to determine
> whether or not it changes the repeatable reaction (with normal H).  It may
> be a little D does poison the reaction.  Getting rid of all the D may be
> the ticket to higher energy production.  Such information may also help
> understanding the Ni system geometry and other physical properties that are
> important for the reaction to occur.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob H—

Why not do an experiment with a small concentration of D to determine whether 
or not it changes the repeatable reaction (with normal H).  It may be a little 
D does poison the reaction.  Getting rid of all the D may be the ticket to 
higher energy production.  Such information may also help understanding the Ni 
system geometry and other physical properties that are important for the 
reaction to occur.

Bob Cook

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

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 10:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

You missed my point - and, of course, I could have said it better.  The
problem is that a failed quasi-replication (Ahern's experiment was FAR from
replication) does not mean the reaction does not work.  It means the
experimenter failed to adequately replicate variables that were important,
about which little or nothing may have been reported.  Also, just because a
single experiment with LAH or LAD fails to produce XH, does not mean that
it is not possible to get XH from that system.  You would like someone
successful with LAH to evaluate the enrichment with LAD - that would be
Parkhomov, not Ahern.

It was failed quasi-replications of F that sent the whole field into a
tailspin.  There were eventually things that could be learned from those
experiments, but initial conclusions from them were totally wrong.  The
answer is not going to be found in just a single experiment.

I am not against quasi-replications, just against drawing false conclusions
from them.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't mean
> squat.
>
> No at all! On the contrary, quasi-replications mean quite a lot, if not
> everything.
>
> AP had his first quasi-success in performing a quasi-replication of the
> hot-cat, and he has done little else except quasi-replication of that
> first one - which was actually not successful… and he finally found
> modest success by varying parameters, not by following a presumed path.
>
> There really is no decent model out there - and no strategy except to
> learn from the failures, which is at the 90% rate… so there is a lot to
> learn from analyzing the quasi-replications.
>
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

There is an easily calculated magnetic field at the center of the heater coil 
that may be more important than the electric field.  Ni particles would likely 
line up their magnetic moments to result in a significant induced B field, 
allowing coupling and energy transfer pertinent to each reaction.  If the 
electrical varied with time, the variable magnetic field would change the 
various energy states of the Ni-H system to assure desirable coupling at least 
some fraction of the time.

Bob Cook






b

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 6:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation


From: Bob Higgins

Mathieu Valat has some LiAlD4 given to him by Jean-Paul Biberian.  I asked 
Mathieu if he would be willing to send some to Parkhomov to increase the 
possibility that Parkhomov would run an experiment with D enrichment to look 
for increase in excess power.

Bob,

Brian Ahern tried the deuterated material. You might want to contact him for 
the details, but basically LiAlD4 did not work in his tube kiln setup, nor did 
the regualr AP mix.

It could be that the tube kiln itself does not function well as a replacement 
for directly wound resistance wire - for an unknown basic reason, no matter 
what material is used. This could be because the electric field of the heater 
wire is more important than the heat itself – or some combination of the two. 
Naturally, we have been led to think the heat is the key – but clearly the key 
is not simply heat alone.

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob—

Great communication with AP.  It would be nice to get AP to confirm that D does 
not change the energy generation of the experiment except in so far as the H 
concentration is reduced.

In his answers to your question about deuterium AP seemed to hope it had no 
effect on the reaction???

Bob Cook

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

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2016 7:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]


​
When one cup fills to 10g of water, it flows over and presents the other
cup.  Each flop causes a magnet to pass a reed switch which causes a
pulse.  Parkhomov said he measured a noise of about +/- 0.1 g for each
flop.  The +/- 0.1 g may not have been the repeatability or noise - for
example the left cup could be 9.9g and the right cup 10.1g depending on the
level of the system.

Measuring the mass of water is much better than measuring the volume of
water because the heat in each gram is much more stable with temperature
than the heat with 1cc.

Also note from the pictures of the system that Parkhomov had a can storing
water up above the reactor.  This can had a water level control to keep the
can filled to a certain height.  This would have controlled the water
pressure (only the dead fall pressure) and helped keep the flow constant.

Bob

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
> me, at first glance:
>
> What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
>> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
>> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
>> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
>> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>>
>
> That sounds like good enough resolution.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG
>
> I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
> similar:
>
>
> http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx
>
>
>
>> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
>> water faucet? Yes
>> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>>
>
> Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
> most cities.
>
>
>
>> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>>
>
> 240 ml/minute is fine.
>
>
> At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
>> between the water outlet temperature
>> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.
>
>
> That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess
> that up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at
> this web site, p. 8:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Bob Cook]

The assessment below is right-on IMHO.

  I would also guess that some of the so-called trolls   were funded by some 
vested interest.  I think the funding must have been based on the number of 
words written multiplied by the blogs attended to.  Also I would guess that 
there was a bonus for appropriate likes to troll comments posted in recognition 
to the orchestrated other-troll comments.

Bob Cook

From: Russ George<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:27 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

There is a cacophony of petulant voices from those with a vested interest in 
Rossi. LENR, and Cold Fusion as made clear by the many who are  behaving like 
jilted groupies at best with more than a few far over the line into becoming 
outrageous slanderous trolls. That Rossi has kept and keeps secrets enrages 
those with vested interests, aka competitors, who want to know how he makes his 
technology tick. They are it seems made up of the cheapskates who are unwilling 
to invest either the time or money to do faithful research. Dang few have any 
semblance of experimentalist skills and creativity as evidenced by their abject 
failures. It is clear that in this case social media is at its worst with its 
powerful tendency toward making the worst of everything floating to the top 
prevailing.



From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit



Jones Beene,
You make several assumptions that are far from proven.
Whatever the heat use by the customer,  the arrangement was only made because 
IH had failed to provide the customer for over a year that they said they would.

Why do you think IH has any rights to the license when they still owe $89 
million for it?  The initial $11 million was essentially a down payment with 
the balance to be paid after confirmation that the process worked.

You appear certain that the I MW plant doesn't work based Jed's comments that 
in turn are based on IH.  It seems most unlikely that Rossi would take the 
matter to court unless he was convinced it did work.  So the question of 
whether the plant worked at > COP 6 is not proven yet.   Never-the-less, 
preferring Napoleonic law,  you claim Rossi is guilty of fraud until he is 
proven innocent.



On 7/2/2016 11:08 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

From: Bob Higgins

It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have unilaterally 
declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having accepted money 
for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi seems intent 
to market that license to others as though he had no other contract.  This is 
clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good 
long contemplative period.

Bob,

This is a pretty accurate assessment, but ask yourself who in their right mind 
would buy a license now? Most likely, this is the same kind of delusional 
hot-air as the 13 megawatt units claimed to have been sold in 2012 and the 
hundreds of other lies. You couldn’t make a mini-series out of this unfolding 
farce, or could you… is Kevin Spacey available?

The sleaziest detail in the Rossigate scam appears to be this continuing 
charade about “the customer”… you remember, the bogus chemical company that 
supposedly paid $1000 per day for steam, yet without zoning permits for 
chemical production on file, and with no confirming evidence that it ever 
existed outside a shell company owned by Rossi’s business partner, and with the 
premises being listed in the Miami Real Estate market for rent the same month 
as the fake test ended, and with no evidence of any payment received for steam. 
You would think they could fake a few checks back and forth, just for the fun 
of it.

Did Rossi really think he could sustain a falsehood of this magnitude 
throughout a legal proceeding with sworn testimony? The fiction of a fake 
customer buying megawatts of steam for a year to use in a non-existent 
production process … that lie alone could be his downfall.

Curiously, IH appears to be sitting on this fake customer detail for now, as it 
is not mentioned in the pleadings AFAIK… but they will be poised to spring a 
trap during depositions. Crafty attorneys love to do that.

At any rate, we are in for months of amusement, reminiscent perhaps of (the 
perversely fabulous) “House of Cards”… matter of fact … maybe AR has already 
pitched the story to HBO… part of his nexxt reincarnation as the Most 
Interesting Man in the World.

RE: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Bob Cook]

Adrian—

I would say you are correct about the license not being established, since the 
payment was not made.  I would suspect that Rossi wanted the extra $89M  after 
the 1 week test and only agreed to delay payment of the entire amount based on 
a proposal from Darden to do the 1 year test.  Notes from the negotiations are 
probably very important to add to full understanding of the agreement.  This 
would be especially important if, IH did not intend to pay the full amount and 
still signed the agreement knowing that Rossi expected the full $99M.

Bob Cook


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

From: a.ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

Bob,
So you say, but it is not that simple.
The contract and the license are only valid if both parties follow the
agreement.  Right now Rossi has done so as reported by the ERV. IH have
not as they have not paid up.  It is not IH taking Rossi to court for
failure to comply and IH don't own rights to the IP until they have paid
for it.   The price was $100 million and IH reasonably said they would
not pay it all until the concept was proven.  The ERV says it has been
proven to work.  The court will decide but before payment IH do not own
the license


On 7/1/2016 6:31 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
> Of course, Rossi may have a case.  Also, he may not have a case.  This
> would be for the courts to decide.  No matter what, Rossi cannot
> unilaterally nullify the license.  He would have to sue in civil
> courts to have the license contract dissolved for cause.  Until the
> court says otherwise, the license is as valid as it was the day it was
> signed and money changed hands.  We do not know whether the court will
> side with IH or Rossi.  If, in the mean time, Rossi sold another
> license for the same region, there would be no question that he would
> be getting fitted for a striped suit immediately.
>
> Basically this means that Rossi cannot sell licenses for anything that
> could even potentially fall under the original license agreement with
> IH in any of the regions licensed to IH until a court rules the
> license contract is dissolved.  This probably puts licensing of his
> "quarkX" technology in limbo in all of those regions as well.  Rossi
> seems happy with the 400+ days to trial, which I cannot understand.
> Unless he gets some kind of motion to have the license dissolved in
> the mean time, he could go to jail for selling licenses to regions
> already licensed to IH, and anyone who bought such a license from him
> would stand to lose all of their money.
>
> Of course, it is important for his case for Rossi to keep up
> appearances of being in the high ground.  However, this will not keep
> him out of jail if he commits fraud.
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
> <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> He has a case if IH have not fulfilled their side of the contract
> and paid him for a successful trial of the 1 MW plant.
>
> On 7/1/2016 5:12 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer.  However, I believe at this moment Rossi has a
>> duly executed license agreement with IH.  He cannot unilaterally
>> cancel that after money has changed hands. Pragmatically he could
>> not even give the $11.5M back and take back his license unless IH
>> accepted that deal with other signed documents. The courts will
>> decide (eventually) to whom the license belongs.  In the mean
>> time, Rossi could be inviting himself back to jail by offering
>> the license to anyone else.
>>
>> It seems to me that selling something you don't own is the very
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Craig Haynie
>> <cchayniepub...@gmail.com <mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> No way Rossi's actions are fraud, from reselling the
>> licensing, (unless he has a known faulty product). The best
>> IH can hope for is a null contract; not the rights to the IP.
>>
>> On 07/01/2016 03:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears
>> to have unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH
>> is null and void.  Having accepted money for that
>> license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet Rossi
>> seems intent to market that license to others as though
>> he had no other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a
>> fraud that will quickly put Rossi back in jail for a good
>> long contemplative period.  He should be collecting his
>> reading material on antigravity.
>>
>> I couldn't help myself.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

Convection heat transfer which you suggest would involve a gas or plasma with 
macroscopic motion of the mobile species NECESSARY for distribution of kinetic 
energy.  Would this system imply the nuclear reaction producing the anomalous 
heat resulted in energetic (kinetic energy) particles as opposed to higher spin 
states of the reactants?

Also what is your judgement as to the speed of the reaction being  slow enough 
to avoid local melting considering the low heat transfer coeff. associated with 
convection cooling? I would think CONDUCTION cooling would be faster and more 
likely than CONVECTION cooling to avoid melting.

Then again the power density may be low enough to avoid mechanical 
deformations.  I could not find anything about the power density of the 
reaction in the Ukrainian paper.

Bob Cook







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


From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 6:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

From: Bob Cook



But how does the ‘anomalous heat’ get out of the reaction site?  Is it by spin 
coupling of the reacting coherent system, which includes the metal lattice?





What’s wrong with regular convection? Think of it as sequential phase-change, 
which is continuous over time. It’s just heat at that point.



BTW - here is one of several interesting papers from 2009…

 
<http://lenrcanr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdf=U=0ahUKEwjiiOz1isfNAhVD9GMKHfMTCEEQFggJMAI=internal-uds-cse=AFQjCNE8KOsK3JddH2zxL_2r9-bHkrTPnQ>
 
http://lenrcanr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdf=U=0ahUKEwjiiOz1isfNAhVD9GMKHfMTCEEQFggJMAI=internal-uds-cse=AFQjCNE8KOsK3JddH2zxL_2r9-bHkrTPnQ



… considering the result, e.g. - apparent inaction, when the experiments were 
more than good, would lead the cynic to suspect that the Navy converted this 
technology into a black project of some kind around 2010 or thereafter. This 
would also explain a number of apparently missed opportunities in the closing 
of SPAWARS, ect, ect.

RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

That’s a nice explanation.  

But how does the “anomalous heat’ get out of the reaction site?  Is it by spin 
coupling of the reacting coherent system, which includes the metal lattice?

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 1:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ukrainian Paper on the active particle of LENR

The active particle, which is dense neutral hydrogen, brings to mind a 
recurrent theme in LENR, which is D/H exchange – and the further possibility of 
asymmetry in the exchange reaction itself. 

This kind of isotope exchange is energetic and ends up looking like LENR but it 
relates to the zero point field and is non-nuclear. Actually, this subject area 
is not covered in the Ukrainian paper specifically, but maybe it should be. To 
digress further…

Many experiments have shown that the (H/D) exchange reaction results in 
one-time exotherm as the heavier isotope replaces the lighter. The reaction is 
assumed to be chemical and self-limiting – not sequential and not robust. It 
would only be robust if it was made to be asymmetric and continuous instead of 
one-way. 

Some skeptics of LENR suggest that H/D exchange is the only source of heat of 
cold fusion and noot anomalous. Yet… they miss the point that the H/D exchange 
could be the source of anomalous heat in certain situations, and we have a 
strong hint of this already. 

When we focus on tight confinement in a metal matrix along with the 
densification process, we see how net gain can happen in theory. Although two 
fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (Pauli exclusion) and two bosons 
can, fermions can change to become composite bosons and vice-versa. If they can 
do this very rapidly via fractional electron orbitals, everything becomes 
clearer. The see-saw change in identity (on fast scale from composite boson to 
fermion) is the key to anomalous heat.

With a mix of dissolved H and D and a catalyst, when going in and out of the 
fractional state (UDH, UDD) the proton becomes bosonic on fractionalization, 
since it is bound at nuclear distances to an electron and gains half spin as a 
composite boson; whereas deuterium will become fermionic in the dense state as 
it gains spin. This situation will allow for sequential asymmetry when the 
fractionalization is coincident with the exchange reaction and both are in a 
rapid (planned) state of flux. 

Since bosons can occupy the same place, they adapt to moving into tight 
confinement readily and will displace fermions, but when “reinflated” with a 
change in identity to fermionic, they will be displaced, ad infinitum. You need 
both the exchange and the cross-identity due to fractionalization.

The system is powered by the zero point field and that is the conceptual 
problem. At least it is a credibility problem for now. 

There are few believers in the proposition of zero point energy on a macro 
scale, since it has not yet been linked to any loading anomaly other this one: 
Miley’s paper for thermal gain due to heat release on both loading and 
unloading… 
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf
Lovely paper … if the results could be trusted.

“On the Nuclear Coupling of Proton and Electron” Krasnoholovets et al
http://www.hrpub.org/download/20160530/UJPA6-18406680.pdf
Abstract -- We study both experimentally and theoretically the creation of a 
new physical entity, a particle in which the proton and electron form a stable 
pair with a tiny size typical for a nucleon.
This is a version/interpretation of fractional hydrogen in the role of virtual 
neutron. There are a few errors, and they make reference to some bogus 
research, but this is a very broad sweep and worth reading. Surprisingly 
well-written. No mention of W
They give Mills most of the credit – which they should. Too bad that Mills 
turns out to be such a failure as an inventor (as opposed to his success as a 
theorist) – since he was well-positioned to go down historically as the key 
figure in the field. His latest effort with the seam welder is ludicrous. 
Perhaps it will be a Ukrainian or Russian who will succeed with a usable LENR 
product. They have every incentive to do so, as the short summer will give way 
to early winter before you can say Buck Turgidson.

RE: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

[Bob Cook]

One problem is that cancer is that radiation is  not the only issue associated 
with cellular damage.   Mutagenic effects also occur in gene cells and can be 
propagated into the population as a whole, if the particular mutation is not 
fatal to begin with.  This is a problem for small populations of people who do 
not have a large gene pool to select from.

The particular isotopes that cause mutagenic issues are those that are 
incorporated into the DNA itself—H-3 and C-14 are examples.


An experiment that I followed in the early 1990’s on the vole populations 
around Chernobyl indicated viable mutations caused by H-3 were at a centration 
of about 200 picocuries per liter of the water being consumed.  The limit set 
for cancer deaths is 20,000 picocuries per liter.

The self correction mechanism in cell with two chromosomes is not the same as 
those with only one chromosome—gene cells.

Icelanders and tribal folks be careful.

Bob Cook


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

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

I think there probably is a relatively high threshold for ionizing
radiation, below which no statistically significant increases in lukemia,
Parkinsons, and other cancers will be found.  The danger is that some
people may be extraordinarily sensitive and WILL develop these illnesses
when exposed to doses below the threshold (wherever you place it).  Since
radiations are unseen and hard for the general populace to detect and
quantize their dose, how do we protect the canaries in our midst?  Today it
is unlikely there is any way to medically screen who may be extraordinarily
sensitive to ionizing radiations.  Before a threshold can be set to allow
extraneous radiations into our environment we must know how sensitive the
canaries will prove to be.  We cannot just kill the canaries for the profit
of the masses.

OTOH, if the "canaries" are just a few ppm; as a society, it may be to our
net benefit to spend the money to detect who will be sensitive to ionizing
radiations and then take extraordinary means to educate them and give them
the means to protect themselves.

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
wrote:

> How much difference does this make, in practical terms?  I'm not sure it's
> all that significant.
>
> If it's linear, then it's a tradeoff, and there's still a threshold below
> which it's not worth reducing radiation exposure, even if there is no
> "medical threshold".
>
> As an analogy which may help to clarify this, consider that *there is no
> threshold for automobile accidents*.  No matter how slowly everyone is
> forced to drive, there will *still* be accidents.  Fatalities presumably
> have a direct relationship to the speed we allow people to travel at, and
> reducing that speed will *always* save lives.  But that doesn't lead to
> the conclusion that we need to reduce the speed limit everywhere to zero
> and force everyone to walk, because *it is a tradeoff*.  *Nothing* in
> life is entirely safe, there are always fatalities, and all we need to do
> is reduce a particular risk factor enough so that it's small relative to
> other risks we face, and we can henceforth ignore it.
>
> In other words, even if the dose relationship is linear, there's still an
> *economic* threshold effect, even if the "OMG RADIATION time to PANIC!"
> crowd refuses to see it.
>
>
> On 06/25/2016 10:39 AM, H LV wrote:
>
> Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation
>
>
> On Friday, Biological Theory published the equivalent of a “bunker buster”
> salvo in a decades-long war of words between scientists.
>
> On one side are people who believe that there is no safe dose of
> radiation. They assert that radiation protection regulations should
> continue using a linear, no threshold model.
>
> The other side includes those who say that sufficient evidence has been
> gathered to show there are dose levels below which there is no permanent
> damage. They say the evidence indicates the possibility of a modest health
> improvement over a range of low doses and dose rates. They believe that the
> LNT model is obsolete and does not do a good job of protecting people from
> harm.
> ​ ​
>
>
> (​more at link)​
>
> ​ ​
> ​
>
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2016/06/19/powerful-shot-against-believers-in-no-safe-dose-of-radiation
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob H---

I agree with you.  

I consider the the term "run-away reaction" is accurate when it comes to 
nuclear processes.  

Bob Cook 

From: rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:53:06 -0600
Subject: Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

See below ...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:

  

  
  
Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work,
though I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.



So, if we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I
know of no reason not to assume that), then it would be
remarkable indeed if this actually was a real, robust, replicable
result, as it would indicate that Rossi accidentally made
something up that was real, correct, and new while faking his
experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad generated by a spam
bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical truth which
nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly
surprising.

Personally, I don't have a strong feeling that all of Rossi's work is bogus.  I 
trust Focardi, and Focardi believed Rossi had something, and it was something 
nuclear from the radiations Focardi himself reported.  While the hotCat 
technology (Ni+LAH) doesn't seem to be terribly vigorous at the temperatures 
that we can readily work with, it does seem to be LENR.  There are certainly 
ways to work at higher temperature than are being used today.



"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive
overheating" as that describes what happened, without specifying a
mechanism.  "Runaway" implies we know this is a non-standard
exothermic reaction of some sort and that it can take place with
great vigor if the temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact
we don't know that.



Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder
destroyed them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates
overheating, and it's anyone's guess how that happened.  When
there's a joule heater running through the thing, and it's turned on
during the experiment, and something overheats, the hot wire is an
obvious candidate for the cause.

Well, yes and no.  When these reactors fail in the "meltdown" mode, it is not 
usually from a failure of the heater wire - the only source of electrical 
input.  Instead, they seem to melt from inside the ceramic fuel container, 
where the only source of heat would be chemical or LENR.  There is some small 
opportunity for a thermite-style oxygen exchange reaction with the silica in 
some of the mullite tube experiments, but it is unlikely the cause (very hard 
to ignite and poor mixing of reactants).  If the failure was from overheating 
via the heater wire, the heater would fail by ~1400C from rapid oxidation at 
the grain boundaries of the wire.  Such heater failures are observed, but are 
not classified as "meltdowns".  The "meltdown" failures appear to be at higher 
temperature still (~1600C) - where the ceramic fails.
  

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Stephen--

I am a little more positive about the significance of AP's results.   I would 
say that the recent results confirm much of the Lugano test. 

 I think that AP's test did not have the same control Rossi has developed, and 
, hence the significant over-heating event.  Rossi has indicated that in his 
R history there were many "over heating" events.  Hence, Rossi's control 
mechanism was not confirmed.

Although not stated in the recent AP report, I assumed that AP did not intend 
to destroy the reactor.  The event probably had a short duration--shorter  than 
was necessary to quench the reaction.   This has an earmark of a nuclear 
process which can happen so fast that energy is released before the materials 
deform, changing the geometry supporting the reaction.   

As Bob H has suggested, there is plenty of science to discover, including the 
time constants of the destruction process.  AP might achieve good monitoring of 
penetrating EM radiation via a window to the reactor internals, akin to what 
Rossi described regarding his recent Quark-X test.

Experimenters should be careful!  The time constants are of utmost importance 
for safety concers.

Bob Cook

Subject: Re: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: sa...@pobox.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:23:37 -0400


  

  
  
Ah.  Thank you.  I didn't realize this is based on Rossi's work,
though I certainly should have, given the way it's set up.



So, if we assume all of Rossi's results were bogus (and I
know of no reason not to assume that), then it would be
remarkable indeed if this actually was a real, robust, replicable
result, as it would indicate that Rossi accidentally made
something up that was real, correct, and new while faking his
experiments.  Somewhat as though the word salad generated by a spam
bot accidentally contained some deep philosophical truth which
nobody had thought of before.  Not impossible, but certainly
surprising.



"Thermal runaway" might better be described as "Destructive
overheating" as that describes what happened, without specifying a
mechanism.  "Runaway" implies we know this is a non-standard
exothermic reaction of some sort and that it can take place with
great vigor if the temperature exceeds some threshold; but in fact
we don't know that.



Similarly, the fact that attempts to goose the reactors harder
destroyed them doesn't indicate runaway, it just indicates
overheating, and it's anyone's guess how that happened.  When
there's a joule heater running through the thing, and it's turned on
during the experiment, and something overheats, the hot wire is an
obvious candidate for the cause.





On 06/24/2016 12:59 PM, Bob Higgins
  wrote:



  

  I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has
most of them in the lenr-canr.org database. 
Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano report on Rossi's
hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist,
deduced the fuel as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it.  He
saw credible excess heat.  You should start by reading the
Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.



The LENR details of this system are unknown, but here is a
guess in a nutshell.  The LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al +
nH2 as it is heated.  At about 680C, both the LiH and the Al
are molten and they wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of
oxides by the H2.  The liquid Al also partly acts as a
getter for the the oxygen in the system - taking it out of
chemical play.  LiH is an ionic hydride, consisting of Li+
and H- in the molten metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the Li-H-Al
supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni,
wherein a LENR reaction of unknown detail happens.  The
reaction between Ni and H- could well be as Piantelli
describes in his patents.  There are unsubstantiated shifts
in the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as unsubstantiated
isotopic shifts in the Ni and transmutation in the Ni.



  
  Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and Parkhomov's
  latest experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit
  thermal runaway and burn out the apparatus.

  


Chemical energy is typically calculated as though the reactants
were supplied with an unknown and unlimited source of free O2
and burned.  The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2,
then the burning of the Li, and almost negligible is the
chemical energy from burning (oxidizing) the Ni.  For the 2g of
Ni 

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

I will look for the older references.  Certainly Jed has most of them in the 
lenr-canr.org database.  Parkhomov's work stemmed from the Lugano report on 
Rossi's hotCat - where Parkhomov, a retired Russian physicist, deduced the fuel 
as primarily Ni + LAH, and tried it.  He saw credible excess heat.  You should 
start by reading the Lugano report's analysis of the fuel and ash.The LENR 
details of this system are unknown, but here is a guess in a nutshell.  The 
LiAlH4 breaks down to LiH and Al + nH2 as it is heated.  At about 680C, both 
the LiH and the Al are molten and they wet to the Ni, which is now reduced of 
oxides by the H2.  The liquid Al also partly acts as a getter for the the 
oxygen in the system - taking it out of chemical play.  LiH is an ionic 
hydride, consisting of Li+ and H- in the molten metal.  Wetted to the Ni, the 
Li-H-Al supplies H- (anions) directly to the surface of the Ni, wherein a LENR 
reaction of unknown detail happens.  The reaction between Ni and H- could well 
be as Piantelli describes in his patents.  There are unsubstantiated shifts in 
the 6Li/7Li isotopic ratio as well as unsubstantiated isotopic shifts in the Ni 
and transmutation in the Ni.Excess heat seems to have an onset above 900C and 
Parkhomov's latest experiments were run at 1200C.  Experiments can exhibit 
thermal runaway and burn out the apparatus.Chemical energy is typically 
calculated as though the reactants were supplied with an unknown and unlimited 
source of free O2 and burned.  The primary energy is the burning of H2 with O2, 
then the burning of the Li, and almost negligible is the chemical energy from 
burning (oxidizing) the Ni.  For the 2g of Ni and 0.2g of LAH, I have seen that 
energy calculated in the range of 20kJ (but my memory could be off +100%/-50%). 
 Parkhomov measured about 100MJ output, about 5000x the chemical energy.On Fri, 
Jun 24, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
  

  
  
Can someone post a link to something in the way of earlier work,
which might give an overview of this experiment and this approach?

I came in late to the show, and I'm confused as to what the reaction
is even believed to be here.

It's also apparent that some major chemical stuff was going on (from
the state of the reactors at the end of the experiment) but, while
LiAlH4 is presumably pretty seriously reactive, I wouldn't have
expected it to do much with nothing but Ni as a partner, since Li
and Al are surely much happier to donate electrons than Ni (didn't
check the half reaction potentials, tho, maybe nickel's more
reactive than I think).


On 06/24/2016 10:19 AM, Bob Higgins
  wrote:


  
Good morning Vorts,


  Here is a link to my Google drive folder having the
  English translation of A. Parkhomov's latest (6/23)
  presentation.  The link is to the folder containing
  the translation, and if updates are needed, I will put
  them in this same folder.


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE
  


Bob Higgins

  


  

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]: English translation of Parkhomov's latest presentation




From: Jed Rothwell 

Slight gain can be a big deal – when it is consistent slight gain.

I would not call that a "slight gain." Many important cold fusion experiments 
have produced much smaller gains than that, and far smaller absolute power. 





A decent standard for reliable gain would be the Craven’s NI-Week demo. He saw 
about the same COP at far less power, at only 80C - and the excess heat was 
there for many months. It is a mystery to me why that demo was not expanded or 
even replicated. 

Perhaps it is a good time to revisit the low-input, high-inventory regime, 
possibly using hundreds of grams of reactant instead of grams. The rationale 
for using only 2 grams of nickel and .2 grams of LAH has never seemed valid, 
since there is little evidence to suggest that the reaction does not scale. 

[Vo]:FW: EUC Report of 2012-

[Bob Cook]

David— Nice to have you back participating on Vortex-l. Your comments over the 
years raise many interesting technical questions.    I followed up on your 
recent comment about the ECU report.  I have an acquaintance that worked for 
the EUC and requested a follow-up of the resolution of the report from its 
author.  The acquaintance never received any additional information.   I agree 
that the reclassification of the technology to a materials science category is 
not a bad idea.  The ICCF is an that did just that.  However, I fully consider 
that the evidence from many investigations regarding “LENR” have involved 
various “nuclear” phenomena in the traditional sense of the word.   I have long 
considered that energy exists in several equivalent forms that can be 
interchanged or swapped among those various forms.  For example spin energy  
associated with angular momentum can be swapped between the spin energy of 
electrons of a metal lattice and the intrinsic spin energy associated with 
nucleons and/or a nucleus.  The mechanism (science) of such a swapping is not 
generally understood, even though Planck’s constant associated with the 
smallest quanta of angular momentum is accepted by most  and a coherent 
system’s  change in angular momentum seems to adhere to the swapping of quanta 
with the minimum noted above.  Not many physicists would argue with this 
observation.    The high energy radiation may not occur, if a system presents 
itself with a coupling mechanism for many small energy transitions and one 
large change in nuclear potential to be possible.   So-called binding energy of 
a nucleus would transform into orbital electron phonic (vibrational kinetic 
energy) of elevated angular momentum spin energy states. Bob Cook    

RE: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research

[Bob Cook]

What happened to this? Four years later there could be results.I think 
classifying it as materials science instead of nuclear physics might be 
successful. Classifying it as nuclear science is very much more 
problematic.DavidOn Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Moab Moab 
moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:The European Commission - Directorate-General for 
Research and
Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding
research in LENR.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf

Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?

RE: [Vo]:The most mysterious star in the universe

[Bob Cook]

In reply to  H LV's message of Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:16:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On May 30, 2016 6:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  H LV's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 15:11:52 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 1) I wonder if they have considered the possibility that the output of
the star
 itself is simply variable?

Given what is known about how stars work they probably consider such a
possibility even less likely  than an alien structure blocking the light.
On the other hand perhaps an alien civilisation is tinkering with the
star's internal reactions.
Harry

Perhaps, though it need not be. Another possibility is that the star has
"swallowed" foreign bodies that are interfering with it's internal reactions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1 Legal issues

[Bob Cook]

  


  
  
Frank Znidarsic  "The field of cold fusion does not need this."


I don't know how you can say that when Rossi resurrected cold
  fusion from near death only about five years ago. As a result
  several universities and several countries are now working
  on LENR.

In passing, Rossi says today the QuarkX test is "so far so good." I
reckon it must be almost half way through it.




  

[Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

Yes. I agree that Agreement language is broad.  I read it several times.  I 
would note that the key to the scope of what is involved is the term “which 
relates to E-Cat IP.”   The definition of the E-Cat IP comes out in the first 
“Whereas” in the Agreement.  As you have noted it includes the Hot Cat IP as 
spelled out in the Hot Cat Patent Application in the US per an exhibit to the 
Agreement.  It does not apply to the Quark X invention.  I think that is where 
Rossi drew the line. 

As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous patents 
for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I would 
imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for only the 
E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.  All this happened after 
Woodford’s contribution to IH.  If they and IH decide to give up on the E-Cat 
IP development, that is surely a reasonable investment decision.  I do not 
think the IH and Darden were cognizant of the future developments when 
recruiting Woodford.  It was merely ignorance of the technology possible, 
associated with the field of LENR, as well as, the near term  obsolescence  of 
E-Cat IP. 

At the time of the Agreement signing, I doubt that IH knew the Quark X  was in 
the offing.  Or else it would have certainly been included in the scope spelled 
out in 13.4.  The Agreement did not address the idea that Rossi had to reveal 
all his knowledge—thoughts.  This would be akin to revealing undocumented trade 
secrets for anything Rossi may know.  That clearly is not spelled out and would 
probably not be enforceable, since the secrets were only ideas in Rossi’s head. 
 It’s art knowhow as provided in patent specifications.  

However, IMHO the cost to IH for even getting Rossi to license the E-Cat IP was 
$100.5 M.

In other places of the Agreement, there were limits on the time Rossi was 
obligated to help the IH team learn the art necessary to produce a COP of 6.  I 
think that obligated teaching ran out half way through the 1 year test.  In any 
case it did not IMHO apply to extra research Rossi was doing on his own time to 
perfect the Quark X invention.   Early on Rossi noted the great IH team.  This 
language stopped when his team work ended about September 2015 I think.  About 
that time Rossi may have initiated the complaint that was ready to go at the 
end of the 1 year period, knowing full well from the periodic ERV reports that 
the testing on the E-Cat with 4 modules and 52 separate reactors would work out 
positive.  

Rossi never started work on an E-Cat factory.  I think it was because he 
realized the Quark X direct electricity production was what would work best in 
society.  I think he is right.  It seems he is not proceeding along the better 
option in Sweden where he perceives his efforts will be least resisted and 
maybe even encouraged by the Swedish government.  He seems to have the ear of 
the Royal Academy and the Nobel Association, which may give him some sway 
there, more so than elsewhere.  

As Lennart will probably agree with, a good business climate with government 
support is pretty important.  

>From my standpoint, it is too bad that the United States has not been more 
>supportive, particularly in advising of  the overall acceptance of LENR 
>technology.  However, I understand that such a progressive position would not 
>be liked by the established financial interests, since it would hasten their 
>“oxen getting gored”.   

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Hi Bob, 

As I reread the relevant section of the license agreement, I am startled by how 
broad the language is.  It covers the existing IP as well as any derivative 
works and future inventions.  It is one of those paragraphs in a contract 
where, if I were the signing party, I would wonder how a negotiating party 
could ask for so much.  See section 13.4 and take a moment to read through it:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf


Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste it here.


Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  Lennart and Eric--

  I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the E-Cat 
IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).

  However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix to 
the agreement) is as a patent application.  The validation test in Italy  and  
the 1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat.  The Hot Cat specifications I 
have not seen written anywhere.  They may be in the patent application.  They 
are not specified in the Agreement unless its via the Patent application.

  If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of 
providing IP assoc

[Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Bob Cook]

Lennart and Eric--

I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the E-Cat 
IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).

However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix to the 
agreement) is as a patent application.  The validation test in Italy  and  the 
1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat.  The Hot Cat specifications I have 
not seen written anywhere.  They may be in the patent application.  They are 
not specified in the Agreement unless its via the Patent application.

If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of providing 
IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or an inference of this), I would be 
interested in a paragraph reference.  

I think that by the definition of IP its scope only includes tangible 
information—data, documents, pictures, drawings, recordings, etc.  It does not 
seem to include knowledge that is contained in ones brain and not otherwise 
recorded.  Such knowledge is not property IMHO.  The only reasonable obligation 
Rossi had, was to document operational procedures for the E-Cat to achieve a  
COP of 6.  The Patent for the control system for the E-Cat may not have 
included details to allow exceeding the COP of 6.  

However, if the Company invents such improved controls that provide operation 
at a higher COP they will own that IP and could obtain an applicable patent it 
seems, all in accordance with the Agreement.  

I agree with Daniel that the Quark X invention is separate and would not fall 
within the E-Cat IP defined by the Agreement.  

As noted in previous comments, I consider this may be the issue that is 
upsetting to IH, since such a device would upstage the E-Cat and Hot Cat alike. 
 The Quark X  may not even use Ni as a fuel.  If as Rossi says, it produces 
direct electricity as well as heat, it clearly would be a different invention 
from the  Cats.  Rossi would be free to market the Quark X in the US and the 
other areas licensed to IH for the E Cats.  

I would have guessed that Rossi was not too uncomfortable with the broad scope 
of the agreement, given his ongoing research and appreciation of the science 
behind the Rossi Effect.  I think he was careful not to let the scope of the 
agreement extend to the Quark X technology, which he knew was around the corner 
and would make the E-Cat and Hot Cat inventions less important.

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Lennart, 

I said that with more confidence than is warranted.  I am not a lawyer, so I do 
not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will interpret 
this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put in it with the 
benefit of hindsight.  But I suggest to anyone who is interested in the 
question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are covered by the 
agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps you have done.  One 
will see that the language is very broad.  Perhaps Daniel is correct that the 
QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in that case the QuarkX is not a 
derivative work.

One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt very 
uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted with his 
personality and temperament.

Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

  Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one of 
the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not specify 
the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their shoes. Maybe I 
just have been around for too long:)
  IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the 
detailss then who to blaim.???

  Best Regards ,
  Lennart Thornros 



  lenn...@thornros.com
  +1 916 436 1899


  Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


  On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in 
the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.

I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language pertaining 
to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it readily covered the 
HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also stipulated that Rossi help 
out with transferring any knowledge required to make use of his technology. I 
can look it up the relevant sections if they would be interesting.  Whatever 
ways that IH may have been in breach of the license agreement, Rossi was 
assuredly in breach in this specific regard.

With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any 

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Bob Cook]

Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996Jones etal--

Also most observers of the LENR scene are unaware of the details of a British 
1956 patent describing what may be a LENR.   Hank Mills has written a good 
summary of the invention on E Cat World I believe. 

It got by me as a reactor designer in the early 1960’s

http://www.lookingforheat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/A-new-apparatus-for-producing-an-electric-current.pdf

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details of 
the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996. 

Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field, 
and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes other thermal 
runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia and Ahern. However, 
it was far more energetic than any of the prior incidents.

This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to apply 
input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF (document 
in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis the absorption 
reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen at modest pressure. 
Instead, it was likely the most energetic single event in the history of LENR.

Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief 
researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of ownership) 
who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has appeared in print 
before. 

Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3 liter 
stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a strong pressure 
vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated the nickel under 
vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2 atmospheres (apparently there 
was no potassium but this detail needs to be verified).


The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and spontaneously 
heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed orange (800C) and 
the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been used and no radiation 
monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a glob alloyed into the 
vessel and could not be removed.


The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an explosion 
was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any further work on 
LENR. The incident was not published. 

The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it. They did 
not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3 liters of H2 gas 
at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74 kilojoules when combined 
with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the Dewar).  


Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is 
ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!

[Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Bob Cook]

Peter, Jed and others--

It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for the 
low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers what was 
necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That is all the 
patent identified.  

The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in the 
IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what is 
grating to IH, since Rossi already has a new invention that out-performs the 
E-Cat.  I think he is NOT restricted in its production anywhere.  It is the 
subject of new patents that Rossi has claimed to have prepared and maybe 
already have applied for around the World.  

The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant they 
produced to go above a COP of around 6.  It would seem they want to be trained 
further to improve their PHOSITA.  

I do not blame them for that want, but.   However, IMHO Rossi does not have 
any obligation to do that training.  We will see as the trial unfolds, if it is 
not settled first. 

If it is settled, I would guess a new agreement would result.  Both parties 
will be smarter and will become much more careful about the options, the 
wording and the issue of competition.  It seems to me that Rossi has the upper 
hand, so to speak.  I doubt he will give up his inventive superiority to IH for 
any money.   IMHO he needs a different financial source of funding.  I suspect 
he already has that, given his apparent desire to buy the factory in Sweden. 

Bob Cook

From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:59 AM
To: VORTEX 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Dear Jed,, 

PHOSIA is a slogan-acronym with one poisoned letter "O" 
ordinary skill has to be defined for each case.
The difference between patent and know how is greater for processes than
for products.
I give you an example:
- a patent gives a recipe with ingredients in some limits, sometimes large but 
actually optimum or even usable narrow limits exist;- climited combinations,
- the patent has to give all the steps but does not give necessarily the real 
order and that can be critical;

and there are some features difficult to define- please imagine a patent
for a well working FP Cell in the hands of a good PHOSITA To not use 
a remote example.

Peter

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:


Are you aware about the differences between a patent and know-how?
Plus know-what, know-why and know-how- not?

  Yes. I understand this difference. A PHOSITA has the know-how. If the patent 
does not disclose enough information for a PHOSITA to replicate -- from the 
patent alone, without any inside information from Rossi -- then the patent is 
invalid. That would mean Rossi has no intellectual property and anyone can use 
his technology without paying him.


Do you have some industrial experience with this- even a minimum - IT 
included where you are at home?

  I do not, but a PHOSITA does, by definition.


Every industry and problem is very specific and the essentials cannot be 
transferred from one to another.

  If no one in the world has the appropriate background to do this, then there 
is no PHOSITA at present, so the patent will have to disclose a great deal more 
information than patents normally do. A patent must be enabling, or it is 
invalid.

  - Jed





-- 

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

RE: [Vo]:faith

[Bob Cook]

Harry-

That reminds me of something from Shakespeare, his well known character of 
faith--"full of sound and fury." not unlike the character of some Vorts.  

Bob Cook 

Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 -0400
From: hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:faith


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not 
seen.​​Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
Harry​


  

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Craig and Alain--

Mutagenic changes in gene cells are not always corrected in the egg cells of 
females nor in the sperm cell of males.  However damaged egg cells are more 
likely because they stay vital for many years, sometimes a much as 60 years in 
humans.  If an egg cell  incurs a mutagenic change that is not fixed, (and that 
happens) the mutation is passed on to future generations if the off spring is 
vital.  Most such mutations cause some sort of health effect, including more 
susceptibility to cancer.  

It was shown that the effects of tritium on vole populations around Chernobyl 
suffered such mutations as a result of very low concentrations of tritium.  
Tritium is an insidious  radiologic contaminant because it becomes incorporated 
in all cells, including DNA.  It’s low beta energy, 18 KEV, deposits nearly all 
its energy in a short distance—about 6 microns.  This is about the size of a 
cell nucleus.  The likelihood of mutations that do not kill the cell is high.  

The vole population demonstrated that significant mutations did occur in the 
populations around Chernobyl that were passed on to subsequent generations.  
The live of a vole is short and the potential for any egg cell being damaged is 
much lower than it may be in humans, maybe thirty times less likely.  The 
models for mutation in single strand DNA as occurs in egg cells and their 
repair is significantly different than for a regular cell that carries the male 
and the female’s DNA.  There is no apparent lower threshold for egg cell 
mutations that can be passed on to future generations of off spring and many 
subsequent individuals.  The problem is significant for small breeding 
populations of people, for example various indigenous folks.

Bob Cook

From: Alain Sepeda 
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

to be clear it is long ago proven that hormesis is real, thet there is 
structural threshold in genotoxic effects, ... 

As much as LENR is long time measured, ormesis and threshold are measured.
much meter tha Rossi's calorimetry.

every 6 month someone say that we have at last found that, and nobody cares...
we are unders propaganda war , and this is hopeless.


there is no epidemiology, nor biological tknowledge on cancerogenesis and 
genotoxicity that makes that result surpsing.


latest I caught is
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316085015.htm

but there are papers since decades on that.

LLNT is a joke, but news and politics are full of joke.

2016-05-13 15:37 GMT+02:00 Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com>:

  I agree.  There is too much assumption that harm created by pollution or 
radiation is perfectly linear, down to tiny amounts.  There doesn't seem to be 
any allowance for hormesis.   And, yes, I own solar panels.


  -Original Message-
  From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
  Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:58 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

  Jed,

  I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very 
flakey.
  Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies on 
models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.
  I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.

  I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For 
lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Don’t be so mean!

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:00 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

But there is a contradiction here since IH accepted that the Rossi reactor does 
produce gainful heat to the tune of $11,500,000.  

This payment was made on response to the demonstration of a COP 6 or above for 
a 24 hour period as defined in the license agreement.

You must be in error in your understanding as to the position that IH will take 
during the trial.

Both Rossi and IH had representatives present during the successful 24 hour 
test so the actions of the ERV were monitored and validated. 

This situation that you portray presents an affront to the logical mind.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

   
Jed or another could negotiate the COP down but by how much is the 
question. 50 is really high to come down from. 

  I cannot negotiate anything. I have no standing in this and no role. I am not 
a professional HVAC engineer licensed in Florida, so no lawyer and no court 
would ask my opinion. If anyone did, that is all I would say: "I am not a 
professional HVAC engineer licensed in Florida."

  Putting aside all of that, the COP is less than 1. The machine produces no 
excess heat. That is what I.H. experts concluded. The COP is not 50, not 6, not 
4, not 1.1. It is less than 1. There is no heat. That is why I.H. said it was 
not "substantiated." That's all there is to it.

  If the court accepts the judgment of professional experts who say there is no 
excess heat, then the case will be thrown out of court. End of story. That is 
what lawyers have told me. Mr. Pretend Lawyer Axil disagrees, but that is what 
actual lawyers say.

  - Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

Thanks for that correction.  I was reading the original agreement.  I assume 
the difference between 4 and 6 was only a matter of fine tuning for Rossi.  

The agreement indicated the requirement to identify the control procedures to 
operate the E-Cat.  What those procedures specify will be of interest relative 
to the achievement of a COP of 6 that you have identified as the higher 
performance required to earn the $89M.  Those controls may be the real 
indicator of the science behind the E-Cat.

Bob Cook



From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 8:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Hi,

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  I would note that all the Agreement called for is a COP of 4.

The second amendment to the agreement modified this detail to stipulate, as I 
understand it, a graduated payment for a COP between 2.6 and 6, with the full 
$89 million being owed at 6 or higher.

Eric


[1] 
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.4.pdf

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

See the Civil complaint that Rossi filed in the Federal Court:

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 1, Entered on FLSD Document 04/05/2016 Page 1.

I specifies: “CIVIL COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL”

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:50 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

How do you know that this trial will be a jury trial? Reference?

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:



  Axil--

  Rossi has asked for a jury trial.  The judge only listens to the arguments on 
either side and decides  if they are appropriate.  The Jury will decide whether 
or not the intent of the agreement was met.  I would agree the wording will be 
important to the decision of the Jury.  I am not sure what constitutes a 
favorable Jury decision in the Fed. Court regarding contractual agreements.  
Frequently the understanding of the person that did not write the contract is 
more important than the wording of the contract as presented and interpreted by 
the party that wrote the contract.  

  Any of the documents entered into the record can be review by the members of 
the Jury as each chooses I think.   Who authored the Agreement should be able 
to be determined by the Jury, if one side or the other wants that information 
to be presented.  It may be that the Jury can even ask the Judge to require 
that information to be incorporated into the court record.  

  It was my impression that the contract was written by IH and edited by Rossi. 
 I do not know.  In case of an edited version of a contract, there would be no 
deference as to the author I would guess, since both parties would have had a 
hand in the wording.  What the intent was in agreeing with certain wording is 
all important.  Vague contracts typically do not “old much water.”

  Bob Cook

  From: Axil Axil 
  Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:22 PM
  To: vortex-l 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

  The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the 
agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement were 
met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms of the 
Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert judgement, the 
terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then rule that the 
terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million must be paid to 
Rossi.

  What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used to 
make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this arbitration. 
The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he is the absolute 
agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to the legal case at 
hand.

  After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were Rossi's 
lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling any LENR 
based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH products contain 
no Rossi IP.


  On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

  IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.

IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any 
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it 
stands now, and as it will always stand.


  If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to 
pay Rossi the 89 million?

  Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the 
produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?

As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I 
cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well be 
discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.

It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW 
reactor does not work.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

You noted that:

“Think about it for a moment. Rossi says the machine is producing 50 times 
input. I.H. says it is producing no heat. One of them has to be drastically 
wrong. Completely, utterly mistaken, and grossly incompetent. Or, perhaps, 
fraudulent. There is no middle ground here.’

I would note that all the Agreement called for is a COP of 4.  If Rossi said he 
saw a COP of 50, which is consistent with his statements of reaching a self 
sustaining mode a number of different times, he harms nobody but his on 
credibility for the future.  

THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE PRODUCING 50 TIME THE INPUT ENERGY.  

I doubt IH would use his statements that he has violated the Agreement.

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 5:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:


  Jed States:

  "If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack 
his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the stand, 
to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."

  This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging, and severe. This 
statement causes me to wonder what the basis of this hostile feeling about a 
complete stranger comes from. There is no case made to support this reaction 
and no logic that leads to it.

Yes there is a case to be made for this, but you have not yet seen it. You will 
have to wait to see what I.H. presents before you can judge.

Think about it for a moment. Rossi says the machine is producing 50 times 
input. I.H. says it is producing no heat. One of them has to be drastically 
wrong. Completely, utterly mistaken, and grossly incompetent. Or, perhaps, 
fraudulent. There is no middle ground here.

As you know, I think I.H. is right and Rossi is wrong, based on what I know of 
the calorimetry. Therefore, I think Penon is either stupid or he is taking part 
in a fraud. I cannot tell which it is. Either way, he will be in trouble if he 
says it works, because any licensed HVAC engineer they put on the stand will 
have to testify that Penon is drastically wrong. Unless that engineer is 
willing to lose his license, he or she will have to say that. Rossi and Penon 
will be in trouble whether they are sincere or not. They will look bad. The 
authorities will suspect they are engaged in a fraud if they testify to 
something that every genuine expert says cannot be true.


  As far as my opinion on the law that applies in this case, I simply want to 
go on the record with an opinion based on logic and research.

This is about calorimetry. No information about the calorimetry has been 
released. There is no record for you to go on, and nothing for you to research. 
There is nothing for you apply logic to. You cannot do calorimetry by ESP. You 
have to look at actual facts. All of the "facts" you have presented here are 
either irrelevant or made up and false.


 
  How you reach your feelings appears to be based on hearsay from one of the 
parties in this dispute.

Several parties, with good confirmation.


  You seem to be inured to the self serving motives that might produce this 
information from such people.

I do not think there is any motivation for I.H. to throw away $11 million for 
no reason. If they thought it worked, they would pay for it.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Rossi has asked for a jury trial.  The judge only listens to the arguments on 
either side and decides  if they are appropriate.  The Jury will decide whether 
or not the intent of the agreement was met.  I would agree the wording will be 
important to the decision of the Jury.  I am not sure what constitutes a 
favorable Jury decision in the Fed. Court regarding contractual agreements.  
Frequently the understanding of the person that did not write the contract is 
more important than the wording of the contract as presented and interpreted by 
the party that wrote the contract.  

Any of the documents entered into the record can be review by the members of 
the Jury as each chooses I think.   Who authored the Agreement should be able 
to be determined by the Jury, if one side or the other wants that information 
to be presented.  It may be that the Jury can even ask the Judge to require 
that information to be incorporated into the court record.  

It was my impression that the contract was written by IH and edited by Rossi.  
I do not know.  In case of an edited version of a contract, there would be no 
deference as to the author I would guess, since both parties would have had a 
hand in the wording.  What the intent was in agreeing with certain wording is 
all important.  Vague contracts typically do not “old much water.”

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:22 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the 
agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement were 
met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms of the 
Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert judgement, the 
terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then rule that the 
terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million must be paid to 
Rossi.

What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used to 
make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this arbitration. 
The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he is the absolute 
agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to the legal case at 
hand.

After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were Rossi's 
lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling any LENR 
based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH products contain 
no Rossi IP.


On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.

  IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any 
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it 
stands now, and as it will always stand.


If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to 
pay Rossi the 89 million?

Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the 
produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?

  As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I 
cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well be 
discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.

  It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW reactor 
does not work.

  - Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Bob Cook]

Adrian--

I think it is a simple as Rossi using his skill (art not IP) at operation 
and tuning the proper conditions which is not part of the IP he agreed to 
transfer.  IH technicians have not learned the art yet, and, as others not 
proficient in the art of operating a E-Cat, are not able to get it to work 
very well, maybe only with continuous energy input.  The SSM nay only be 
achieved by application of Rossi's art.  Its like a trade secret that is not 
transferred as part of the Rossi/IH Agreement.  Reading of the Agreement as 
to what is required of Rossi is instructive.  Further review and discussion 
of that issue seems to be warranted.


As I have suggested before, if you want to play music for which no music is 
written  but only audibly available, then you have to learn to play by ear 
or make your own recordings, write the music as you hear or record it, and 
then you may be able to play something.   However recording what the E-Cat 
plays while at a COP of 4 to 6 may not have been accomplished by IH.  Rossi 
wants to get paid (maybe something extra) to tell them how to listen and 
teach IH to "tune the E-Cat by ear."


I wonder if that issue (the art of tuning) has been discussed between Rossi 
and IH.  I would bet the IH officials and their help at the signing of the 
agreement did not have much input to the details of the art of operation of 
the E-Cat, certainly not the Hot-Cat four years ago.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 7:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

I doubt anyone outside IH and Rossi's camps knows what happened.
IH did not specify the 1 MW plant didn't work in their statement,
although Jed has said he was told it didn't.  What they said was they
could not reproduce the results.  This could mean the IP they received
from Rossi was not sufficient.

I find it difficult to believe the ERV could make such a large error.
He is not an idiot and there were others involved too.   So, as before,
we should wait for more definite information in order to make sense of
the situation.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Adrian--

$17,600 plus about $5,000 for roof replacement (it was 28 years old with 
three layers of shingles).  The design work was about 2000 and the panels 
and installation about 15,000.  It will take about 5 years to get my 
investment in the solar panels back.  The panels are warranted for 25 and 
the WA state payment is good at a decreasing rate after 2020 until 2032 I 
believe.  Each panel produces 275 watts at full sun.  On May 10 at about 12 
noon they were producing 4300 watts.   This seems like it was above the 
rated output which surprised me.  The cost included a internet bases 
monitoring system at $600.   After it is paid off, it should add value to 
the worth of the house depending upon the going cost of electricity from a 
grid.  LENR I hope will make it become nearly worthless, but in the mean 
time..


Each micro inverter is connected via a modem in my basement to a company and 
a computer that keeps track of the integrated production of each panel.  The 
monitoring serves as a continuous gauge of the health of each panel and the 
micro inverters.  One inverter serves two adjacent panels and produces a 240 
AC current synchronized with the grid.


There are two meters for the power generation that the Utility Co. installed 
for no added cost.  One monitors the total power production of the panels 
and the other monitors the net out put to the Grid and hence what I use in 
the house using some arithmetic .  At the current time I am producing about 
twice as much energy as I use in the house per day.  The house meter runs 
backward most of the time during the day and when I take power from the grid 
at night it moves forward.  The link to the grid is via the breaker box in 
my basement.


If the system works as reliably as my on-grid system in Alaska--now 16 years 
old with no apparent degradation--I will be delighted.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

Bob,

How much did the 16 panel installation cost?

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Adrian-

I also own 16 solar panels.  Since they were installed on May 4, 2016 I have 
earned about $100 for the energy I have produced.  The current power being 
generated is at  3 kw at 9:30 in the morning.  I should do about 25 kwh 
today at about $0.63 / kwh.  :)   With a $5500 tax credit or more, I do not 
expect to pay any Federal income tax for 2016.


Washington is a progressive state in spite of the local Congressional 
Repetitive of our Eastern Washington District.


Bob Cook


-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

Chris Zell,
"And, yes, I own solar panels."

I can believe solar panels show a return for the owner - with sufficient
public subsidies.

[Vo]:Re: Rydberg Matter and electron orbitals

[Bob Cook]

Entangled and coherent when when applied to a system of stored energy means the 
same thing.  Such a system is a otherwise called a quantum mechanical system 
and is coupled by various force fields that can allow transmission of energy 
within and between different parts of the system separated by some finite 
distance.   

Is this your understanding of the term “entangled”.  

It is not clear whether you agree with the opinion you have noted below.  

I would disagree with the idea of the opinion that:

>>That means that all the atoms act in lock step so that the aggregation can be 
>>considered a superatom.

>>For this to be so, all individual atoms are in the same energy state, all 
>>electrons are synchronized in their orbits, all spins are identical, it can 
>>be thought of as all members of the >>aggregation are identical twins. 

I know of no coherent where all electrons are synchronized in their orbits.  
Some coherent systems may not have any unique electrons, only positrons and 
anti protons for example.  


It would be helpful to give some examples of what you are describing.


Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rydberg Matter and electron orbitals

There is an opinion around that says that all atoms that comprise rydberg 
matter are entangled. 

In this state, a cluster of N atoms form a lattice in which each member of this 
aggregation is identical to all the other members of the aggregation.

That means that all the atoms act in lock step so that the aggregation can be 
considered a superatom.

For this to be so, all individual atoms are in the same energy state, all 
electrons are synchronized in their orbits, all spins are identical, it can be 
thought of as all members of the aggregation are identical twins. 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  One key feature that Higgins has identified is the nature of the outer (way 
out) electron.  He noted that it is planar in nature and the outer electron can 
exhibit different shapes and angular momentum and interact with nuclei.  in the 
RM to hold it together---a bond.  Such bonding suggests a coherent QM system.  

  I would conjecture that if Li were the nuclei that had formed RM that such a 
loose electron  might also interact with other local nuclei, for example H and 
or Ni in a solid state nano system to form a fairly large coherent system.  The 
low energy changes may resonate with energy changes of nuclei and provide a 
mechanism for transfer of nuclear energy to the loose electrons of the coherent 
system.  Different RM orbitals may, as Higgins suggests, provide a variety of 
spin and angular momentum equivalent to phonic (vibrational) energy for the 
nano system.  A large enough system may be able to accept a large amount of 
nuclear energy that is associated with transmutation or fusion of  nuclei.  
System temperatures with its characteristic spectrum of phonic energy, magnetic 
fields (either static or variable) and other forms of small energy additions 
and/or removal, may all be important in establishing energy and angular 
momentum states within a coherent system to allow a major nuclear transition to 
occur.  

  It should be noted that the ambient magnetic field acts to establish energy 
states for the loosely bound electrons and may orient the RM to facilitate 
coupling of nuclear magnetic states with the electron orbital states. 

  One thought about the dense RM is that the use of lasers may be to actually 
cool the atoms to remove energy of their electrons.  Laser cooling is used to 
reach very low cryogenic temperatures.  The common notion that the Holmlid 
laser adds energy may be wrong. I am not sure what the experimental data 
suggests is happening.   Holmlid statements would seem to indicate that energy 
is removed to form his suspected dense H(0) which then reacts to provide the 
excess energy, muons etc.   

  Bob Cook

  From: Bob Higgins 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:10 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rydberg Matter and electron orbitals

  In RM of hydrogen, I there is only one electron, and it is in the orbital for 
that high energy state.  Maybe it is considered a Rydberg orbital, where the S 
orbital would be lower (ground) energy and spherical.  I don't know much about 
RM with other atoms, but I think it is just an outer electron in such a Rydberg 
orbital and the rest of the electrons are pretty much in their ordinary 
orbitals as though it were an ion, having lost one electron.  The Rydberg 
electron would be so far away, as far as the rest of the electrons were 
concerned, it probably seems like it is gone.


  On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

Thanks Bob,

That it helps a lot I must admit I have a lot to learn about Rydberg 
matter. Would these highly excited and Bohr

[Vo]:Re: Rydberg Matter and electron orbitals

[Bob Cook]

One key feature that Higgins has identified is the nature of the outer (way 
out) electron.  He noted that it is planar in nature and the outer electron can 
exhibit different shapes and angular momentum and interact with nuclei.  in the 
RM to hold it together---a bond.  Such bonding suggests a coherent QM system.  

I would conjecture that if Li were the nuclei that had formed RM that such a 
loose electron  might also interact with other local nuclei, for example H and 
or Ni in a solid state nano system to form a fairly large coherent system.  The 
low energy changes may resonate with energy changes of nuclei and provide a 
mechanism for transfer of nuclear energy to the loose electrons of the coherent 
system.  Different RM orbitals may, as Higgins suggests, provide a variety of 
spin and angular momentum equivalent to phonic (vibrational) energy for the 
nano system.  A large enough system may be able to accept a large amount of 
nuclear energy that is associated with transmutation or fusion of  nuclei.  
System temperatures with its characteristic spectrum of phonic energy, magnetic 
fields (either static or variable) and other forms of small energy additions 
and/or removal, may all be important in establishing energy and angular 
momentum states within a coherent system to allow a major nuclear transition to 
occur.  

It should be noted that the ambient magnetic field acts to establish energy 
states for the loosely bound electrons and may orient the RM to facilitate 
coupling of nuclear magnetic states with the electron orbital states. 

One thought about the dense RM is that the use of lasers may be to actually 
cool the atoms to remove energy of their electrons.  Laser cooling is used to 
reach very low cryogenic temperatures.  The common notion that the Holmlid 
laser adds energy may be wrong. I am not sure what the experimental data 
suggests is happening.   Holmlid statements would seem to indicate that energy 
is removed to form his suspected dense H(0) which then reacts to provide the 
excess energy, muons etc.   

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rydberg Matter and electron orbitals

In RM of hydrogen, I there is only one electron, and it is in the orbital for 
that high energy state.  Maybe it is considered a Rydberg orbital, where the S 
orbital would be lower (ground) energy and spherical.  I don't know much about 
RM with other atoms, but I think it is just an outer electron in such a Rydberg 
orbital and the rest of the electrons are pretty much in their ordinary 
orbitals as though it were an ion, having lost one electron.  The Rydberg 
electron would be so far away, as far as the rest of the electrons were 
concerned, it probably seems like it is gone.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

  Thanks Bob,

  That it helps a lot I must admit I have a lot to learn about Rydberg matter. 
Would these highly excited and Bohr atom like elliptical orbitals still 
correspond to some kind of quantum mechanical orbital? Perhaps a highly excited 
S orbital or something? Even highly excited P, D, F and G orbitals would tend 
to have more complex shapes I think? I suppose it would depend on the orbitals 
angular momentum. I suppose we might also need to consider the spin as well as 
angular momentum though in the models if quantum mechanical models are used. 
Perhaps at these energies the Bohr Model fits better the observed behavior.



  On 11 mei 2016, at 20:05, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:


Stephen,  My understanding is that Rydberg hydrogen is highly excited 
hydrogen - it is just below an energy that the hydrogen would be ionized.  In 
fact, small energy inputs to hydrogen in a Rydberg state will ionize it.  As I 
understand the orbitals for Rydberg state hydrogen they are huge diameter 
flattened ellipsoids.  Because of this, it is not too far off to consider it 
like a Bohr model.  In Rydberg Matter (RM), all of the atoms have an electron 
in a large flattened ellipsoid shape which now loops some of the other nuclei 
in the RM to hold it together.  RM naturally forms as a large planar 
"snowflake", but can easily be warped in a field gradient.  RM is well 
characterized from its rotational spectrum.


OTOH, the ultra-dense form is nearly pure imagination at this point, based 
on very slim data.  If an ultra-dense form happens, how could it be formed from 
high energy matter like RM?  Normally the very small is only achieved when 
substantial energy is removed from the system.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Stephen Cooke 
<stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  Has anyone looked at RM from the point of view of quantum mechanical 
electron orbitals? If so could you help me understand some crazy thoughts and 
questions I have about it ?

  I understand Rydberg hydrogen matter typically forms 

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jim Dunn’s background is identified at the following link:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:James_Dunn

His technical background does not seem to be in thermal hydraulics.  He seems 
to be more of a marketer for hydrogen fuel and renewable energy.  There could 
have been some conflict of interest with Rossi’s goals of marketing his E-Cat.  
Who knows, maybe Rossi saw thru the $15 M offer Jed talks about and concluded 
it was not for him.  

Of course Jed has a good handle on Rossi’s motives and very well may be correct 
about Dunn’s assessment.

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach 
to LENR 's existentil problems

Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  Hi Jed, do you know what the temperature of the steam was? 


I know practically nothing about this device. Rossi never described it. Jim 
Dunn never got a chance to evaluate it, because Rossi threw him out. There are 
some photos of it at Krivit's site but no detailed descriptions.

You should talk to Jim for details. There is no point to asking Rossi.

The venture capitalists assisted by NASA experts were offering Rossi $15 
million as I recall. Rossi refused to do a proper demo for them after the first 
one nearly blew up. He said he "did not have time." That's pathological.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R work.  They are not 
above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you remember 
your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their experiments.  
As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the ambient 
air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system temperatures in 
the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC knowhow.  

You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold 
fusion is “simply absurd.”  

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 4:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach 
to LENR 's existentil problems

Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as 
the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you.  Most of them are the same 
government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has 
tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the 
great expense  of civilization  IMHO.

Oh give me a break. That's such nonsense. Such unfounded, ignorant bullshit! 
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you think I was born yesterday? I can judge people and judge facts myself. I 
have independent confirmation of the events with NASA. Everyone there told me 
the same story, and even Rossi confirmed it in his own way, attacking them as 
snakes etc. I saw the documents.

More to the point, nearly every dollar of support for cold fusion has come from 
governments, mainly in Italy, but also in Japan and the U.S. DARPA, NASA and 
others are the only friends we have. Most researchers worked for the 
government. The leading people in the field such as Martin Fleischmann, Ed 
Storms, Pam Boss and Tadahiko Mizuno never worked a day in their lives for 
anyone but the government. To say that the government opposes cold fusion is 
simply absurd.

Of course there are factions in the government opposed to it. But there are no 
factions in private industry in favor of it, anywhere.


  Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D system 
which they developed and continue to develop IMHO.

There are no more reports because no one is doing research. They are all 
retired, or dead. If they were still working, I would know about it. Everything 
the government does is an open book. 


This is the only program they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest 
were dark programs in my not-so-humble opinion.

There are no dark programs. They tried to replicate Ni-H and got nowhere. They 
offered Rossi enormous support. Everything he asked for: millions of dollars 
with no strings attached. He turned them down flat, after nearly killing them.


  I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified them 
over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog. 

I have no reason to hide the names! Everyone knows I mean Jim Dunn, Mike Nelson 
and others. If you don't believe my account, ask them yourself. Why would they 
lie about this?

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as 
the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you.  Most of them are the same 
government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has 
tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the 
great expense  of civilization  IMHO.

Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D system 
which they developed and continue to develop IMHO.  This is the only program 
they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest were dark programs in my 
not-so-humble opinion.

I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified them 
over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog.  

Bob Cook







From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 2:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach 
to LENR 's existentil problems

Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust 
those that seem to support Rossi’s comments. 

It may seem so to you, but you are wrong. I have met with and worked with many 
people who worked with Rossi -- or tried to work with him. People from the 
Navy, NASA and elsewhere, and also venture capitalists. I know a lot about 
their interactions. I am not free to describe everything I know, but I believe 
what they told me, and based on this information, I do not trust Rossi and I 
think he is incompetent. This is not what I "want to believe." It is a 
conclusion I reached carefully after many years and dozens of conversations, 
e-mails, formal reports, proposals and so on.

Frankly, I resent it when you claim this is what I "want" to believe, and when 
others here say I am jumping to conclusions based on thin evidence. Why the 
hell would I "want" to conclude that I.H. wasted $11 million?!? Schadenfreude? 
Do you think I want to see the last, best hope for funding cold fusion 
destroyed? After devoting years of my life to this effort, do you think I 
"want" to see millions of dollars wasted?


You have no idea what I know or who I have talked to. You have no basis for 
making these assertions. Furthermore, if you know me, you will know that I am 
very careful about judging people or experiments, and I bend over backwards to 
give people the benefit of the doubt. I do not jump to conclusion. But I also 
do not deny overwhelming evidence from dozens of people describing Rossi's 
behavior. I spent three days at a conference talking informally with the people 
from NASA who Rossi almost killed. I know what happened, in detail. I know 
about the financial support they were offering him. That incident alone proves 
that Rossi is grossly irresponsible, incompetent, a loose cannon, and either 
crazy or criminal. You need to get a grip and think about what he did:

He seriously endangered people's lives.

He got angry and denied it when they showed him the pipe was clogged and there 
was high pressure steam leaking out of the welded joints.

He and everyone in the room evacuated when it became apparent there was no 
safety valve.

They later opened the reactor and proved it had been on the verge of an 
explosion.

He refused to do the test again properly!

When they told him they could not pay him millions of dollars as discussed, 
because he would not do a test, he became infuriated and he threw them out.

Rossi has done this sort of thing time after time, not just with this group but 
with others. This is only one example out of many. Based on this incident 
alone, he has no credibility and nothing he says can be believed.

The people at I.H., on the other hand, have loads of credibility. If they say 
the 1-year test produced no excess heat, and Rossi says it produced 50 times 
input, I believe them. I have abundant, well-grounded reasons for believing 
them. It is not a conclusion that I jumped to the day the lawsuit was announced.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust those 
that seem to support Rossi’s comments.  

Along the lines of throwing people out of offices, I was once after 
interviewing for a job thrown out of a an apparently competent engineer’s 
office.  The organization, 4 hours later, informed me that I got the job.  As a 
result of that job, I eventually realized over a million dollars without 
lifting a finger.  

I concluded in the long run that  the competent engineer was more competent 
than was evident based on the interview.  

All I can say is there are different strokes for different folks.  Rossi is 
clearly a different folk as some have suggested by highlighting his difficult 
personality.  

That competent engineer that I mentioned above mentored me with the motto “No 
friction, no motion”.  I found it to be a way to get at the truth and to get 
people to reveal their real motives, frequently hiding facts.  It did not help 
me win any popularity contests, however.  And I  doubt I will be so-honored in 
the future by winning.  

Bob Cook



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 12:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to 
LENR 's existentil problems

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:


  
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

  Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’

People wouldn't believe for good reason. All of Rossi's previous claims were 
either false or demonstrated so badly it is impossible to judge. I got tired of 
his shenanigans years ago. If he had what he claimed, he could have done a 
proper test and convinced everyone. Many experts advised him on ways to do a 
convincing test. He ignored them. Instead, he did test after test in ways that 
proved nothing.

When Jim Dunn and the people from NASA pointed out that he was making a 
dangerous mistake and the reactor was plugged up, and on the verge of 
exploding, he was furious with them. He refused to fix the problem or do the 
test again. He threw them out! They were offering him millions of dollars and 
he would not even lift a finger to do a proper test. After that incident there 
was no doubt left in my mind that Rossi is either very stupid or a fraud -- or 
both. Anyone who would do that has zero credibility.


  Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues:

I don't believe that guy either.

Is he an employee of I.H.? I doubt it, but if he is they should fire him.

Rossi's blog is not a reliable source of information.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--

I agree with most of what you say below.  However, my reading of the agreement 
between Rossi and IH does not include unlimited transfer of IP by Rossi.  I 
thought the scope of the IP involved was spelled out in the specific documents 
containing the IP.  I would not suppose that it entails are the subsequent 
understanding of the suggested Quark-X device and the details of that design 
developed on Rossi’s own time as a principle of the Leonardo Corp.  

As best I can see from the agreement, the idea was to demonstrate a long term 
test with an average COP of at least 4.  This was (possibly) accomplished.  The 
art of Rossi’s ability to tune the E-Cat X was not part of the agreement.  I 
think that is the main issue to be left to the Jury to decide.  

I do not see that there was agreement for “technology transfer” in the context 
you suggest.  As I note above, the promises of the written contract will be 
determined by the Jury.  I do not think that transfer of rights to a patent 
include the transfer of the “art” necessary to make the patented device work at 
an elevated performance level.  Its like saying in a patent that 20 weight oil 
is what is specified for IC motor operation under 2500 rpm.  Anybody in the 
know about IC engine operations knows that 40 weight oil works better at high 
temperatures and is required for extended engine lifetime.   

I think it happens all the time that Government researchers with government 
patents go out on their own with their own knowhow to produce a superior 
invention and may keep trade secrets associated with the superior (no-patent) 
invention to themselves  

Furthermore, it may be Rossi’s intent to provide additional operating 
instructions to IH for the E-Cat to get the 4 COP out of it,  once the $89 M is 
ponied up.   

I would think that the Jury will make clear what the agreed upon COP is.  

Finally, I totally agree with you about Focardi, and I have considered Focardi 
was an honest reporter of the excess energy produced by the Ni-H system.   

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to 
LENR 's existentil problems

Nothing I have seen reported, has proven Rossi has no technology now and never 
had any.  Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims.  Maybe even Rossi is 
deceiving himself.  Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has deceptively over 
reported his results.  I don't believe Focardi was deceived - I think Focardi 
saw real energy creation - and that is what leaves me with hope for this Rossi 
episode.  So, I am NOT willing to say at this point that I think Rossi has no 
LENR technology.  Though the case of "always net 0" is still possible.


I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working LENR 
technology using what Rossi has disclosed to them.  This is a completely 
different situation than Rossi having no technology.  We know Rossi is a 
difficult character from which to get technology transfer.  Look at his 
previous failed relationships.  I suspect that he sold the license agreement to 
IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just threw them a few 
bones of information - this is not technology transfer.


How should this be resolved?  Rossi should now be joined at the hip permanently 
with IH until he delivers what he promised them.  Rossi is claiming high COP, 
high power LENR technology.  Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every 
single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab.  Their 
creation should be measured in IH's lab together and agree on the performance.  
If it doesn't work reliably, then Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + 
Rossi invents a way to make it reliable.  

It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be able 
to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them.  Rossi should 
not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and delivers this 
kind of technology transfer.  If he truly has no technology, then he is stuck 
there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he admits that he really 
has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to damages).  He will have to prove 
himself without the smoke and mirrors.  Once he has done this successfully, he 
should be entitled to the full terms of the contract.


The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his 
contract.  I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this 
situation.  Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing.


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

  a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

"I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press 
release:"

I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. 

  O

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

You noted: 

“I suppose governments will step in if things get usurious.”

I also hope so for the sake of City dwellers in Anchorage and Fairbanks does 
something.   For example, the State could use eminent domain to take over the 
oil leases and the pipeline from the usurious oil companies and at least 
provide propane and natural gas for off grid systems until LENR comes on.  It 
could also provide a nice incentive for companies under Alaska corporate 
charters to locate in Alaska for manufacturing/industrial purposes to replace 
the extensive oil interests.  As of now, that may be too progressive for the 
establishment in political control. 

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:


  If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable energy 
and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller and 
cheaper.  But this does not help the power companies that have already made the 
big investment in delivering lots of power to your home.  This is why there is 
a war between the power companies and those promoting and using such 
distributed power systems.  The war will last over 20 years and we are far from 
seeing the worst of it.  Many big utility companies will go out of business 
before it is done.  Some utility bonds will fail.


And, if your earlier point turns out to be true, there will be a 
disproportionate impact on lower income people who are unable to afford the 
cost of switching to such distributed power systems. I suppose governments will 
step in if things get usurious.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--

The political environment is all important, particularly the different 
environments between states.  In progressive liberal states, Washington falling 
into this category IMHO, the utilities do not have the power that they have in 
states such as Florida and and the middle west and Texas.  Alaska, where I 
vote, does not have a strong utility infrastructure and is ripe for distributed 
energy systems.  It’s way to costly to build such a system there, except in 
large cities,  Anchorage and Fairbanks.  I have been off the grid for 16 years 
there.  

Another difference is the existence of public utilities rather than investor 
owned ones.  The hydroelectric power in Washington is mostly publically owned 
and provides fairly cheap power.  Even so the large cities in the West like 
Seattle are quite progressive and are leading the way for the support of 
distributed power systems.  Together with the Federal government incentives, I 
have a solar system in Washington on a house that I use in the winter.  I 
expect to pay off that system in 3 to 4 years.  If it is as good as reliable as 
the solar installation I have in Alaska, it should last a long time without 
much upkeep costs.  A large number  (in the 60’s I think) of the Washington 
utilities have signed on to the program.   

Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

The problem with the strategy presented by Smith/Edison is that the big 
electric power utility companies have already made the big investment in 
distribution.  Smith describes a new installation.  The technology for the 
power management he describes is available today - you can go out and buy it 
for your house (not new).  You can install solar, wind, etc and batteries and 
have a single power management station.  What will be the result?  You will 
draw less power from the electric utility.  If you draw less power from the 
electric utility, you pay less toward maintenance of the big investment the 
power companies have already made (power companies profit >50% on each kWH they 
sell you).  They will fight tooth and nail to prevent this income reduction to 
insure they get the return they promised their investors on the huge investment 
in big infrastructure.  Face it, that's their job - to provide that return to 
the investors in utility bonds.


If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable energy 
and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller and 
cheaper.  But this does not help the power companies that have already made the 
big investment in delivering lots of power to your home.  This is why there is 
a war between the power companies and those promoting and using such 
distributed power systems.  The war will last over 20 years and we are far from 
seeing the worst of it.  Many big utility companies will go out of business 
before it is done.  Some utility bonds will fail.


On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Ken Deboer <barlaz...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Vis a vis this excellent thread, I'd be interested in people's thoughts about 
a new video by Robert Murray Smith on "The Internet of Energy".   This looks to 
me to be better than Tesla's technology, and in fact, a very significant 
advance for, especially, widespread solar. 
  ken   


  On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular level 
of insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You are free to 
leave when you like.

Eric


On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com> wrote:


  > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
  >>
  >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
<blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
  >>
  >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet
  >>>
  >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower
  >>>
  >>
  >> Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will 
allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may end 
up saving humanity where LENR would doom it.
  >>
  >> Eric


  * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus 
is essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence of 
some degree.

  * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic 
social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact.


  * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual, 
unfortunately) way.



  And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such 
a basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is

Re: Fwd: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Frank--

Edsels only sold a few copies, but cars did not go out of style.

The following link is instructive as to marketing something:

http://www.businessinsider.com/lessons-from-the-failure-of-the-ford-edsel-2015-9

Bob Cook

From: Frank Znidarsic 
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 6:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to 
LENR 's existentil problems

Just last week someone arranged a meeting with me and two one star generals 
from the NAVY and the Army.  They took my book and said that they would have it 
reviewed.  The one said,  "If I tell them to read it they will read it!"  My 
fiancée said,  "I cant believe what just went down!  How did that happen?"  I 
replied,  "I have experience in this area.  Nothing will come of it."  She 
accepted that answer.  Today, I am working on digging out a stump and looking 
for a new direction.  My apps only sold one. 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text=%22znidarsic+science+books%22=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22


Don't hold your breath waiting for the generals.

Frank 

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Yesterday at 10:15 AM I starting making solar power and distributing it to the 
grid at $0.63 per Kwh.   (Washington is progressive.)  I used about 4 Kwh’s at 
the house that cost me $0.50.  I produced about 18 Kwh before it clouded over 
at about 3 PM.  I banked about $8.82.   This summer while in Alaska, off the 
grid, I will bank nearly all the energy I produce in Washington.  It should be 
about $2000 worth.   

Hopefully the Government concludes it better to eliminate the hot fusion work 
and spend the savings on tax credits for home owners like me.  Between site 
preparation, equipment purchase and installation, I have earned a Federal tax 
credit of about $7000.   I am not sure yet about depreciation of the solar 
array (16 panels) and roof under it yet.   That may add to additional tax 
savings.

I need a more efficient computer and to get a clothes line for the yard. 

Bob Cook



From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 4:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> 
wrote:


  Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet 

  http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower


Indeed.  If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will allow it 
to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may end up saving 
humanity where LENR would doom it.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: DCE, PEC and TiH2

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:Re: DCE, PEC and TiH2Jones--

Several additional observations/ideas:

1. If resonances are involved in the mechanism(s)   for release of heat, 
getting two or more associated with different mechanisms to happen at the same 
time (or in a very short time) may be tough and be the reason why LENR is so 
difficult to replicate.   However, this may be the necessary condition to allow 
exchange of energy within a coherent system which includes both nuclear and 
chemical bonds. 

2. I have long thought that the Ockham’s razor dictum is only an empirical 
model—something like the Standard Model—   It does not appear to hold as 
phenomena get complicated, particularly when reactions occur within the 
confines of a coherent system with many entities taking part.   

3.  Anharmonic phenomena are good examples of complexity in non-coherent 
systems that happen unexpectedly and take time to understand.  

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 8:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: DCE, PEC and TiH2

From: Bob Cook 



If I understand the crux of your theory, there is a phase change going on that 
harvests energy from some source…In the cases where a plasma is apparent, what 
is the nature of the phase change you indicate is happening?  



Bob,

One of the main problems with LENR from the start is that observers have 
desperately desired to streamline the appearance of excess heat down to a 
single cause/effect, preferably of a nuclear origin. In fact there could be 
multiple things going on in any one experiment, despite Ockham’s razor. Rarely 
does Ockham provide effective guidance in science. Things are always more 
complex, the closer your look and in fact the inverse of Ockham is more likely 
to be useful.

These differing sub-effects of “hydrogen loaded metals” could be as many as six 
to ten independent phenomena, which can interact in such a way that excess heat 
happens, or endotherm happens, or transmutation happens, or excess heat happens 
in balance with endotherm and in several different ways and disappears 
unexpectedly… but none of these effects are guaranteed to be either independent 
or closely related. Yet, because of Ockham, many observers feel the 
overwhelming need to label it all under a single base cause, which includes 
fusion.

My main point is that it is a mistake to try to shoehorn everything into any 
umbrella grouping: whether it  be a cold-fusion category, or a Storms NAE 
effect or a Mills-effect category or a Holmlid-effect category … but this is 
what happens all the time. Plus, two or more categories can be interrelated at 
one level and independent on another level such that complexity alwasy prevails.

But this predicament is not hopeless. When stripped down to basics, there is 
one effect which must precede all the others. It involves the “loading” of 
hydrogen or deuterium, for lack of a better word. 

It is possible to envision the “cyclical loading/unloading” effect which is 
highlighted in the Miley paper which was cited, as the simplest thermal anomaly 
of all. Yet this one is grouped into the LENR category despite having no 
nuclear nexus. Other effects may build on it in a nuclear way - since it is the 
most basic effect, but it should be understood on its own. 

This most basic loading/unloading effect is characterized by being:

1) Non-nuclear

2) Low COP for thermal gain - and in fact sometimes showing anomalous 
cooling

3) Limited to a narrow range of heat and pressure

4) Involves phase-change and a magnetic field interaction

5) Possibly involved in hydrogen densification, but only after an extended 
period of time

6) Generally ignored or missed as being relevant since it is a slow effect 
which can be endothermic or have a period of endotherm.

I hope this post will serve as the start of a total and long overdue 
“de-Ockhamization” of LENR… J

Jones

[Vo]:Re: DCE, PEC and TiH2

[Bob Cook]

DCE, PEC and TiH2Jones--

If I understand the crux of your theory, there is a phase change going on that 
harvests energy from some source.

In the cases where a plasma is apparent, what is the nature of the phase change 
you indicate is happening?  

Maybe the “plasmas” in some of the active experiments are really charged 
nano-scale particles, big enough to exhibit phases and stay together during 
changes.  The same sort of thing may happen in a large molecule with changes 
associated with the left-right-handedness induced by a  resonant magnetic or 
electric field.  

There might be a nuclear source of the extra energy as well as your suggestion 
of the creation of virtual photons by DCE.   

me356’s Vortex-l email this morning is interesting in this regard—particularly 
the purple glow in his quartz see-in reactor.  It seems like there may be a 
resonance of some sort there.   Me356 notes that it does not happen without 
tuning his control, whatever that is?

The art of LENR is all important!

Bob Cook 

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 2:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DCE, PEC and TiH2

One interesting detail to add: It is somewhat outrageous to imagine that 
cyclical loading/unloading of hydrogen into a hydride storage metal such as 
palladium - and that alone - can cause temperature increase in both directions.

Mainstream physics, and most hands-on experimentation, teaches that there is 
symmetry and that conservation of energy prevails in such a common system - and 
that exotherm on loading is balanced by endotherm on unloading.

But here is a understated paper found by Jack Cole, from a couple of years ago 
where George Miley, Xiaoling Yang and their postgrads at Illinois-Urbana manage 
to easily find and document a massive and glaring asymmetry with 
loading/unloading of deuterium in palladium… and hello… somehow the mainstream 
of physics manages to ignore the profound implications. Go figure.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf

--- 

This is the first part of a formative hypothesis for anomalous thermal gain, 
which explains terminology and acronyms but does not dig deeply into Holmlid’s 
past work, nor into Mills, but instead presents a hybridized alternative to 
thermal gain. The gain is ostensibly non-nuclear so long as the laser is not 
used.

The dynamical Casimir effect, DCE - is a proved relativistic effect of 
nanoscale geometry. It was first demonstrated in 2011 as a mechanism for 
anomalous energy gain involving photons being “created” (from virtual photons). 
Heretofore that type of gain has been too small to use in a practical device. 
Curiously, the DCE was first seen in Gothenburg, the home of Leif Holmlid, but 
the Professor has not yet seen the connection of DCE to hydrogen densification 
- nor to excess energy which will be presented here. This proposed route does 
not involve a vacuum or the laser per se, but is a new route using what is 
called PEC and would be powered by DCE.

PEC is short for photo-electric-catalysis and is one of the hottest topics in 
chemistry these days, thanks to nano-geometry. PEC has been most often used to 
split water using solar radiation, but that is the tip of an iceberg of 
applications. PEC - at least as it will be used in this hypothesis, can be 
employed without vacuum condition - as the major pathway for hydrogen 
densification, leading to UDH or to an intermediate form of f/H (fractional 
hydrogen) operating in the gas phase (as opposed to plasma phase). PEC is 
boosted by the surface plasmon polariton, or else is intrinsic to SPP – but 
operates without the substantial ionization necessary for Mills version - which 
means low temperature operation. 

TiH2 is the nominal hydride of titanium when fully loaded, but the average 
amount of hydrogen per atom of Ti can vary substantially, causing major 
structural changes and stress in the packing arrangement of the crystal 
structure as the ratio changes. TiH(1.95) is a typical ratio as supplied 
commercially. Note that with palladium, the loading of hydrogen almost never 
gets to a full 1:1 but with Ti it is relatively easy to get to 2:1, but the 
important thing is that phase-change accompanies the various ratios, and this 
has profound thermal repercussions without invoking nuclear reactions.

TiHx approaches stoichiometry as TiH2 and it wants to adopt a distorted 
body-centered tetragonal structure but there are at least two other phase 
structures “competing for space” along the way, and in a narrow range. At 
ratios of H:Ti which are between 1.5:1 and 1.9:1 this crystal can become 
unstable with respect to isothermal decomposition (dehydrogenation). The 
crystal can rapidly decompose even at room temperature until an approximate 
composition of TiH(1.74) is reached. Normally dehydrogenation is endothermic 
but some of the phases of titanium hydride are unique, and this points to 
eventual asymmetry

[Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Bob Cook]

Ruby--

You noted:
”Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect to 
see,
so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.”

Not to drive a dead horse, but I would not call the “many” that “see only what 
they expect to see” scientists.  That state of mind keeps them from the rolls 
of scientists, IMHO.   

For humans in general your comment that “so the obvious to one is not the 
obvious to another” is very true IMHO.  This agreement coming from  being 
married to a good human for 50 years in July of this year. 

To reach your goal of consensus on basic ideas, you need a committee of three 
true scientists that are all independent (never worked together) to select two 
committees of scientists (not too many—maybe 7 or 9) who are to develop a 
consensus—100% agreement on the basics. The 3 original selecting persons should 
oversee the working committees actions and discussions and by consensus of the 
3, replace any working committee members not using scientific process in 
deliberation, or not able to grasp the obvious.   

The results of the committees should be compared at the end of the work.  The 3 
member selection committee should be responsible for identifying reasons why 
the two separate consensus of basics were different, if they are not the same.  
This would be accomplished by questioning the two committees as to the rational 
of the basic ideas set forth, and listening to the comments/responses of one  
committee to the others consensus.  

The committee of three would then be responsible to establish their own 
consensus of basics ideas—theories.  

I worked in an organization for 18 years where a similar tactic was used to 
develop a working technology.  The competition among committees (groups of 
engineers and scientists) was an important factor in a quality consensus.  
However, there was generally only one or two individual 
technologists—scientists/engineers—instead of a committee of 3 making the final 
decision about the theory.  

Bob 

From: Ruby 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


Thank you Bob for clarifying that.  
I did not know what you meant.
I do agree, science should not reject obvious data -by definition!  

Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect to 
see,
so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.  

LENR is unique in that there is no consensus on what is happening from the 
community itself even after almost three decades of research data. 
there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in to 
form the theory.
Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all.
So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone?

I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would pledge 
to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that would form the 
core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ..

Ruby


On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

  I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the 
obvious.I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s 
paper, and  some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct scientific 
action.  

  I repeat my earlier comment—“It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large 
fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.”

  The folks I have in mind are found at DOD, DOE and many other places like 
universities and media outlets.  Ed worked at one such  DOE entity any years, 
as did I, although not the same one.  I thought that Ed was referring to the 
managements of such places (and not many of the true scientists that worked 
with him) when he identified the option they have.

  Thanks again for your comment, 

  Bob


  From: Ruby 
  Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info



  That is to say "accept the experimental results  and form a theory around the 
data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model.  

  The contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience".



  On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

Peter--

You quoted Ed Storms as follows:

“Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept 
the impossible” (Ed Storms) 

IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying 
to explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real phenomena. 

To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is not part of science.  
Thus, this is not an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous 
people  who claim to know the truth. 

It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called 
scientific community is made up of such folks.   
  
Bob Cook


From: Robert Dorr 
  

[Vo]:Re: Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

I would not worry about the NRC.  Its jurisdiction does not extend to 
transmuted waste, unless the transmutation occurs as the result of a reactor 
that uses a special nuclear material—uranium, plutonium etc.  Then it is called 
a by product material and does fall under NRC licensing.  

For example, material activation from accelerator operations do not come under 
NRC purview.  I do think EPA regulation covers those accelerated produced 
wastes.  

Bob

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 2:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

Bob,

 

As mentioned in another thread, John Dash found excess heat and nuclear 
transmutation using pure titanium cathode and heavy water many years ago. 
Impurities in the Titanium are not needed… that is, if you use deuterium. But 
can we accept the consequences of radioactive transmutation products?

 

>From a commercial standpoint, it is desirable to use light water and find 
>non-nuclear gain via DCE, even if the gain is less. The net cost will be 
>acceptable since there will be no impediment to usage of the device in 
>transportation or home, where anything producing toxic isotopes will be 
>proscribed due to the inevitability of accidents.

 

Titanium hydride is way cheaper than the Hunter nickel powder these days (I 
recently bought a kilo) but heavy water is locked-in as expensive. It is in 
mass production already (due to CANDU) so the high cost will go no lower. 

 

Even if the yield for TiH2 is an order of magnitude less per unit of titanium, 
but the cost of deuterium is avoided along with transmutation products and NRC 
interference, it would seem to be preferable to go the non-nuclear route. 

 

This understated and almost unknown R is some of the best news of the year 
for alternative energy - if it can be validated in the USA: we should look 
forward to hearing more from the Ukraine/Russian group on this. Wouldn’t they 
love to make up for the embarrassment of Chernobyl with a breakthrough like 
this…?

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

The correct impurities may allow for a higher reaction temperature for the LENR 
to go in SS mode. Excess energy from phase transition of the coherent system 
may be all it takes to induce LENR reactions involving nuclide changes and 
excess energy. In spite of “Coulomb Barriers”, the system may want to reach a 
more stable state with lower kinetic energy per nucleon and proceed to 
accomplish this goal. “

 

As suggested above, there may be a nuclear source of energy to feed the phase 
transitions associated with the Ti addition.

 

[Vo]:Re: Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

Back on April 21 I commented:

“Could impurities in the Ti or Ni FCC structure create a bigger 5 atom hole 
with a greater transition energy, particularly as changes from alpha to beta 
phases occur? The correct impurities may allow for a higher reaction 
temperature for the LENR to go in SS mode. Excess energy from phase transition 
of the coherent system may be all it takes to induce LENR reactions involving 
nuclide changes and excess energy. In spite of “Coulomb Barriers”, the system 
may want to reach a more stable state with lower kinetic energy per nucleon and 
proceed to accomplish this goal. “

As suggested above, there may be a nuclear source of energy to feed the phase 
transitions associated with the Ti addition.
Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 10:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

From: Jack Cole 

 

Maybe Rossi has finally found something that will work (e.g., using a method 
similar to Andrew Hrischanovich with titanium).

 

This is interesting work from Ukraine/Russia. One of the claims, according to 
Alan Smith who translated the documents - is that they have a system where the 
adsorption / desorption of hydrogen by titanium is exothermic in both 
directions. That is huge – if true, since it gets us away from the potential 
problem of inviting scrutiny from the NRC.

 

IOW - this is not LENR and probably not related to Parkhomov.

 

What is most interesting is that it operates like asymmetric phase change, 
since the volume of material changes at the subnanometer level, and phase 
change is known to be very energetic is certain circumstances. 

 

The precise mechanism for gain could be another instance of DCE – or the 
Dynamical Casimir Effect – which is a proved phenomenon but heretofore was not 
very robust and only involved light emission.

 

And we can see why such a system which is cycling around what are operative 
phase-changes -- would benefit from on/off cycling of the power supply… which… 
come to think of it… makes the details even more interesting to anyone using 
TiH2 in an experiment…

 

 

 

   

[Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Bob Cook]

Ruby--


Ruby--

I appreciate your comment. 

I had to think about what the quote meant for some time.  I did read Ed’s paper 
and agree with a lot of it, particularly the establishment’s influence on LENR 
research over the years.   

I looked at the literal meaning of his quote and concluded that rejecting the 
obvious is not a correct scientific action.   I think that was the context of 
Ed’s paper--- “accept the facts of experience” as you note.   

I did not like the inference of the quote that Science has an option; only 
non-science, faith based mental activity, has that option—to ignore facts and 
accept miracles. 

I wanted to make the point that science—scientists--do not reject the obvious.  
  I think that many folks that read Vortex-l will not read Ed’s paper, and  
some with think that rejecting the obvious is a correct scientific action.  

I repeat my earlier comment—“It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large 
fraction of the so-called scientific community is made up of such folks.”

The folks I have in mind are found at DOD, DOE and many other places like 
universities and media outlets.  Ed worked at one such  DOE entity any years, 
as did I, although not the same one.  I thought that Ed was referring to the 
managements of such places (and not many of the true scientists that worked 
with him) when he identified the option they have.

Thanks again for your comment, 

Bob


From: Ruby 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 7:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

Bob, you are quoting out of context.   

I am guessing you did not read the paper yet, for in this case, "the obvious" 
refers to "the scientific results".

That is to say "accept the experimental results  and form a theory around the 
data", not ignore what doesn't fit one's model.  

The contextual meaning says "accept the facts of experience".

Ruby


On 4/25/16 6:43 AM, Bob Cook wrote:

  Peter--

  You quoted Ed Storms as follows:

  “Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept 
the impossible” (Ed Storms) 

  IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying 
to explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real phenomena. 

  To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is not part of science.  
Thus, this is not an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous 
people  who claim to know the truth. 

  It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called 
scientific community is made up of such folks.   

  Bob Cook


  From: Robert Dorr 
  Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


  A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of LENR. I 
like Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction. 

  Robert Dorr
  WA7ZQR


  At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote:


http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html 

cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking

All the best,
peter





-- 
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
1-707-616-4894
r...@coldfusionnow.org
www.coldfusionnow.org
lenrexplained.com

[Vo]:Re: Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

[Bob Cook]

Robin--

The voltage may be an intermittent voltage like in a spark plug.  The 
current is low but the transient voltage is what is required to initiate the 
LENR.  Spark plugs in cars develop 20,000 volts as you probably know.  I 
have been shocked may times by such voltage sources.


I guessed that the Quark wafer design made use of positive and negative 
plates to collect either H- or H+, electrons and/or positrons.  I would 
guess that the mean free path of an energetic positron would be on the order 
of a similar energetic electron.  This would be several microns, I believe, 
before a reaction with an electron might occur.


Rossi noted that the Quark-X produced 1/2 thermal energy (maybe from .511 
Mev radiation) and 1/2 direct electrical output.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Roarty, Francis X

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 6:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

Robin the 100kev might be an effect of direct current taking multipaths thru 
metal powders loaded with H ions - he doesn't say he is using a 100kv power 
supply.. [snip] "4 - a generator of direct current connected with a cathode 
and an anode to accelerate the electrons" [/snip] I am thinking micro spark 
gap circuits formed of powder grains and gas ions.


Fran


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 5:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or 
both?


In reply to  a.ashfield's message of Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:15:22 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

I wouldn't put too much stock in this. The metal parts are likely to short 
out a

100 kV voltage supply.


From the lenr-forum.com
Rossi's missing secret or E-CatX description or both?

"All replicators should pay attention to Rossi's provisional US-patent
61/999,582, filing-date: August 01, 2014. Provisional patents are not
published at USPTO but another site published a copy of this patent
which contains the following description:

"In a reactor are put nickel powders, hydrides at a pressure of 3-6
bars an a temperature of 400-600 Celsius, AND AT ONE SIDE OF THE REACTOR
IS PUT AN ANODE, AT THE OPPOSITE A CATHODE, so that electrons are
accelerated up to 100 keV, ..."

At the ends of the reactor are an anode and a cathode!!!

   "4 - a generator of direct current connected with a cathode and an
anode to accelrate the electrons"

So Rossi is using DC to initiate (and maybe control) the reaction. (And
possibly uses the anode and cathode for direct extraction of electric
energy after the reaction occured - ECatX.)"

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3183-Rossi-s-missing-secret-or-E-CatX-description-or-both/?postID=17802#post17802



Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Bob Cook]

Peter--

You quoted Ed Storms as follows:

“Once again, science has been forced to either reject the obvious or accept the 
impossible” (Ed Storms) 

IMHO the bread and butter of science is accepting the impossible and trying to 
explain it in a logical manner based on observations of real phenomena. 

To “reject the obvious” (real observed phenomena) is not part of science.  
Thus, this is not an option for real scientists, only make believe righteous 
people  who claim to know the truth. 

It is sad from my viewpoint that such a large fraction of the so-called 
scientific community is made up of such folks.   
  
Bob Cook



From: Robert Dorr 
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info


A good paper, especially for those interested in the PdD aspect of LENR. I like 
Ed Stroms approach of the PdD reaction. 

Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 09:56 AM 4/24/2016, you wrote:

  
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-24-2016-lenr-great-paper-by-ed.html 

  cannot abandon independent thinking or just thinking

  All the best,
  peter
  -- 
  Dr. Peter Gluck
  Cluj, Romania
  http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

I thought that was the case.  That’s why I pointed out that he has apparently 
decided to use Ti in some fashion in the Quark device.  Maybe Jones is on to 
something.  Ti in a Ni lattice may cause the magnetic B field that occurs in 
the lattice to change drastically from location to location and thereby provide 
the necessary resonances to effect LENR in the local coherent system.  

It could also be involved in the production of differential voltage and the 
direct production of electricity, which has been reported for the E Cat X and 
maybe transferred  to the design of the Quark-X device. 

Bob Cook  

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

To the best of my understanding, titanium is not covered in Rossi's patent for 
the hot cat.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  Jones and Robin--

  Rossi as said today on his blog that he uses Ti in his Quark-x device.

  Bob Cook

  -Original Message- From: Jones Beene
  Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:17 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

  Hi Robin,

  You misunderstand.

  I am not trying to explain of validate Mills version of titanium as a
  hydrino catalyst. He clearly got it wrong for this element, at least for
  any parameters below plasma conditions. There is no way on earth that his
  theory can explain the results I mentioned from Professor Dash and the
  others, who found that Ti was more active than palladium in his experiments
  which were at ambient. Of course, one could say that titanium was active for
  another reason besides f/H but that goes against common sense. As does the
  suggestion that Dash missed another active catalyst at work or that he was
  doing "cold fusion" which automatically negates a fractional hydrogen
  pathway.

  My effort was aimed at showing a possible way of using the most intuitive
  part of Mills theory (the Rydberg/Hartree values) in a revised version, not
  Mills version - which can show that titanium is indeed the one and only
  catalyst which can work at the lowest possible temperature, due to its low
  ionization multiple of the first electron. This is not anti-Mills so much as
  it is Mills-inspired. It involves multibody reactions, as the tradeoff.

  -Original Message-
  From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
  Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:28 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

  In reply to  Jones Beene's message:
  Hi,
  [snip]

Back to the CQM theory. The catalytic hole at 190 eV is next to
impossible to achieve without a plasma, even as a transient state in the

  hottest glow tube, so it would seem that Mills’ theory is irrelevant… but,
  hold on … let’s consider a special type of multibody reaction that would
  only work at moderate temperature. Turns out that titanium has a first
  ionization potential at 6.8 eV which is a quarter of the Rydberg (Hartree)
  energy, and is the only transition metal to have such a value, meaning that
  on paper, four titanium atoms operating together would express an
  alternative to the Mills catalytic “hole.” Multibody reactions would be
  unlikely in gas or plasma phase, or at high temperature but in a FCC crystal
  structure with 14 atoms of Ti, we have a stable solid phase structure where
  it should be possible (on a regular basis - thousands of times per second)
  to have 4 electrons temporarily displaced - enough to create the required
  catalytic window- not as Mills suggests, but in an effective alternative so
  long as the hydrogen can be retained in the matrix (requiring low
  temperature). This multibody route can explain the comment of Dash that
  titanium is more active than palladium for gain.

  1) When metal atoms combine in a lattice the energy levels of the valence
  electrons change, so they no longer add to 190 eV. You may have more luck
  using the work function of the metal (which will be influenced by
  "contaminants").

  2) The catalytic hole is an absorption hole, IOW Ti will accept 190 eV from
  H as the H shrinks, with Ti losing the first 5 of it's electrons as a
  result. It's as though the H "boils off" the Ti electrons.

  3) Getting hold of atomic Ti may mean at least using Ti vapor. The boiling
  point of Ti is 3287°C. Although alternatively you could use electrolysis
  where Ti is formed from a salt at the cathode, one atom at a time. The
  problem here however is that cathodes need to be conducting, i.e. usually
  metallic so the newly minted Ti atoms are going to join the lattice,
  implying a very short or even non-existent window for a shrinkage reaction
  to take place. (Carbon cathode
  perhaps?)

  4) The energy released by each H atom shrinking 7 le

[Vo]:Re: Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

[Bob Cook]

Jones and Robin--

Rossi as said today on his blog that he uses Ti in his Quark-x device.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Jones Beene

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 6:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

Hi Robin,

You misunderstand.

I am not trying to explain of validate Mills version of titanium as a
hydrino catalyst. He clearly got it wrong for this element, at least for
any parameters below plasma conditions. There is no way on earth that his
theory can explain the results I mentioned from Professor Dash and the
others, who found that Ti was more active than palladium in his experiments
which were at ambient. Of course, one could say that titanium was active for
another reason besides f/H but that goes against common sense. As does the
suggestion that Dash missed another active catalyst at work or that he was
doing "cold fusion" which automatically negates a fractional hydrogen
pathway.

My effort was aimed at showing a possible way of using the most intuitive
part of Mills theory (the Rydberg/Hartree values) in a revised version, not
Mills version - which can show that titanium is indeed the one and only
catalyst which can work at the lowest possible temperature, due to its low
ionization multiple of the first electron. This is not anti-Mills so much as
it is Mills-inspired. It involves multibody reactions, as the tradeoff.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:28 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

In reply to  Jones Beene's message:
Hi,
[snip]

Back to the CQM theory. The catalytic hole at 190 eV is next to
impossible to achieve without a plasma, even as a transient state in the

hottest glow tube, so it would seem that Mills’ theory is irrelevant… but,
hold on … let’s consider a special type of multibody reaction that would
only work at moderate temperature. Turns out that titanium has a first
ionization potential at 6.8 eV which is a quarter of the Rydberg (Hartree)
energy, and is the only transition metal to have such a value, meaning that
on paper, four titanium atoms operating together would express an
alternative to the Mills catalytic “hole.” Multibody reactions would be
unlikely in gas or plasma phase, or at high temperature but in a FCC crystal
structure with 14 atoms of Ti, we have a stable solid phase structure where
it should be possible (on a regular basis - thousands of times per second)
to have 4 electrons temporarily displaced - enough to create the required
catalytic window- not as Mills suggests, but in an effective alternative so
long as the hydrogen can be retained in the matrix (requiring low
temperature). This multibody route can explain the comment of Dash that
titanium is more active than palladium for gain.

1) When metal atoms combine in a lattice the energy levels of the valence
electrons change, so they no longer add to 190 eV. You may have more luck
using the work function of the metal (which will be influenced by
"contaminants").

2) The catalytic hole is an absorption hole, IOW Ti will accept 190 eV from
H as the H shrinks, with Ti losing the first 5 of it's electrons as a
result. It's as though the H "boils off" the Ti electrons.

3) Getting hold of atomic Ti may mean at least using Ti vapor. The boiling
point of Ti is 3287°C. Although alternatively you could use electrolysis
where Ti is formed from a salt at the cathode, one atom at a time. The
problem here however is that cathodes need to be conducting, i.e. usually
metallic so the newly minted Ti atoms are going to join the lattice,
implying a very short or even non-existent window for a shrinkage reaction
to take place. (Carbon cathode
perhaps?)

4) The energy released by each H atom shrinking 7 levels in one go would be
856.674 eV, of which 190 eV is used to ionize the Ti (and later released as
the Ti reclaims it's missing electrons).

5) I suspect that the importance of Ti for LENR is more likely to be that it
is a spillover catalyst.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

[Bob Cook]

Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperatureJones--

Could impurities in the Ti or Ni FCC structure create a bigger 5 atom hole with 
a greater transition energy, particularly as changes from alpha to beta phases 
occur?  The correct impurities may allow for a higher reaction temperature for 
the LENR to go in SS mode.  Excess energy from phase transition of the coherent 
system may be all it takes to induce LENR reactions involving nuclide changes 
and excess energy.  In spite of “Coulomb Barriers”, the system may want to 
reach a more stable state with lower kinetic energy per nucleon and proceed to 
accomplish this goal.  

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Titanium/Hematite combined catalyst for low temperature

Titanium is an excellent proton conductor which was used as an active metal 
host early in the history of LENR and has recently turned up in reports of 
overunity from Russia/Ukraine. Iron-oxide, as hematite, has famously appeared 
(as Shell 105) as Holmlid’s preferred catalyst for hydrogen densification. 


The reason for this post is to propose an alternative to the Mills redundancy 
mechanism - suggesting that titanium, combined with Holmlid’s catalyst - could 
be a very efficient route to UDH in low temperature experiments (not the glow 
tube, or the laser experiments per se). Mills and Holmlid are closer, 
theoretically, than you might imagine and Mills landmark patent is set to 
expire in 10 months. 

Yet, the CQM entry for titanium shows it as becoming activated after losing 5 
valence electrons to open a catalytic hole at a whopping 190 eV. This is not 
feasible without a plasma – or so it would seem. Yet, Prof. John Dash stated 
(20 years ago) that titanium is more active for LENR than palladium in his cold 
experiments ! Izumida in 1990 published on Ti in the prestigious “Fusion 
Technology” and Kopecek and Dash saw “Excess heat and unexpected elements from 
electrolysis of heavy water with titanium cathodes” in 1996 and Bashkirov and  
Lipson, from Russia reported the same. Therefore, titanium LENR is not new, is 
active at low temperature, and success was seen in condensed matter 
(solid-phase) … if we assume that hydrogen must be absorbed into the cathode as 
a hydride. 

Since TiH2 is also an efficient way to get hydrogen into an experiment without 
plumbing – there is a simplicity advantage to using it, especially combined 
with other catalysts for faster “densification”. Mills generally chooses 3-6 
different catalysts working together. 

Titanium hydride has become a low-priced commodity material, at least from 
China (Alibaba). A kilogram of TiH2 can be had for about the price of a beer at 
a Giants game – and you get the metal loaded with hydrogen, fully embrittled, 
so to speak. And when some of the hydrogen is released from the hydride, a 
natural porosity is left.


Back to the CQM theory. The catalytic hole at 190 eV is next to impossible to 
achieve without a plasma, even as a transient state in the hottest glow tube, 
so it would seem that Mills’ theory is irrelevant… but, hold on … let’s 
consider a special type of multibody reaction that would only work at moderate 
temperature. Turns out that titanium has a first ionization potential at 6.8 eV 
which is a quarter of the Rydberg (Hartree) energy, and is the only transition 
metal to have such a value, meaning that on paper, four titanium atoms 
operating together would express an alternative to the Mills catalytic “hole.” 
Multibody reactions would be unlikely in gas or plasma phase, or at high 
temperature but in a FCC crystal structure with 14 atoms of Ti, we have a 
stable solid phase structure where it should be possible (on a regular basis - 
thousands of times per second) to have 4 electrons temporarily displaced - 
enough to create the required catalytic window- not as Mills suggests, but in 
an effective alternative so long as the hydrogen can be retained in the matrix 
(requiring low temperature). This multibody route can explain the comment of 
Dash that titanium is more active than palladium for gain.

A 5-body reaction in the solid phase of a crystal should not be written off as 
improbable, even if a 3 body reaction in the gas phase is admittedly 
improbable. AFAIK - Mills has never mentioned a route which depends on 4 
catalyst atoms each loosing 6.8 eV to arrive at the necessary 27.2 eV hole. 
Nevertheless, I think this could be viable as a route for first stage 
redundancy, happening at low temperature and would augment other catalysts 
which work at deeper levels of redundancy, particularly hematite.


The downside is that as a practical matter, such a low temperature device would 
only makes sense if it operates to produce UDH as a fuel which would be 
extracted and used elsewhere, with or without a laser. 

The largest problem involves the chemistry of iron oxide, with which the TiH 
would optimize and the fact

[Vo]:Re: Is the proton friable?

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

I doubt that the final snow flake is determined by the “seed” which starts the 
snow flake (an accumulation of water crystals) growing.  I would imagine that 
the subsequent accumulation of dust particles etc also influence the final 
shape as it grows.  In other words it’s a random growth process resulting from 
the chaos of parameters--dust concentration, wind currents, temperatures, heavy 
or light water molecules, ionizing radiation etc. 

I have considered that your “finger of God” is merely chaos of things created 
in accordance with the various Laws of Nature,  reflecting the thesis of 
pantheism.  

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:53 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

Bob Higgins question about the size of the hydrogen bonds in metalized hydrogen 
might be best seen in the light of how a snowflake formed from a seed. The seed 
around which a snowflake gets it structure can be microscopic in size and yet 
provide the snowflake with all the instructions it needs to grow into all sorts 
of patterns and symmetries. 

Then there is the patterns stored in DNA that can reproduce all sorts of body 
forms from bacteria to whales. 

Mark Leclair believes that the water crystal, a form of metalized water 
provided the template for the creation of the DNA molecule when a asteroid 
produced cavitation is a protein rich soup. The structure of the water crystal 
and DNA are the same. 

So the way metalized hydrogen forms may be the same process as what created 
life...the finger of GOD.   



On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:

  One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is 
that the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm radius. 
 The Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters of 10-20nm, 
or nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster.  How can this 
large catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH almost 100x smaller 
than the original RM cluster?  Experiment has shown that porous F-T catalysts 
are able to catalyze formation of RM.  It is interesting to note that the size 
of the UDH/UDD is much smaller than even the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which 
are in the 500pm range.


  Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these pores 
could produce a "vortex".  The magnetic field is already the curl of the 
current.  If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID of the 
pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid.  It would not have extents 
outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on one side of the 
pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side.  To be able to create 
a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the diameter of the pore, the 
current would have to be flowing as a tube in the direction of the axis of the 
pore - in which case, what is the current flowing from and to?


  Any thoughts on these?


  On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

From: Bob Higgins 

Ø  What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition 
- that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it is hard to 
imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid.  
First of all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen 
nuclei in 2.3pm proximity? 


My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. For 
the sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of 
densification. They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a conductor 
(not necessarily a metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is also there, the 
H orbitals become entrained in the catalyst, powering the ring current and 
leaving Cooper pairs of protons as the end product, which can then further 
group into clusters. The hexagonal structure of hematite is critical.

Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the 
cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess comes 
later.

Ø  Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric 
interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would 
these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in 
a UDD/UDH breakup?

  

IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of 
iron oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring of 
graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of the normal 
SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric and local 
conductor.


Ø  Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?


Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only stable 
so long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is far less dense 
than UDH, what we are pr

Re: [Vo]:Article: Glowing nanomaterial to drive new generation of solar cells

[Bob Cook]

Regarding Harry’s recently expressed concern about heating the planet with to 
much LENR and thereby contributing to global warming, the subject device 
suggests the possibility of harvesting EMR from the atmosphere and 
concentrating it in high energy EMR for disposal in space, may be just around 
the corner.   Micro waves may be better than gammas in this regard to get 
through the atmosphere and increase the efficiency of the disposal process.  
Beaming micro waves may be a little safer also—birds would only heat up a 
little, if they flew through a beam.  Birds must be used to such heating 
already with the extensive use of micro wave beams. : )
 
Bob Cook

From: Jack Cole 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Article: Glowing nanomaterial to drive new generation of solar 
cells

Implications for LENR?


Glowing nanomaterial to drive new generation of solar cells: Physicists have 
discovered radical new properties in a nanomaterial which opens new 
possibilities for highly efficient thermophotovoltaic cells, which could one 
day harvest heat in the dark and turn it into electricity
http://flip.it/bwVad