RE: [Vo]:When the experts weigh in on real High Technology - BEWARE

[Russ]

For every delusional inventor there are an unlimited and unfettered number of 
delusional self-serving pundits who demand that their mere thoughts having no 
pedigree other than their anonymous keyboard pecking are more than equal to any 
inventors efforts. The crisis of social media is that it allows the fallacy of 
such babbling to appear in the ‘balance.’ The infinite number of puppy mills 
that have bastardized the system of academia into a system where doting parents 
buy their dotard children yet another nice sticker albeit in the form of a 
school certificate has overwhelmed true scientific investigation burying the 
signal of invention in the noise of the delusional.

 

From: JonesBeene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:47 PM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: [Vo]:When the experts weigh in on real High Technology - BEWARE

 

Despite the alarms we constantly hear, the risk of high level interference with 
advanced technology (even LENR) is not huge – at least due to competitors in 
the energy sector. 

 

The problem is that most overlooked technology simply DOES NOT work except in 
the mind of a delusional inventor. If it works, the top level interference will 
be minimal.

 

The problems will not come from the energy sector itself – in fact those guys 
will be clamoring to buy-in early to any “real” LENR technology, since the one 
thing they have in excess is money and the one thing they lack is foresight. 
Watch out for a few impediments, however, but probably not at the Federal 
level. A few states could get involved as has happened in the past.

 

Case in point: Apple. 

 

WHEN APPLE WENT PUBLIC ON THIS DATE IN 1980, THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS ORDERED 
INVESTORS TO STAY AWAY !!!

 

Apple issued its IPO to the public on this day in 1980.  The famous 1984 TV 
Commercial came later.

 

The Officials in only one state would not permit individual investors to buy 
Apple stock. Many of the other early computer pioneers were located in Mass 
(Data General, Digital Equipment Corporation, etc now defunct).

 

For Shame ! Almost unbelievable but true. One look at Woz, in the days of 
Archie Bunker … well … the lesson here is clear. You cannot judge a book by its 
cover, as they say, and Apple’s cover story was iffy.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=34bddaeade8a11e79560df69f2c4d98c
 

 =nwtpm

 

The messages is that the top stock experts in the second most advanced 
technology state completely blew it -- and denied any ownership to their 
citizens of the most valuable stock ever issued, from the most valuable company 
ever formed - having surpassed the oil giant Exxon, which is itself almost 
unbelievable.

 

If you have something real in alternative energy, the problem will probably not 
be coming from Rick Perry at DoE and his dumb-and-dumber associates. 

 

But for sure, they will not help either. Apple is a good role model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion TimesImprovement In Yield

[Russ]

In this new paper the Weyl-Kondo deuterate palladium ecosystem is seen to 
provide more than sufficient conditions for COLD FUSION to occur. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/12/21/weyl-kondo-quantum-semimetal-defines-deuterated-palladium/
 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:56 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion TimesImprovement 
In Yield

 

IMHO, the muons come from hadronization of the energy stored by the metallic 
hydrogen. The energy transferred from hadron decay to the metallic hydrogen 
accumulates and is eventually converted to mesons. This energy storage 
mechanism might be disrupted through the destruction of the metallic hydrogen 
in a runtime cycle. Such an energy store release might be accomplished with the 
arc discharge to produce a magnetic field strong enough to release the energy 
stored by the metallic hydrogen before enough is accumulated to catalyze meson 
production.

 

As another way,  a thick blanket of filbe could also convert the muons to heat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:08 PM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

From: Axil Axil  

 

*   But Holmlid get a high energy reaction from excitation from a very low 
powered laser. A petawatt laser is extreme overkill.

 

 

Yes - but the problem with the Holmlid approach (if we take his claims at face 
value) is that the output energy is largely in the form of muons.

 

There is no obvious way to capture muons efficiently since their decay will 
occur far away from the reactor. IOW it is hard to convert that kind of 
reaction into a usable form and it may be hard to scale. Perhaps that 
detail/problem (conversion) is what Holmlid is working on now. I would love to 
see his comments on this paper from Hora.

 

In contrast, the boron fusion output is mostly energetic alpha particles, which 
can be thermalized easily or better yet, converted directly into electricity. 
Plus, there is some doubt about the identity of Holmlid’s copious muons and no 
replication has been published. 

 

If Holmlid were to modify his device for the proton-boron reaction, he could 
change a lot of skepticism into belief since it would be easier to measure the 
results, for one thing.

 

Did you notice the mention of super heavy hydrogen in the Hora paper? That is 
most curious given the recent history of Hora and Holmlid working together. Is 
Hora referring to UDH?

 

It may seem that Hora and Holmlid had some kind of falling-out since there is 
no mention of the earlier work and tons of references with no credits.

 

More questions than answers, as of now. 

 

 

 

Here is Holmlid’s patent application -- which is easily amenable to hydrogen 
boron fusion

https://www.google.com/patents/EP2680271A1?cl=en 

Imagine collecting the dense hydrogen on a substrate of boron, which then 
becomes the target for a laser pulse – or double pulse.

Holmlid suggests the dense state can be manufactured and collected as an 
independent step. The ideal way to convert it in a second step would seem to be 
boron fusion.

Holmlid would be wise to specifically add boron fusion to his application. 

Obviously if the new kind of “ponderomotive fusion” can be made to work with 
normal hydrogen, the dense state should even be better as a starting point…

…unless of course the Hora suggestion is indeed making the dense hydrogen in 
the first pulse and reacting it in the second pulse.

In that case, he should have credited Holmlid.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

This gets into the age old 'lumper' vs. 'splitter' academic game. Sure some
Geigers can see betas. In my experiments the emissions have to make it
through a gauntlet of materials, mm thick ceramic, many mm thick quartz,
fire brick, and of course plenty of air before they reach the front face of
the Geiger. Since of course no one but an armchair idiot would trust only
one Geiger and would not test various inserted attenuating materials and
metals it is not really 'lumping' to declare that in this case Geigers
cannot detect betas.' 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 1:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Russ George suggested that Geiger tubes do not record betas. 

 

I would guess that high energy betas (depending upon the window composition)
should be recorded by Geiger tubes.  Russ's beta sources that he used to
check his tubes may have produced only soft betas.  

 

Maybe Russ could identify the energy of his beta sources.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

  _  

From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 4:28:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

When Ed Storms reported on this, he had more than one pancake tube.  One had
a mica window and the other two were plastic.  I believe he said that the
"strange radiation" he encountered activated something in the mica window.
The tube with the mica window became activated and had a particular decay
rate that he measured.  He could bring the other, plastic window'ed tubes
close to the mica window and they would detect emissions from it.

 

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:33 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

We have three identical Geiger's that I switch positions to constantly
challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as
well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the
precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be
intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the
experiment. So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more
precision and care, an effort in process at this moment.  

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com <mailto:aethe...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

 

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect? 

Could you ground the shields?

Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to
the spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count
at multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced
in a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either
gammas or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known
beta sources and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have
recently renamed these 'Tellerons' in honour of my colleague Edward Teller
who helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their
existence decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that
will bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and
Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*
<https://ww

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

[Russ]

Sorry Bob but you are wrong, see the gammas on demand in cold fusion.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5597-atom-ecology/

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com  
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 6:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

 

Fran and Axil-

 

I do not consider that actual gammas ever come into existence in the
LENR/BEC reaction Axil suggests.  If they did ,some would get out and be
observed.  The reaction occurs by an ultra-fast  phase-like transition of a
coherent (entangled) system without the generation of particles or EM
radiation with anything different than a black body spectrum associated with
the reacted coherent system temperature.  The new system temperature is
inconsistent with resonance conditions (including magnetic field strength)
required to make a nuclear transition likely.

 

Rossi's dusty plasma reactor assures nano-particle coherent systems stay
adequately cooled to avoid sintering (fusing) of the metal lattice with
resulting undesirable changes in the resonant conditions and destruction of
characteristics of repeatable nuclear/BEC transition reactions.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

  _  

From: Roarty, Francis X  >
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 4:04:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR 

 

Axil, Your paragraph snipped below makes me question a relationship to
Casimir effect, does your scenario exist even when the pumping of the cavity
is just virtual particles? Is that enough to form a BEC and a basis for
Casimir effect rejecting longer virtual particles in the cavity. the effect
only occurs in conductive plates so the electron cloud and potential for
polaritons is present. I'm wondering if "nonequilibrium driven disapative
systems" is related to the vacuum density in these cavities. I assume it
applies to both Rossi and Mills geometries but you are concentrating on the
conversion and shielding aspect.. What synergy do you predict between this
shielding/conversion aspect and the actual source of the gamma? Does your
theory require gas atoms in the cavity or are you saying that just energy
alone pumped into the cavity will suffice?

Fran

Axil said[snip][This kind of BEC is a Condensate that forms in
nonequilibrium driven-dissipative systems. The polariton needs to be pumped
with energy because it loses energy from the cavity that contains it. If
more energy feeds the polaritons than leaks out of the cavity in which the
polariton forms, it can live and grow in power. The amount of nuclear energy
that the polariton BEC can thermalize is a function of the power that is
feed into the Polariton BEC and the amount of power that the Polariton BEC
loses over a given time(AKA the Q factor).[/snip]

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2018 3:22 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

 

 hacking radiation  

 

should read

 

 Hawking radiation  

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:

The polariton BEC acts as a analog black hole. It thermalizes gamma via
hacking radiation which is a thermal level emmision. The heat produced by
hacking radiation is recovered as energy from the vacuum since the anti
photon falls back into the BEC. This BEC also produces light whose frequency
is a function of the density of the polariton condensate. It has been said
that Rossi's QX reactor produces light from red to blue based on its power
level.

 

The final emission type is muon production. 

 

for more info, see

 

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00822148/file/Flayac-2012CLF22262.pdf

 

2.4 Sonic black holes and wormholes in spinor polariton condensates  (page
116)

 

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Roarty, Francis X
 > wrote:

Axil, would your scenario support effects on gas atoms between these
surfaces and Casimir/London forces? I like that it explains thermalizing the
gamma.

 

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com  ] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 11:42 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from LENR

 

Sometimes radiation is produced by the LENR reaction. Why does this occur?

 

It is my belief that the LENR process that thermalizes nuclear level
radiation is Bose Einstein Condensation (BEC). If a condition of BEC
circumscribes the LENR reaction, the BEC will absorb that nuclear level
radiation and downshift it into the thermal frequency range.

 

But for a BEC to be created, doesn't the temperature need to be at super low
temperatures near absolute zero?

 

There are two kinds of BEC. The BEC that requires super low 

RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my 
experiment and its ‘lovely gammas’ being ‘unfueled’. That is most certainly not 
the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared ‘fuel mix’ that 
is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. A number of other fuel 
mix experiments have been run in parallel showing no such gamma signal save one 
other.  I use a tiny amount of fuel, a volume equal to 5-10 grains of rice, but 
it is cold fusion ‘fuel’ that was chosen with guidance of the atom-ecology of 
the environment it would be subjected to and create. By the way I also prepare 
and load this fuel in air, a fact that might be a big tip to those skilled in 
the art. As my planned progression of fuel mixes go into the oven(s) over the 
next few weeks I expect/hope more about the specific characteristics of the 
atom-ecology where cold fusion is prevalent will be revealed.

 

I have spent some decades preparing and working with experiments that produced 
what my friend Martin Fleischmann called ‘high fugacity deuterium’, aka UHD 
systems. In my opinion no one truly ‘skilled in the art’ of cold fusion would 
do otherwise.  ‘Search for the nuclear smoke’ was the admonishment at the 
beginning of cold fusion some 30 years ago, the best advice from the best minds 
of the time was ‘if you have nuclear fire you must have nuclear smoke.’ 
Fleischmann after some years fessed up to cold fusion peers and noted that the 
hotter one runs cold fusion experiments the better! Limited of course by what 
the hot environment does to the fuel components. Heat is the enemy of high 
fugacity. 

 

In my work I began by utilizing mass spec services from the top laboratories as 
well as building my own low mass helium spectrometers. This sort of hands on 
experimentation is what it takes to make, find, and deliver cold fusion. While 
cold fusion heat needs to be present and is the useful palpable technology I  
principally was interested in and observed 4He in vast amounts 100ppm or more, 
far above the 5.22 ppm of helium in air and almost never any penetrating 
emissions. Many of those searches for penetrating emissions used state of the 
art LN2 cooled large germanium spectrometers and a variety of similar state of 
the art neutron – all failing to see the penetrating emissions sought. 

 

These social media forums are sometimes useful and a few grains of good ideas 
sometimes are found amongst the abundance of chaff. But the anonymous internet 
makes it impossible to put a measure of trust in what is posted, especially by 
those who lack the courage of their convictions, interest, and intentions to 
make themselves known. That results in such blather as what this reply is about 
that I have used an unfueled experiment. 

 

By the way I am willing to engage privately with truly interested participants 
in this important field provided they introduce themselves and have something 
of equivalent value to offer in exchange, that’s the way science and society 
has always worked. The work I do is on a single small lab bench with very 
limited resources, progress might expand geometrically with bench space and 
additional helping hands and minds. Those wanting to be part and add to the 
venture are welcome, those only wanting to add to their inner vulture are not. 
Adventure vs. Advulture, ever it has been so.   

 

Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 9:05 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

I would like to draw a fundamental distinction between two classes of LENR 
systems: Fueled and unfueled systems. In the 2011 time-frame when Rossi saw 
gamma, he was running an unfueled system,so was Piantelli and Celani. Russ 
George is now experimenting with an unfueled system.

The development of LENR fuel came latter as an innovation by Rossi. I speculate 
that Rossi found that when he reused ash from his reactors, they were very LENR 
active. Rossi perfected LENR fuel and started to use it in his tube reactors. 
The fuel was self contained and could be loaded in air. With this fuel, the 
hydrogen nickel reaction did not seem to matter anymore. Lugano is an example,

Also gamma commissions went away when using LENR Fuel.

I beleive that the active agent in LENR fuel is ultra dense hydrogen. Rossi, 
me356, the ECCO reactor and the LION reactor all use LENR fuel. Gamma will not 
come from these systems since ultra dense hydrogen is a superconductor. UDH has 
a near perfect Q factor and forms a condensate immediately and instantly.

I have advised any LENR reactor builders who will lessen to produce LENR fuel 
directly by acquiring a Holmlid UDH generator. Just load that UDH into a tube 
reactor and you are good to go.

 

RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

Bob,

 

It's not hard to bracket with attenuating metal foils of different elements
and thicknesses the energy ballpark of the energetic emissions reaching the
Geiger. Having done this I promptly ordered a decent NaI Gamma Spectrometer
which I should have up and running within a week. The bracketed 'gamma' also
comes with an observable half-life that fits with likely reactions.

 

I have been known all my life for doing 'crowd science' and collaborating
with kindred scientists by packing my kit and conducting my experiments in
their labs. Few came to do the same in my lab, ces't la vie. The internet is
such a zoo filled with all manner of wild-life. The abundance of trolls and
would be trolls on the net is only surpassed by the number of posturing
wanna bees that all too often are revealed as bot flies. Amongst these are
of course some kindred souls and it is because of these, you are one, that I
keep butting my head up against the social, or more the anti-social, media. 

 

It is, in my experience, a constant characteristic of internet denizens that
anyone sharing something of interest is set upon by those who want to be
gifted everything that person might know without so much as a how do you do
my name is . introduction. 

 

In addition every field of science, especially frontier sciences, is
overshadowed by vultures seeking to consume whatever they can prey upon.
Some such vultures are professionals and state sponsored. It behoves one to
have some standards for engaging in exchanges of ideas. One of my business
partners Admiral Bud Zumwalt used to admonish me saying "Russ, just show
them a little thigh, you know they will want to see a whole lot more. Make
them do something for the rest of show."

 

 

Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

  

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Russ-

 

How do you know you are getting a "gamma signal" using a Geiger counter?

 

Separately, you note:

 

"By the way I am willing to engage privately with truly interested
participants in this important field provided they introduce themselves and
have something of equivalent value to offer in exchange, that's the way
science and society has always worked."

 

I note that the close-knit exchange of technical ideas is the opposite of
open science and is not the way science and society "always worked".
Although  such a model of science and society  has evolved over the last 100
years to be an acceptable model for the current closed science community, it
is slowly losing favor to an open flow of technical ideas, with relative
value determined by individual mental processes, more or less  supportive of
societal values at large.  

 

As a progressive political advocate, I am optimistic that the free flow of
ideas is supportive of society at large. 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Russ <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 12:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

One has to wonder where anyone might have channelled the comment about my
experiment and its 'lovely gammas' being 'unfueled'. That is most certainly
not the case, there is a very specifically conceived and prepared 'fuel mix'
that is producing the raw gamma signal that has been shared. A number of
other fuel mix experiments have been run in parallel showing no such gamma
signal save one other.  I use a tiny amount of fuel, a volume equal to 5-10
grains of rice, but it is cold fusion 'fuel' that was chosen with guidance
of the atom-ecology of the environment it would be subjected to and create.
By the way I also prepare and load this fuel in air, a fact that might be a
big tip to those skilled in the art. As my planned progression of fuel mixes
go into the oven(s) over the next few weeks I expect/hope more about the
specific characteristics of the atom-ecology where cold fusion is prevalent
will be revealed.

 

I have spent some decades preparing and working with experiments that
produced what my friend Martin Fleischmann called 'high fugacity deuterium',
aka UHD systems. In my opinion no one truly 'skilled in the art' of cold
fusion would do otherwise.  'Search for the nuclear smoke' was the
admonishment at the beginning of cold fusion some 30 years ago, the best
advice from the best minds of the time was 'if you have nuclear fire you
must have nuclear smoke.' Fleischmann after some years fessed up to cold
fusion peers and noted that the hotter one runs cold fusion experiments the
better! Limited of course by what the hot environment does to the fuel
components. Heat is the enemy of high fugacity. 

 

In my work I began by utilizing mass spec services from the top laboratories
as well as building my own low mass helium spectrometers. This

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

The notion of a 'flash of gammas' being what is there is just wrong. There
is a steady state production of gammas in these sorts of cold fusion
ecologies. Rossi knows this well and has shared more than enough of his
protocol to confirm that is what he also has in hand. 

 

The use of the moniker LENR was and is never more than a obvious banal dodge
to avoid the howls of outrage against the term 'cold fusion' and all who
dared to work in that venue. There is nothing 'low energy' about these
reactions, rather they are entirely new pathways atoms take in the ecology
of cold fusion where energetic emissions are not favoured. Making minor
adjustments to the atom-ecology environments enhances the emission of the
energetic emissions. 

 

Ain't real science done at the lab bench wonderful! As Thomas Edison said
from his lab bench, 'Hell there are no rules here, we are trying to
accomplish something." 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Fran-

 

Good questions!

 

A good spectrum analyzer would answer questions about the flash of EM
radiation of the Rossi tests.  I assume he knows the answer and that gammas
are not produced that would otherwise harm the observers.  

 

However, I doubt the flash is the result of a large energetic (Mev-scale)
nuclear transition with gammas that are somehow perfectly shielded as
suggested by Axil.  

 

The idea of an LENR with emphasis on "LOW ENERGY" is an  important feature
of the source of energy in the Rossi reaction.  

 

The flash that has been  observed by many folks IMHO is an initial
ionization of Li atoms and formation of a significant electrical current
across the dusty plasma  of the Rossi reactor.  A charge may  accumulate
rapidly on the population of nano-Ni particles as individual LENR happens to
the various particles.  The flash may be the signal used by the control
system to change resonant conditions to reduce the LENR transition
probability in the population of nano-Ni particles to avoid high
temperatures and nano-particle sintering.  

 

Bob Cook 

 

  _  

From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> >
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:56:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems 

 

Axil, your distinction does answer my question whether the polariton
condensate alone is a source of LENR, you are saying polariton condensates
and nano geometry of metal surfaces can produce LENR and dangerous gamma
radiation alone without any fuel. I know you mentioned the super
absorbtion/radiance features of a polariton condensate as a
thermalizer/downshifter but wasn't sure if the "pumping source" was over
unity or you were just using external energy to create a polariton
condensate shield / radiator to activate fuel contained in the cavity. Was
the claim of a Gamma spike in early Rossi demo possibly an example of pumped
polariton condensate where pockets of the nickel powder metal surfaces were
starved for fuel or it simply hadn't yet loaded into the lattice?

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 4:05 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

I would like to draw a fundamental distinction between two classes of LENR
systems: Fueled and unfueled systems. In the 2011 time-frame when Rossi saw
gamma, he was running an unfueled system,so was Piantelli and Celani. Russ
George is now experimenting with an unfueled system.

The development of LENR fuel came latter as an innovation by Rossi. I
speculate that Rossi found that when he reused ash from his reactors, they
were very LENR active. Rossi perfected LENR fuel and started to use it in
his tube reactors. The fuel was self contained and could be loaded in air.
With this fuel, the hydrogen nickel reaction did not seem to matter anymore.
Lugano is an example,

Also gamma commissions went away when using LENR Fuel.

I beleive that the active agent in LENR fuel is ultra dense hydrogen. Rossi,
me356, the ECCO reactor and the LION reactor all use LENR fuel. Gamma will
not come from these systems since ultra dense hydrogen is a superconductor.
UDH has a near perfect Q factor and forms a condensate immediately and
instantly.

I have advised any LENR reactor builders who will lessen to produce LENR
fuel directly by acquiring a Holmlid UDH generator. Just load that UDH into
a tube reactor and you are good to go.

 

RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

You are being semantically retentive, my use of the words 'metal foils' of
course included 'sheets of lead.' Every freshman in nuclear science or more
properly atom-ecology knows about Kev-Mev photons and lead, any who don't
aren't worth the repeated breath to natter at them about it. Every
caricature of internet denizens in 'man caves' comes to mind when I read
this sort of comment and I wish those images were not so likely to be true.
I too sometimes resemble such too closely.

 

Zumwalt was a man/partner from whom I learned first hand what the word
charisma meant. He was as admirable as he was admiral.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2013/05/04/show-them-just-a-little-thigh-
you-know-they-will-want-to-see-a-whole-lot-more/  If I close my eyes I can
still feel the warmth of his smile and the welcoming firmness of his hand
shake, there are few in my life that I can say that about. 

 

The importance of these lovely cold fusion Gammas is that they satisfy once
and for all the most ardent cold fusion sceptic's wisecracks that became
science killing meme's from the first days of cold fusion who demanded that
without the gammas there could be no cold fusion. Thus began the reign of
fraudulent fomented outrage calling the work of Fleischmann and Pons and
anyone who dared to work in the field purveyors of 'pathological science'
and 'frauds.'  To the despicable men who practiced so like Huizinga, Close,
Lewis, Taubes, and more,  too bad only some of you are dead, though those
who are have an excuse for not apologizing for their ignorant self-serving
anti-science egotistical tirades, the remaining living sychophants should
simply stay under the dark slimy rocks that are their personal ecologies. 

 

Cold fusion is not one single simplified  process that must be shoehorned
into aging dogma or refuted, it is a facet of a vast complex and all but
invisible atom ecology. 

 

 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Russ-

 

Metal foils do not do much in reducing Mev EM radiation-it takes lots of
electrons like occur in a lead plate to reduce the EM energetic  radiation.
I think your purchase of a NaI detector is a wise decision. 

 

What business were you in with Zumwalt? 

 

He was an anti-nuclear-power advocate per my recollection.   He liked cheap
small surface ships.  Its ironic that the Zumwalt class DDG 1000 is likely
not sea worthy in heavy seas.   It is powered by an electric motor or
motors, but has no apparent exhaust above or below the water line.  I
concluded it must be a nuclear powered near-surface submarine in disguise as
a surface ship.  It may even be a LENR powered vessel given the Class
designation without a "N".

 

Bob Cook

 

 

  _____  

From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:27:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems 

 

Bob,

 

It's not hard to bracket with attenuating metal foils of different elements
and thicknesses the energy ballpark of the energetic emissions reaching the
Geiger. Having done this I promptly ordered a decent NaI Gamma Spectrometer
which I should have up and running within a week. The bracketed 'gamma' also
comes with an observable half-life that fits with likely reactions.

 

I have been known all my life for doing 'crowd science' and collaborating
with kindred scientists by packing my kit and conducting my experiments in
their labs. Few came to do the same in my lab, ces't la vie. The internet is
such a zoo filled with all manner of wild-life. The abundance of trolls and
would be trolls on the net is only surpassed by the number of posturing
wanna bees that all too often are revealed as bot flies. Amongst these are
of course some kindred souls and it is because of these, you are one, that I
keep butting my head up against the social, or more the anti-social, media. 

 

It is, in my experience, a constant characteristic of internet denizens that
anyone sharing something of interest is set upon by those who want to be
gifted everything that person might know without so much as a how do you do
my name is . introduction. 

 

In addition every field of science, especially frontier sciences, is
overshadowed by vultures seeking to consume whatever they can prey upon.
Some such vultures are professionals and state sponsored. It behoves one to
have some standards for engaging in exchanges of ideas. One of my business
partners Admiral Bud Zumwalt used to admonish me saying "Russ, just show
them a little thigh, you know they will want to see a whole lot more. Make
them do something for the rest of show."

 

 

Fusing as always



 

Russ George

Atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

 

 

  

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.c

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

[Russ]

The first task in any new experimental protocol is to make sure that one can 
see some useful data that emerges. Cold fusion heat comes at the behest of 
nearly a trillion fusion reactions per watt/second. Nothing like that level of 
the lovely gammas being seen, millions of times less.  This is a testimony to 
the precision and sensitivity of the system and methods designed to monitor 
these experiments. Such sensitive insight into the heart of the reactions 
offers one the means to understand and discover what is going on and how to 
drive the multiplicity of reactions taking place in that complex atom-ecology. 
As my good friend Tom Passell always said to me, “let the data speak to you.” 
The corollary to that sage advice is don’t drown the data with one’s own talk. 

 

So far listening to the lovely gamma data that is speaking there is no reason 
to suggest it is bremsstrahlung and indeed every reason to think otherwise. The 
gamma producing cold fusion pathways are clearly not the principal cold fusion 
taking place in these experiments. It is however lovely to see them just the 
same and they are an incredible diagnostic tool. Don’t forget Rossi’s 
admonishment about ‘the mouse and the cat’  It should be a simple matter now 
to leapfrog those Italian cats. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:06 AM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

MFMP continues on with the discussion of the "signal" and talks about gamma 
radiation that has been produced by old school LENR reactors.

 

The "signal" may have been seen is Rossi's old style reactors as a startup 
artifact. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeHU4vBmc

 

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com 
<mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A sub-second flash of  Bremsstrahlung has been seen in LENR experiments, 
immediately followed by the appearance of heat.  Science has been looking for 
this as a sign of the formation of Hole superconductivity. This kind of 
superconductivity is an alternative to the standard beliefs that hold sway in 
superconductive theory. Leif Holmlid has adopted this theory to explain how 
ultra dense hydrogen becomes superconductive. 

 

In my view, what MFMP saw was the onset of  Hole superconductivity as the 
density of individual polaritons reached the condensation threshold and formed 
a polariton condensate. The onset of heat production came from the condensate. 
The  Bremsstrahlung is produced by the expulsion of electrons from inside the 
polariton condensate at high energies.

 

There is a fair chance that the bursts of gammas coming from Russ's experiment 
turn out to be  Bremsstrahlung; then the LENR reaction in Russ's reactor may be 
flickering.

 

See MFMP's experimental views

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ALuWrmXBo 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ALuWrmXBo=249s> =249s

 

 

 

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

The notion of a ‘flash of gammas’ being what is there is just wrong. There is a 
steady state production of gammas in these sorts of cold fusion ecologies. 
Rossi knows this well and has shared more than enough of his protocol to 
confirm that is what he also has in hand. 

 

The use of the moniker LENR was and is never more than a obvious banal dodge to 
avoid the howls of outrage against the term ‘cold fusion’ and all who dared to 
work in that venue. There is nothing ‘low energy’ about these reactions, rather 
they are entirely new pathways atoms take in the ecology of cold fusion where 
energetic emissions are not favoured. Making minor adjustments to the 
atom-ecology environments enhances the emission of the energetic emissions. 

 

Ain’t real science done at the lab bench wonderful! As Thomas Edison said from 
his lab bench, ‘Hell there are no rules here, we are trying to accomplish 
something.” 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>  
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com <mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:00 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:fueled vs. unfueled LENR systems

 

Fran—

 

Good questions!

 

A good spectrum analyzer would answer questions about the flash of EM radiation 
of the Rossi tests.  I assume he knows the answer and that gammas are not 
produced that would otherwise harm the observers.  

 

However, I doubt the flash is the result of a large energetic (Mev-scale) 
nuclear transition with gammas that are somehow perfectly shielded as suggested 
by Axil.  

 

The idea of an LENR with emphasis on “LOW ENERGY” is an  important feature of 
the source of energy in the Rossi reaction.  

 

The flash that has been  observed by many folks IMHO is an initial ionization 
of Li atoms an

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

Since the mischugenon was so named by Edward Teller in conversation with me on 
the basis of his work with me and my unique data set showing them. I have 
renamed the ‘mischugenon’ as the ‘Telleron’ in respect to the great man who 
befriended and helped me so much in this work.  So the name for these strange 
particles is not open for debate as they are rightly named in honor of Teller 
whose genius and determined efforts are nearly unsurpassed in the world of 
atom-ecology. 

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2018 3:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

 

I’m jumping into this thread a bit late but the concept of a “mystery” 
radiation or particle is intriguing, especially in the context of Holmlid’s 
muons. (which as Bob Higgins sez are unlikely to be muons).

 

Could Holmlid be seeing something else instead of muons (mesons, pions, kaons, 
etc) ? My answer is: yes, almost certainly.

 

Holmlid faces an insurmountable physics problem by almost ignoring the charge 
of muons. He is, in effect, inventing a new particle – a chargeless muon. That 
is NEVER going to fly.

 

Instead it would make far more sense to characterize the mystery particle in 
ways that mesh with standard physics. Start by giving it a new name.

 

However, the name meshugganon is a bit crazy  even to one who loves Yiddish. 
What about Ferron ?

 

The best candidate particle missing from the discussion even though it has been 
published to a limited audience is the work of John P Wallace, who is perhaps 
the leading expert in the USA on the subject of  iron. 

 

He is almost obsessive, it would seem – which is a good thing for science.

 

Here is one reference to this particle which is basically a carrier of spin. 
Nothing makes more sense in terms of applicability to Holmlid’s mystery than a 
particle which is unique to iron and represents quanta of spin energy.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1631

 

 

*   AA: Muons will get through all of that light material with no problem. 
But muons will be captured by the iron body of a pancake detector. The muon can 
then canalize  fission reactions in the iron and the gas in the pancake 
detector will register radiation generated by the fission reaction…. If you 
place some more iron or lead between the experiment and the detector head, and 
the counts go up.. then you are seeing muons.

 

If Wallace is correct – iron will give a stronger response than any other metal 
to a flux of the mystery particle – including nickel or lead.

 

Jones

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

[Russ]

To suggest that Mills has not looked at this ‘magnetic smoke’ sufficiently to 
eliminate it being made of magnetic metal is to suggest that Mills is either a 
fool or a fraud. Given that such wild speculation by armchair pundits is surely 
more of an exercise in ego and not an earnest effort to lend useful comments.

 

From: Roarty, Francis X  
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

OK, that might explain why the bulk material didn’t collapse and cling to the 
tool the researcher used to attract it. Mills has always talked about his 
hydrinos being part and parcel with hydrides and I never believed these exotic 
types of hydrogen can persist outside of the cavity environment but you seem to 
be  suggesting that this gaseous smoke still contains a metal matrix like 
aerojels!? The polaritons by definition are on metal surfaces, now marooned in 
an airborne bulk with its buoyancy from the held dense hudrogen? I cant see a 
closed cell effect like aerojels.

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:22 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

IMHO, this smoke is metal hydride nanoparticles that are covered on their 
surface with polaritons. The polaritons are the source of the magnetism that 
binds the nanoparticles togither. The SunCell uses this smoke to form a dusty 
plasma that can produce a self sustaining LENR reaction.

 

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

This video is (reputedly) what dense hydrogen looks like, in response to a 
strong magnet –  

 

https://youtu.be/Epenv-PPLJM

 

Somewhat mind boggling, shall we say. If not dense hydrogen, it is unclear what 
else the ghostly filaments could be.

 

Apparently it is paramagnetic and possibly superfluidic, whereas hydrogen is a 
diamagnetic, invisible gas.

 

Or more to the point – what else could one do with the material to proved its 
identity/characteristics?

 

One of the things (phenomena)  which comes to mind  … LOL … “ectoplasm” which 
is somewhat fitting given the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

[Russ]

The TOF SIMs equipment Mills has in his lab is known to be more than sufficient 
to identify composition and isotope ratios in his materials. He clearly bought 
that equipment precisely to study such possible transmutation possibilities. I 
give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not blowing faked metallic smoke.

 

Mills has years ago shown at ACS/APS meetings polymer plastic made with his 
hydrinos that demonstrated similar anomalous magnetic properties. Give the guy 
the courtesy of being taken at his word. 

 

If you want to propose an entirely different interpretation of this work it is 
up to you to conduct the experiments and produce the data to substantiate your 
hypothesis. If you are unable and/or unwilling to do the work and provide 
equivalent data then you might consider getting a job as a book or movie 
critic. 

 

But this digresses into the age old argument between experimentalists who 
actually do original work and armchair theorists who claim to be uniquely able 
to read into the experimental work of others whatever they wish to support 
their untested ideas. 

 

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 5:11 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

This Mills experiment is not the first one that has been done. Proton 21 has 
been at this stuff for years. If Mills were to look for transmutation in his 
metal smoke, he would find it as the Proton 21 project has found. Experimenters 
should sit in an armchair are see what has be done in the past: they night not 
need to work so hard in duplicating what has been done many times before. 

 

In proton 21 resuts

 

http://proton-21.com.ua/science_02_en.html

 

Results of experiments

on collective nuclear reactions

in superdense substance

 

Proton 21 has seen 

 

"the mass spectra reveal the masses equal to 253, 264, 394, 395, 433, and 434

which do not yield to any interpretation and identification, i.e., they are 
absent among all the

known isotope combinations given in the typical catalogs."

 

This stuff is most likely Ultra dense material. There is strange radiation 
observations documented that most likely is this  Ultra dense material on the 
move.

 

Regarding: "Mills is either a fool or a fraud". He does not want to see 
anything that would disprove his theories.

 

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Roarty, Francis X  > wrote:

OK, that might explain why the bulk material didn’t collapse and cling to the 
tool the researcher used to attract it. Mills has always talked about his 
hydrinos being part and parcel with hydrides and I never believed these exotic 
types of hydrogen can persist outside of the cavity environment but you seem to 
be  suggesting that this gaseous smoke still contains a metal matrix like 
aerojels!? The polaritons by definition are on metal surfaces, now marooned in 
an airborne bulk with its buoyancy from the held dense hudrogen? I cant see a 
closed cell effect like aerojels.

Fran

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com  ] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:22 PM
To: vortex-l  >
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Visual evidence of dense hydrogen

 

IMHO, this smoke is metal hydride nanoparticles that are covered on their 
surface with polaritons. The polaritons are the source of the magnetism that 
binds the nanoparticles togither. The SunCell uses this smoke to form a dusty 
plasma that can produce a self sustaining LENR reaction.

 

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

This video is (reputedly) what dense hydrogen looks like, in response to a 
strong magnet –  

 

https://youtu.be/Epenv-PPLJM

 

Somewhat mind boggling, shall we say. If not dense hydrogen, it is unclear what 
else the ghostly filaments could be.

 

Apparently it is paramagnetic and possibly superfluidic, whereas hydrogen is a 
diamagnetic, invisible gas.

 

Or more to the point – what else could one do with the material to proved its 
identity/characteristics?

 

One of the things (phenomena)  which comes to mind  … LOL … “ectoplasm” which 
is somewhat fitting given the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

[Russ]

Sorry that dog won’t hunt, the present experiment is nothing like this. Keep 
fishing.

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:13 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

The Alan/Russ experiment has been conducted by young plasma students for over a 
100 years. This goes to show that there is not much new under the Sun. The glow 
tube experiment is a demonstration of the Goldstein–Wehner law.

 

See

 

http://campus.mst.edu/aplab/index_files/PlasmaTheory.pdf

 

Plasma Theory for Undergraduate Education - Missouri S

 

 

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/images/plasma_discharge_tube_480x357.jpg

 

More info here

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_6.htm

 

The SAFIRE experiment is the spherical version of this plasma tube experiment. 
The Double layers are produced in the plasma tube as well as in the spherical 
SAFIRE mode. What Alan did with the metal foil is identical to what SAFIRE did 
by inserting the Langmuir Probe into the double layer. The two experiments 
produced the same LENR effect when the metal was inserted into the double 
layer. In both these systems, the interaction between the metal and the double 
layer is to produce a population of surface plasmon polaritons that merge to 
generate a polariton BEC.

 

In this plasmoid generation mode of the LENR reaction where the petal 
Condensate intercepts the energy output that the double layer reaction 
produces, that energy is reformatted in the singular way that the petal 
condensate is constrained to produce as a analog black hole. That reformatting 
process includes a very wasteful segment of the total output. The condensate 
produces muons (aka Meshuganon) with that fraction of total output energy that 
is essentially lost to the far field. Muons has a long delay time and they 
travel a long way from the place in which they were created. As Alan has 
observed, the generation of gamma radiation when the tube is heavily shielded 
is a sure sign that muons are being produced by the inserted metal surface.

 

In the SAFIRE reaction, no condensate is formed and therefor all the energy 
that the LENR reaction produces in the formation of helium is retained as heat 
output. I predict that Helium 3 will be detected in a spectrogram of the gases 
in the glow tube over some extended period of its operation. Excess heat will 
also be produced by the glow tube in the same why that SAFIRE produces excess 
heat.

 

Alan/Russ should take the glow tube experiment to ICCF-21. The SAFIRE people 
will greatly profit from the Muon demo.

 

RE: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

[Russ]

There were complications on pursuing the Mischugenons which I now call 
Tellerons. Teller’s world was/is very different than what most take is our 
reality. My compact fusion light-bulb technology, pieces of which are on my new 
lab bench, is today’s outgrowth of that work. 

 

Progress in the process of invention and delivery as practical technology as 
Thomas Edison rightly noted is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. My 
apologies but there is just so much one old guy can perspire, but after a 
couple months on my feet back at the lab bench I am regaining my wind.

 

The curse/blessing of cold fusion in the atom-ecology of the universe is that 
people seem to think that its presence is a miracle and that means an unlimited 
number of miracles ought to be at hand. Sorry it is one miracle to a customer. 
A team of 50 at ‘the bench’ would develop and deliver the suite of technologies 
using this clean limitless energy to save the world from the fossil fool age in 
about a year. Alas one full time old guy and a couple of part-time old guy 
assistants changes the rate.  

 

Russ

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 7:45 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

I am referring to the  Meshuganon experiment not your current experiment. Its 
too bad that you moved on from that Meshuganon experiment, you has something 
there. 

 

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Sorry that dog won’t hunt, the present experiment is nothing like this. Keep 
fishing.

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 6:13 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: [Vo]:Fwd: Glow tube experiment

 

The Alan/Russ experiment has been conducted by young plasma students for over a 
100 years. This goes to show that there is not much new under the Sun. The glow 
tube experiment is a demonstration of the Goldstein–Wehner law.

 

See

 

http://campus.mst.edu/aplab/index_files/PlasmaTheory.pdf

 

Plasma Theory for Undergraduate Education - Missouri S

 

 

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/images/plasma_discharge_tube_480x357.jpg

 

More info here

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/eg_draft/eg_chapter_6.htm

 

The SAFIRE experiment is the spherical version of this plasma tube experiment. 
The Double layers are produced in the plasma tube as well as in the spherical 
SAFIRE mode. What Alan did with the metal foil is identical to what SAFIRE did 
by inserting the Langmuir Probe into the double layer. The two experiments 
produced the same LENR effect when the metal was inserted into the double 
layer. In both these systems, the interaction between the metal and the double 
layer is to produce a population of surface plasmon polaritons that merge to 
generate a polariton BEC.

 

In this plasmoid generation mode of the LENR reaction where the petal 
Condensate intercepts the energy output that the double layer reaction 
produces, that energy is reformatted in the singular way that the petal 
condensate is constrained to produce as a analog black hole. That reformatting 
process includes a very wasteful segment of the total output. The condensate 
produces muons (aka Meshuganon) with that fraction of total output energy that 
is essentially lost to the far field. Muons has a long delay time and they 
travel a long way from the place in which they were created. As Alan has 
observed, the generation of gamma radiation when the tube is heavily shielded 
is a sure sign that muons are being produced by the inserted metal surface.

 

In the SAFIRE reaction, no condensate is formed and therefor all the energy 
that the LENR reaction produces in the formation of helium is retained as heat 
output. I predict that Helium 3 will be detected in a spectrogram of the gases 
in the glow tube over some extended period of its operation. Excess heat will 
also be produced by the glow tube in the same why that SAFIRE produces excess 
heat.

 

Alan/Russ should take the glow tube experiment to ICCF-21. The SAFIRE people 
will greatly profit from the Muon demo.

 

 

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Russ]

Redefining the language in mid-stream always makes exchanging ideas
difficult. The long standing convention is that all neutrons have the same
mass, the binding energy in collections of nucleons in different nuclides
varies. 

Everything gains mass as it approaches the speed of light. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com <mix...@bigpond.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 21 May 2018 11:00:54 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
>> other nuclides is said to be different.
>>
>
>I do not understand. Is the claim here that a neutron in deuterium is 
>heavier or lighter than a neutron in some other element?

Yes (heavier), that's what I'm suggesting.

> There are
>different kinds or neutrons, or entering deuterium changes the mass?

The latter. The energy release from the nuclear reaction has to came from
somewhere. I am simply saying that it comes from the conversion of part of
the mass of the constituent particles.

>
>That seems extremely unlikely to me.

Then you need to explain where the fusion energy comes from. (I'm counting
addition of a neutron to a nucleus as a form of fusion).

Note that the formation of D from a free proton & a free neutron releases
only
2.2 MeV of energy whereas at the other extreme, addition of a neutron to a
Ni nucleus releases about 8 MeV of energy. Hence my conclusion that neutrons
in Ni have lower mass than those in D.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

[Russ]

Might you point to a reference where the mass of neutrons in deuterium vs.
other nuclides is said to be different.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com  
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:56 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The PP fusion reaction in LENR

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 20 May 2018 15:10:28 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
> The proton proton (PP) fusion reaction is the most enigmatic nuclear 
>reaction that you will ever run across. This reaction has concerned me 
>a lot and still confuses me.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
>
>Proton-proton chain reaction
>
>
>
>The PP reaction should not occur, but it is said to occur as the power 
>source of the Sun as well as all the other stars because there is so 
>much hydrogen involved in the energy cycle of the Sun.
>
>"In the Sun, deuterium-producing events are rare. Diprotons are the 
>much more common result of proton-proton reactions within the star, and 
>diprotons almost immediately decay back into two protons. Since the 
>conversion of hydrogen to helium is slow, the complete conversion of 
>the hydrogen in the core of the Sun is calculated to take more than 
>10^10 (ten
>billion) years."
>
>The PP reaction should be impossible to happen here on earth, but there 
>is evidence that helium is being generated in all sorts of LENR 
>systems. Why does LENR make PP fusion possible or possible very likely to
occur?

The PP reaction probably doesn't happen here on Earth. The neutron in
Deuterium is quite heavy compared to the neutrons in other nuclei. In short,
when a proton converts to a neutron inside another nucleus much less energy
has to be found, so it can happen much faster.
IMO that's why the half lives of beta+ decay reactions for isotopes heavier
that D are much shorter than for the PP reaction.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Fast company in Fresno

[Russ]

Conduction band moving particles that are not electrons were very clearly 
described in the work of Talbot and Scott Chubb. They focused their 
considerable genius on proton conduction which includes deuteron conduction. 
RIP Scott and Talbot, they were good companions in the study of cold fusion for 
so many years. 

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fast company in Fresno

 

 

 

According to the ORNL paper, which may not be related to this - the propagation 
wave does not consist of conduction band electrons but “phasons” which is a 
much heavier particulate, like a phonon but also much faster. Wouldn’t it be 
interesting if potassium ferrite was such ceramic?

 

That exotica may not apply to LENR however, but if it does, there is the 
possibility of finding better results with  lattice alloy combinations (or more 
likely ceramics) which work more like the phasons in fresnoite.

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins  

 

 

The interesting part of the phenomenon is not the speed of propagation per se, 
but what happens at the metal surface during this propagation.  I believe there 
is a conduction band electron sweep as this type of thermal "wave" passes 
through the metal grains with perhaps unusual behavior when these electrons are 
swept up to a metal grain boundary.  Also, it appears to be more of a wave - 
and in that sense it can setup up reflections and standing wave behavior.  Look 
at Krivit's photo of Piantelli's runaway reaction on his Ni rod.  It appears to 
have a standing wave effect for the maximum LENR action in the center of the 
rod.  This seems characteristic of a standing wave pattern.  It is possible 
that the LENR activity, being stimulated by the passage of a thermal wave, can 
turn the rod into an active medium so that a passing thermal waves can have 
gain and oscillation - almost like a laser cavity.

 


​

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion TimesImprovement In Yield

[Russ]

I can confirm the D vs. H experiment shows Pd, Ti, Ag are highly active cold
fusion quantum materials when loaded with D, no similar effect with H. No
effect in Ni with D or H in my experience. Highly active means heat, 4He,
high Z isotope ratio shifts. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield

 

Axil-

 

Did you leave Ni out of your list of LENR capable metals on purpose? B

 

The surface arrangement of electrons and high magnetic field coupling to
nuclear species is a feature of the good LENR metals IMHO.  The examination
of the surface electron configuration (density) should identify likely LENR
candidates with the potential for formation of the heavy fermions.  I think
this is the message from the paper at  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03899.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:08:53 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield 

 

Paintelli tells us that most transition metals are LENR
capable...titanium...copper...tungsten...silver. 

 

On order to prove that this quantum metal hypothesis is the cause of LENR,
all these metals loaded by both deuterium and protium need to be addressed
by experiment.

 

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:34 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>  <bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

Axil-

 

As I read Russ's article, the identification of the LENR  to reported theory
assumes that the Pd cold fusion lattice is in fact a WKSM system/heavy
fermion system.  Note that the lattice for Ce3Bi4Pd3 is similar to a more
pure Pd lattice.  It remains to be seen how different the electron
configuration is for the two lattices.

 

  In addition what about Ni lattices?

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 12:43 PM 
To: vortex-l <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 


Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield

 

Reference: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03899 

 

Weyl-Kondo Semimetal in a Heavy Fermion System

 

I did not see where " deuterate palladium ecosystem" is found to be a
Weyl-Kondo semimetal.

 

The materials used in the experiments for  Weyl-Kondo semimetal were
CeRu4Sn6 and Ce3Bi4Pd3.

 

 

 

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

In this new paper the Weyl-Kondo deuterate palladium ecosystem is seen to
provide more than sufficient conditions for COLD FUSION to occur.
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/12/21/weyl-kondo-quantum-semimetal-d
efines-deuterated-palladium/ 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:56 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Breakthroughs in Laser Fusion Gives Billion
TimesImprovement In Yield

 

IMHO, the muons come from hadronization of the energy stored by the metallic
hydrogen. The energy transferred from hadron decay to the metallic hydrogen
accumulates and is eventually converted to mesons. This energy storage
mechanism might be disrupted through the destruction of the metallic
hydrogen in a runtime cycle. Such an energy store release might be
accomplished with the arc discharge to produce a magnetic field strong
enough to release the energy stored by the metallic hydrogen before enough
is accumulated to catalyze meson production.

 

As another way,  a thick blanket of filbe could also convert the muons to
heat.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLiBe

 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:08 PM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

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

 

*   But Holmlid get a high energy reaction from excitation from a very
low powered laser. A petawatt laser is extreme overkill.

 

 

Yes - but the problem with the Holmlid approach (if we take his claims at
face value) is that the output energy is largely in the form of muons.

 

There is no obvious way to capture muons efficiently since their decay will
occur far away from the reactor. IOW it is hard to convert that kind of
reaction into a usable form and it may be hard to scale. Perhaps that
detail/problem (conversion) is what Holmlid is working on now. I would love
to see his comments on this paper from Hora.

 

In contrast, the boron fusion output is mostly energetic alpha particles,
which can be thermalized easily or better yet, converted directly into
electricity. Plus, there is some doubt about the identity of Holmlid's
copious muons and no rep

RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Russ]

In the world aptly described where, science progresses funeral by funeral,
this was an observation about the naysayers, not the innovators. The rare
innovator and their innovations are lost funeral by funeral and there is no
tally of the numbers and importance of the losses inflicted upon this world
by the countless pissant not puissant naysayers. The baby boom generation
educational system history will show became little more than pimped
professorial puppy mills. There parents could purchase for their offspring
yet another most expensive and pretentious 'sticker' and the world became
overwhelmed with lost science puppies. The puppies with no outlet for said
training have in most cases moved on to normal lives. Sadly more than a few
have become armchair cranks, malcontents, critics - collectively trolls. The
internet has proven to be an almost perfect puddle for said failing foolish
puppies to troll, splash, and piddle in. On top of this anonymous posting,
the perfect prescription for 'anti-social media' has removed the last
semblance of humanity in science as the plentiful puppies proceed into
prognosticating grumpy old dogs fouling the pathways of science that no one
cleans up after. What separates real scientists from the puppies is time out
of the armchair at the lab bench, and NO, 'theory' is not synonymous with
experiment. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:10 AM
To: ROGER ANDERTON ; vortex-l@eskimo.com;
c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 

Roger-

 

I agree with your timely addition regarding "science" excluding different
thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein's editorial cited below uses the
term "science community" instead of your term "science" to designate the
social entity  which excludes different thinking.  

 

The following from Hagelstein's editorial in which he discusses the fields
of nuclear and condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:

 

"The current view within the scientific community is that these fields have
things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then
the problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in
1989, but now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion
labs is much clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very big effect;
it is reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate energetic
products; there are many replications; and there are other anomalies as
well. Condensed matter physics and nuclear physics together are not
sufficiently robust to account for these anomalies. No defense of these
fields is required, since if some aspect of the associated theories is
incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to break it, so that we
can focus on developing new theory that is more closely matched to
experiment."

 

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment's "science
community."  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by
financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.

 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real
data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

 

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

 

"Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will
be no continuity of effort."

 

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace
afforded by the likes of Mills, 

Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding,
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry
"science community" will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: ROGER ANDERTON  
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  ; c...@googlegroups.com
 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 


>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking.
This is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs
"funeral by funeral." He explained: "A new scientific truth does not triumph
by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up 

[Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter and explains the EM drive

[Russ]

Here's Mike McCulloch's TedX talk last Thursday. It is remarkable work.
https://youtu.be/ZsGZsgd-944  

 

Mike is what one might call as 'armchair physics anti-matter' as he
annihilates the fiction of dark matter with straight forward math and real
data, eliminating the dark matter fudge that has made a sticky mess of
science for a long time. 

RE: [Vo]:Quantized inertia Ted talk removes need for dark matter andexplains the EM drive

[Russ]

d inertia (QI)? And what about 
his use of QI to explain galactic mechanics without dark matter?  Does the 
emdrive mistake void the concept of QI?

 

(The Ted talk has been deleted from youtube apparently.

 

Bob Cook

 

From:  <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Bob Higgins

 

I have read McCulloch's book.  His proposition fails in causality.  Filters do 
not form with a filled state, they have a finite impulse response that he 
hadn't addressed when I asked him about it. 

 

Russ < <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here’s Mike McCulloch’s TedX talk last Thursday. It is remarkable work.   
<https://youtu.be/ZsGZsgd-944> https://youtu.be/ZsGZsgd-944  

 

Mike is what one might call as ‘armchair physics anti-matter’ as he annihilates 
the fiction of dark matter with straight forward math and real data, 
eliminating the dark matter fudge that has made a sticky mess of science for a 
long time. 

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Russ]

What’s to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite 
offered by fervent practice of conflation.

 

From: Alberto De Souza [mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being 
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031

RE: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Russ]

Indeed I am confused by the Lion which is why I am helping perform some careful 
control experiments to sort it all out. Looking first of course to hot copper 
oxide chemistry as the obvious factor that is clearly engaged. Cooked and now 
cooking are quite a number of close approximations of the Lion device and 
conditions, all sans the fusion fuel. Soon some fuelled replications will be in 
the ‘easy bake oven’… The lonely overstuffed arm chair has been jilted for the 
slimmer lab stool.  There are  sound cold fusion paths in these very hot 
deuterated environs where the elusive aspects of atom-ecology can be studied. 
Stay tuned as the data will soon be able to speak for itself rather than being 
represented by the soothsayers and tea leave readers. 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:47 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

I wonder if "the  fervent practice of conflation" means that the fusion meme 
that has been the mainstay of LENR theory for so long should now be retooled to 
somehow  fit into an as of yet unfathomable  understanding of the LION reactor 
meltdown. Russ is among those who are clearly confused by the LION reactor 
meltdown. Here is his analysis as follows:

 

Melting Miasma - The intact Kanthal wire is a witness to the temperature not 
reaching the melting point of kanthal which is listed as being 1500 C. The 
alumina block melts above 2000 C, the quartz melts at just under 1700 C. So if 
the quartz melted likely the kanthal which was in contact with the quartz might 
be expected to melt, not seen. Surely the alumina foam which was outside of the 
quartz melting at 2000 C would not 'melt' without the intervening kanthal 
showing melting which would occur at 1500 C. If during the oxidation of the 
copper that is clearly apparent, that very hot copper oxidation process was 
capable of perhaps breaking the quartz and that copper oxide invaded the 
surrounding materials it might well have bonding with all. Copper oxide melts 
at 1326 C. Copper melts at 1085 C. Nickel melts at 1455 C, don't forget the 
tiny 2.5 mm diameter 10 micron thick nickel pads with the diamonds attached to 
them that are the purported fuel are clearly seen and did NOT melt. Nor did the 
stainless steel bolt that plugged the reactor tube, stainless steels melt 
between 1400-1500 C depending on the alloy.

All theses known materials and melting points bear witness to many temperatures 
that might have been reached in the hot 'reaction' zone. In the 'dummy' test 
runs conducted at Alan's, the maker of the tube furnace test bed, at 1000 C. in 
these dummy runs without any anomalous fuels, aka the nickel diamond discs, the 
aggressive hot chemistry of the copper oxide and is very clearly seen. It has 
fused/bonded itself to the quartz for example. The silver foil that underlaid 
the copper wire winding at the distal end has a melting point 961 C, is 
apparent this temperature was reached as the silver appears to have moved by 
capillary action into the copper/copper oxide material and also appears to have 
been an effective brazing metal on the quartz, something it is known to do in 
common practice when making metal seals on quartz lab wear. All, or almost all, 
the copper was converted to copper oxide at 1000 C, this was not the case in a 
duplicate test at 800 C where considerable of the copper wire remained as metal 
though it was oxidized on the surface. The replication with power and thermal 
data may tell the tale, patience is going to be required before we might make 
sense of this miasma. Hopefully no one reports seeing the 'face of Jesus' in 
the miasma before the replication and more extensive data is in hand, that 
would really confuse matters.

 

 

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

What’s to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite 
offered by fervent practice of conflation.

 

From: Alberto De Souza [mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com 
<mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being 
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031

 

RE: [Vo]:LION experiments

[Russ]

Clearly the stainless steel parts in said tube furnaces have not 'combusted'
in spite of being in air at 1000 C for 48 hours or more. Speaking of oxygen
is fruitless as noone of the experiments is conducted in other than air. 

 

The kanthal wire that is the heater is well characterized as having
aluminium that migrates to the surface and forms a protective oxide. When
that oxide is disturbed, as in scratched off during handling, it leads to
oxidation of the rest of the kanthal metal and failure. Undisturbed the
kanthal seems durable at 1000 C in air.

 

There is plenty of utility in examining the witness temperatures of various
materials melting and oxidation effects. 

 

 

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 3:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

Melting points are irrelevant. Stainless steel combusts at 1,000C in oxygen.
Tungsten combusts to WOx at 800C

Iron powder slowly oxidizes at room temperature in handwarmers. 

 

The combustion can be extremely rapid and high temperature in the case of
thermite reactions.

  _  

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:47 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LION experiments 

 

I wonder if "the  fervent practice of conflation" means that the fusion meme
that has been the mainstay of LENR theory for so long should now be retooled
to somehow  fit into an as of yet unfathomable  understanding of the LION
reactor meltdown. Russ is among those who are clearly confused by the LION
reactor meltdown. Here is his analysis as follows: 

 

Melting Miasma - The intact Kanthal wire is a witness to the temperature not
reaching the melting point of kanthal which is listed as being 1500 C. The
alumina block melts above 2000 C, the quartz melts at just under 1700 C. So
if the quartz melted likely the kanthal which was in contact with the quartz
might be expected to melt, not seen. Surely the alumina foam which was
outside of the quartz melting at 2000 C would not 'melt' without the
intervening kanthal showing melting which would occur at 1500 C. If during
the oxidation of the copper that is clearly apparent, that very hot copper
oxidation process was capable of perhaps breaking the quartz and that copper
oxide invaded the surrounding materials it might well have bonding with all.
Copper oxide melts at 1326 C. Copper melts at 1085 C. Nickel melts at 1455
C, don't forget the tiny 2.5 mm diameter 10 micron thick nickel pads with
the diamonds attached to them that are the purported fuel are clearly seen
and did NOT melt. Nor did the stainless steel bolt that plugged the reactor
tube, stainless steels melt between 1400-1500 C depending on the alloy.

All theses known materials and melting points bear witness to many
temperatures that might have been reached in the hot 'reaction' zone. In the
'dummy' test runs conducted at Alan's, the maker of the tube furnace test
bed, at 1000 C. in these dummy runs without any anomalous fuels, aka the
nickel diamond discs, the aggressive hot chemistry of the copper oxide and
is very clearly seen. It has fused/bonded itself to the quartz for example.
The silver foil that underlaid the copper wire winding at the distal end has
a melting point 961 C, is apparent this temperature was reached as the
silver appears to have moved by capillary action into the copper/copper
oxide material and also appears to have been an effective brazing metal on
the quartz, something it is known to do in common practice when making metal
seals on quartz lab wear. All, or almost all, the copper was converted to
copper oxide at 1000 C, this was not the case in a duplicate test at 800 C
where considerable of the copper wire remained as metal though it was
oxidized on the surface. The replication with power and thermal data may
tell the tale, patience is going to be required before we might make sense
of this miasma. Hopefully no one reports seeing the 'face of Jesus' in the
miasma before the replication and more extensive data is in hand, that would
really confuse matters.

 

 

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

What's to discuss other than perhaps something about the diagnostic incite
offered by fervent practice of conflation.

 

From: Alberto De Souza [mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com
<mailto:alberto.investi...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:LION experiments

 

This forum is rather silent about the LION experiments, currently being
examined by MFMP... Anyone care to comment?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5518-mfmp-lfh-lion2-100-replication-
well-beyond-lion1/?postID=81031#post81031
<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-
forum.com%2Fforum%2Fthread%2F5518-mfm

[Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[Russ]

I’d love to read a list of candidates for ‘metamaterials’ that might have 
practical utility as in easy to make and deposit. Any suggestions posted here 
would be a start on such a list. Thanks

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 7:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Evidence of UDH interaction with neutrino (was 1/f squared)

 

 

Re: the possibility that new discoveries will turn up a metamaterial which can 
reacts with neutrinos to a much greater extent than expected could be bolstered 
by evidence from cosmology presented below. There are many lose ends, however.

 

Could UDH be used in two ways – both as the target for laser pulses (Holmlid 
Effect) and secondarily an absorber of the resultant muon -> neutrino bursts? 
Neutrinos carry away over 99% of the energy of the Holmlid Effect but are 
poorly absorbed by all elements. What a waste.

 

Even if it were possible, protons are being disintegrated into pions then muons 
– with a mass/energy of 106 MeV each and then converted into much lower level 
x-rays if they do interact. OTOH this energy level is still thousands of time 
more favorable than burning hydrogen – so who cares about the low overall 
efficiency? Anyway this post proposes a novel way to use UDH as both fuel for 
laser irradiation– which converts into massive levels of muons which then 
decays into neutrinos…which neutrinos are then absorbed in a secondary system 
using UDH to capture some of the energy which is otherwise lost. UDH is far 
denser than U or any heavy element.

 

One of the most interesting findings in recent cosmology has been the discovery 
of a universal emission line at 3.56 keV which is associated with Dark Matter. 
This emission line has turned up in the core of every galaxy which has been 
studied - and there is an intuitive explanation. Any number of theorist have 
associated a dense form of hydrogen with Dark Matter. Yet the inherent conflict 
is that if Dark Matter is really dark it should not emit at 3.56 keV … unless 
of course, it is actually being irradiated as a target by an external source of 
energy and that source, by default, would be the neutrino flux. 

 

Conclusion of somewhat circular argument: If we should find that indeed Dark 
Matter can be identified as UDH or one of the other similar conceptions such as 
DDL, then a likely reason we see the characteristic x-ray is not from decay but 
from an interaction with neutrinos – which interaction then inflates the dark 
matter back to hydrogen. In short, Dark Matter may have a cross section for 
neutrino absorption which makes it useful as a way to convert the mass/energy 
of neutrinos into x-rays which can then be downshifted into usable energy. This 
could be implemented with the Holmlid setup or a variant.

 

The fact that Holmlid sees a small level of muon production from UDH at ambient 
conditions (which has NOT been irradiated with the laser) is thereby explained. 
The ambient case is  indicative of the rate of interaction with Earth’s 
background neutrino flux (from cosmic rays). As a practical matter, this 
conversion rate of UDH is too low to be useful without the laser – where 
Holmlid is getting massively more neutrinos compared to the background rate – 
100 trillion times more per unit area.

 

This rambling proposal would all fit together nicely except for the lack of 
independent verification which may be forthcoming from Taggett/TERN. 

There is no recent news from them:

http://ternresearch.com/news-and-papers

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

[Russ]

Here’s a link to an image of one very special use of the right metamaterial  

 

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/972582613809618944

 

 

From: Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Metamaterials ???

 

I’d love to read a list of candidates for ‘metamaterials’ that might have 
practical utility as in easy to make and deposit. Any suggestions posted here 
would be a start on such a list. Thanks

 

From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 7:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Evidence of UDH interaction with neutrino (was 1/f squared)

 

 

Re: the possibility that new discoveries will turn up a metamaterial which can 
reacts with neutrinos to a much greater extent than expected could be bolstered 
by evidence from cosmology presented below. There are many lose ends, however.

 

Could UDH be used in two ways – both as the target for laser pulses (Holmlid 
Effect) and secondarily an absorber of the resultant muon -> neutrino bursts? 
Neutrinos carry away over 99% of the energy of the Holmlid Effect but are 
poorly absorbed by all elements. What a waste.

 

Even if it were possible, protons are being disintegrated into pions then muons 
– with a mass/energy of 106 MeV each and then converted into much lower level 
x-rays if they do interact. OTOH this energy level is still thousands of time 
more favorable than burning hydrogen – so who cares about the low overall 
efficiency? Anyway this post proposes a novel way to use UDH as both fuel for 
laser irradiation– which converts into massive levels of muons which then 
decays into neutrinos…which neutrinos are then absorbed in a secondary system 
using UDH to capture some of the energy which is otherwise lost. UDH is far 
denser than U or any heavy element.

 

One of the most interesting findings in recent cosmology has been the discovery 
of a universal emission line at 3.56 keV which is associated with Dark Matter. 
This emission line has turned up in the core of every galaxy which has been 
studied - and there is an intuitive explanation. Any number of theorist have 
associated a dense form of hydrogen with Dark Matter. Yet the inherent conflict 
is that if Dark Matter is really dark it should not emit at 3.56 keV … unless 
of course, it is actually being irradiated as a target by an external source of 
energy and that source, by default, would be the neutrino flux. 

 

Conclusion of somewhat circular argument: If we should find that indeed Dark 
Matter can be identified as UDH or one of the other similar conceptions such as 
DDL, then a likely reason we see the characteristic x-ray is not from decay but 
from an interaction with neutrinos – which interaction then inflates the dark 
matter back to hydrogen. In short, Dark Matter may have a cross section for 
neutrino absorption which makes it useful as a way to convert the mass/energy 
of neutrinos into x-rays which can then be downshifted into usable energy. This 
could be implemented with the Holmlid setup or a variant.

 

The fact that Holmlid sees a small level of muon production from UDH at ambient 
conditions (which has NOT been irradiated with the laser) is thereby explained. 
The ambient case is  indicative of the rate of interaction with Earth’s 
background neutrino flux (from cosmic rays). As a practical matter, this 
conversion rate of UDH is too low to be useful without the laser – where 
Holmlid is getting massively more neutrinos compared to the background rate – 
100 trillion times more per unit area.

 

This rambling proposal would all fit together nicely except for the lack of 
independent verification which may be forthcoming from Taggett/TERN. 

There is no recent news from them:

http://ternresearch.com/news-and-papers

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

I am happy to hear peoples ideas with reasons behind those ideas. But to engage 
in testing others ideas often means one has to set aside ones own ideas. That 
is obviously an infinitely losing game as individuals are but one person and 
the world wide web is an infinite number of others ideas. Science has always 
been a combination of inspiration and perspiration though it is in the sweating 
in the performance that the donnas are separated from the primadonnas.   

 

Watch and wait or join me and make a difference. 

 

The greatest threat to the world is waiting for someone else to save it. 

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:40 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Still, I have a reason for considering that this might possibly work better in 
the vertical plane, and not by producing an artifact,

 

So I guess you have tried it in different orientations?

 

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

We have three identical Geiger’s that I switch positions to constantly 
challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as 
well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the 
precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be 
intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the experiment. 
So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more precision and 
care, an effort in process at this moment.  

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com <mailto:aethe...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are 
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

 

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect? 

Could you ground the shields?

Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to the 
spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate 
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the 
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count at 
multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in 
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced in 
a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either gammas 
or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known beta sources 
and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have 
recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller who 
helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their existence 
decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that will 
bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the 
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter 
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com 
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*  
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2461-new-energy-world-symposium-in-stockholm-on-june-18-2018/?postID=84069#post84069>
 #54

 

Regarding Alan glow tube test...

 


 <http://www.thunder-energies.com/> THUNDER ENERGIES,  a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


 

 
<http://www.thunder-energies.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-18/11-articles/19-article-10>
 http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10

 

Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

We have three identical Geiger’s that I switch positions to constantly 
challenge (and eliminate) any anomalous behaviour and to reveal glitches as 
well as to provide coincident background counts that are used to refine the 
precision of the background vs. hot counts. The high count rates can be 
intentionally produced and reduced with prescribed changes in the experiment. 
So far so good. Of course this must be repeated with ever more precision and 
care, an effort in process at this moment.  

 

From: John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

Is there any difference when the tube, shielding and Geiger counter are 
vertically disposed as in the image, or horizontally?

 

How can you be sure it isn't some capacitive coupling effect? 

Could you ground the shields?

Could you apply voltage spikes to the plates without them being exposed to the 
spark gap directly, see if that triggers the Geiger?

 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Russ <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate 
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the 
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count at 
multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in 
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced in 
a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either gammas 
or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known beta sources 
and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have 
recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller who 
helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their existence 
decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that will 
bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the 
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter 
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com 
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com> > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*  
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/2461-new-energy-world-symposium-in-stockholm-on-june-18-2018/?postID=84069#post84069>
 #54  
<https://www.lenr-forum.com/image-proxy/?key=0d11eccc9d848e360a155c07d099e36304d77de115e3bea87fefdc5793131f93-aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGVuci1mb3J1bS5jb20vYXR0YWNobWVudC80NzY2LXRoZS10ZXN0LXBuZy8%3D>
 

 

Regarding Alan glow tube test...

 


 <http://www.thunder-energies.com/> THUNDER ENERGIES,  a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


 

 
<http://www.thunder-energies.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-18/11-articles/19-article-10>
 http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10

 

Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 
desired neutron CPS;

2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of 
tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and

 

3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high current 
rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.

As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus creating a 
plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the proton and the 
electron along a magnetic field line with the appropriate spin and other 
couplings; an engineering means called triggers compress the electron inside 
the proton, by supplying the missing energy (which is about one million 
electron Volts, 1 MeV).

Display More

 

Sometimes a theorist can save an experimenter a lot of work by avoiding 
duplicating existing technology.

 

 

Santilli thinks that neutrons can be formed out of a union of protons and 
neutrons. This is nonsense. What Sant

RE: [Vo]:Meshugganons

[Russ]

Nonsense there is no such lead shielding on the experiment as suggested.

 

As well I have been interchanging 3 independent Geiger counters to eliminate 
any one being seen as being influenced by stray electrical fields. Only the 
Geiger that is nearest to the experimental source shows the anomalous count at 
multiples of the background. 

 

Much more work needs to be done to eliminate any and all possible errors in 
this but at least the anomalous emissions are predictably able to be induced in 
a repeatable fashion. In my opinion these emissions might well be either gammas 
or something unusual. The Geigers have been challenged with known beta sources 
and are quite unable to count betas. 

 

They are  not behaving like my previous discovery of Mischugenons, I have 
recently renamed these ‘Tellerons’ in honour of my colleague Edward Teller who 
helped me with that discovery and indeed had speculated on their existence 
decades before my discovery experiments. 

 

There are clear paths to improve and enhance this Androcles protocol that will 
bring it in line with the work and teachings of Mills, Rossi, and Piantelli. 

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil  
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:00 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Meshugganons

 

In Alan's experiment, the  Geiger counter's activity is the function of the 
thickness of the lead shielding. No shielding creates no  Geiger counter 
activity.

 

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Brian Ahern  > wrote:

Geiger counters are notoriously prone to high voltage noise interference.

 


  _  


From: Axil Axil  >
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Meshugganons 

 

* 
New

*  

*  

 #54  

 

 

Regarding Alan glow tube test...

 


  THUNDER ENERGIES,  a company that uses DR. 
RUGGERO SANTILLI'S TECH to detect nuclear weapons in sealed containers uses a 
variant of Alan Smith's experiment.


 

 

 http://www.thunder-energies.co…11-articles/19-article-10

 

Quote

The hadronic reactors for the industrial synthesis of thermal neutrons from a 
hydrogen gas essentially include (TEC international patent pending):

1. A metal vessel filled up with a hydrogen gas at a pressure depending on the 
desired neutron CPS;

2. Electronic means for the remote control of the gap between a pair of 
tungsten electrodes located inside said metal vessel; and

 

3. A specially designed power unit delivering high voltage and high current 
rapid DC discharges in between said electrodes.

As shown in Figure 5, the DC arc ionizes the hydrogen atoms, thus creating a 
plasma of protons and electrons; the DC arc then aligns the proton and the 
electron along a magnetic field line with the appropriate spin and other 
couplings; an engineering means called triggers compress the electron inside 
the proton, by supplying the missing energy (which is about one million 
electron Volts, 1 MeV).

Display More

 

Sometimes a theorist can save an experimenter a lot of work by avoiding 
duplicating existing technology.

 

 

Santilli thinks that neutrons can be formed out of a union of protons and 
neutrons. This is nonsense. What Santilli is producing are muons. the same 
particle that Alan is generating. The US government is using cosmic ray 
generated muons to detect nuclear material in shipping containers now.

 


Cosmic-Ray Muons Reveal Hidden Void in the Great Pyramid


 

 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/n…oid-in-the-great-pyramid/


 

 

Muon Thomography are well known as a means to detect nuclear material

 

Innovations In Nuclear Detection: Muon Tomography

  
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/khan1/

 

 

RE: [Vo]:LENR fission

[Russ]

At least Jed make the lines of credibility clear, either Rossi is a fraud or 
Jed is. The jury is still out. If the E-Cat roars then I propose that Jed do 
the honourable Japanese thing and commit internet seppuku and STFU. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell  
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: Vortex 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR fission

 

JonesBeene  > wrote:

 

In fact, his E-Cat system demands it.

 

The E-Cat does not work. It is a fraud.

 

 

Anyone who accepts  the positive feedback modality should realize that it  
comes with a lot of baggage.

 

The data shows positive feedback. Anyone who rejects data is not doing science. 
You have to accept what the experiments show.

 

- Jed

 

 

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Russ]

Nothing is better than field notes from observers of nature and its
ecologies. The jewel in this report is a big part of the solution to cold
fusion. It answers the question of how is the apparent energy of cold fusion
disseminated broadly instead of being locally destructive. That this layer
of UDD is able to withstand the laser, for more time than it ought to, is
quite sufficient evidence of the energy distribution characteristic of UDD,
and of the miracle CF clearly displays. We've known since Martin and Stan
showed it to be, nearly 30 years ago, that UDD is formed, they called it
high 'fugacity' but it is the same state. 

 

The high fugacity deuterium, HFD/HDD, is very much more flexible to the thin
layer of UDD in this work as it can and surely does exist in a variety of
bulk atom-ecologies. Clearly in some of those special atom ecosystems we
find cold fusion becomes prevalent. By the way such HFD is stable as Martin
used to say being 'gamma phase'.  In my work when sono-loaded palladium was
packed with HFD that HFD remained indefinitely stable as was evidenced in
x-ray diffraction studies of said material carried out by premier national
lab colleagues on the samples they assisted me in hands on effort to produce
on demand for them. Well not all of it was 'stable' as a great deal of it
was observed to have transformed into 4He deep inside the bulk metal. In
those helium rich ecologies the meta, palladium,  indeed was melted and
vapourized , but nearby the HFD/HDD remained in the less active sonofusion
zones. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

Dave-

 

I had a similar question as to a measure of the energy produced by the laser
and the temperature of the material under the D protective coating. 

 

The following questions arise:

1.  Can H form the same protective coating?  
2.  Does the UDD have spin equal to 1  with its magnetic moment that
will not respond to the laser input?  I doubt it.
3.  Could the UDD be an  assemblage of Cooper pairs  with anti-parallel
spin  equal to 0 or a  BEC that reflects the laser photons?
4.  Are there minute impurities in the UDD that do absorb some of the
laser energy  and eventually get the UDD composite hot enough to come apart?
5.  Does the energy of the laser get transformed into potential energy
of the Cooper pairs suggested above during the long irradiation period?-
6.  Does increasing the power of the laser beam reduce the time required
to "blast thru" the protective coat  of UDD?
7.  How does a change of laser frequency change the results?

 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Dave Roberson  
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to
cut the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited
by the laser was measured?

 

Dave

 

Sent from Mail   for Windows
10

 

From: JonesBeene  
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com  
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

 

This is good to see. 

 

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and
determined to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on
Holmlid - who is drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that
is unique in a number of ways. 

 

Holmlid's work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication.
Holmlid's recent patent application is almost a "how-to" since it discloses
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 

 

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be
revived. New game.

 

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine. at least so long as
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But
Pandora's box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil  

 

Holmlid replicator

 

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-stu
dying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

 

JonesBeene wrote:

 

Do "dark projects" 

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Russ George]

Asymmetrical loading of deuterium into metals does indeed produce ‘cold fusion’ 
as evidenced by prodigious heat and commensurate 4He. It is most certainly NOT 
loading into cracks it is rather a super loading method for bulk material. 
Cracks do form but they are a defect not a desired condition. 

 

To understand how this works imagine the deuterium is compressed into an 
ultra-dense deuterium (UDD) state during bubble collapse. The conditions in a 
collapsing bubble wall are surely hot enough to ionize hydrogen electrons, 
density is surely super-metallic perhaps stellar. The UDD from many collapsing 
bubbles is injected into the target metal lattice in a very short time frame 
The lattice sees UDD upon entry as if it is ‘super high loading’ and that UDD 
slowly diffuses outward into surrounding lattice such that loading begins at 
the highest possible and goes downhill from there. That the target metal is 
bulk loaded is instantly observable as one can see (video) it swell and expand 
and to effervesce deuterium much the same as electrochemically loaded Pd does.  
X-ray diffraction studies by DOD labs have proven that the UDD was in the 
lattice and likely some remains.

 

The cold sono fusion reactions occur with perfect reproducibility in many 
different metals. Heat sufficient to cause bulk melting of refractory metals, 
Pd, Ti, Zr, Nb, Hf, Rh and clear evidence of nuclear processes since at no 
point is more than a half a watt per cm2 of sono-energy applied to the metals 
which are immersed in rapidly flowing deuterated liquids. Helium is released 
into the cooling reactant liquid (and gas traps) and is also found trapped in 
the metal. While mostly 4He is formed some modalities of the process produce 
prodigious 3He shifting the 3He:4He ratio by 4-5 orders of magnitude! No 
significant neutrons are observed nor gamma within the limits of very sensitive 
neutron and gamma spectrometers. 4He production at rates of e11-e13 ‘alphas’ 
per second is readily produced.  

 

Isotope studies of before and after metals show, in some cases, dramatic shifts 
of some peculiar isotope ratios tens of percent out of the normal ranges.

 

Under higher pressure systems the required ultrasound controlled cavitation 
loading can allow for working temperatures at very high temperatures. Even some 
deuterated liquid metals will perform admirably.  The hotter the working 
temperature the higher the reaction rate. The key engineering problem is that 
the system becomes so fusion reactive that removing the cold fusion heat 
becomes problematic, failing to do so results in systems reaching the boiling 
temperatures of refractory metals aka ~3000 C! NOT controllable!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 6:12 PM
To: John Milstone
Subject: Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion 
(thinking in general, not about Rossi)

 

I think sonofusion and cold fusion are the same. The bubble effect on H/D is 
essentially like cracks, like what Ed says. And even the same case bellow. 

(Cold fusion and even heat after death, for me, is caused after submitting H/D 
to pressures of 10^11Pa and  submitted to thermal energy than ~0.1eV.) 


I hope to get my printer to work as soon as possible, since I concentrate more 
on write something about why this is the case.

But, the emission of cold fusion is typically between 10~<E~<10KeV (otherwise, 
it would be already detected). See these ones:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHintensenon.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LipsonAGanomalouse.pdf

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABexperimentb.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHfuturepowe.pdf

It's nearly completely blocked within nanometers of the source, or micrometers, 
even in air. I think these types of experiments could be a way to start. Maybe 
a very very tiny CF reactor, similar to what you used, would be a way to detect 
this type of radiation in abundance.




2016-05-27 20:09 GMT-03:00 Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> >:

. My sonofusion reaction was and is easily scalable to generate hundreds of 
kilowatts steady state output running with duty cycled input of a fraction of 
1% of the output. Such sonofusion development to large scale energy production 
would cost a few million to refine into devices that would cost mere thousands 
to mass produce.

 

RE: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Russ George]

Decades ago I was invited to give a seminar on my evidence of making heat and 
helium via sonofusion at the General Atomics Tokamak project in San Diego. The 
tokamak had run a few days before my arrival and it had been a very good test, 
everyone was happy with the results. My ‘fee’ for giving my presentation on 
‘cold fusion’ was a photo taken of me holding my ‘cold fusion’ reactor in my 
hand while standing upon the Tokamak (Big T). You can see that photo  on by 
blog via this link.  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2015/02/01/sonofusion-returns-mainstream-science/

 

The means to measure the Tokamak performance was a number of neutron detectors 
about the size of water coolers that were placed around the large room that 
contained Big T. The neutrons detected were the sole evidence of HOT fusion. I 
recall working with the GA guys on the ‘back of the envelope’ to determine the 
total number of fusion reactions in Big T in the ‘shot’ days earlier, the 
number of fusion reactions was something like e17 based on calculating the 
neutrons caught in the few tiny detectors multiplied by the full 3d 
cross-section. My reactor typically made about e16 4He atoms in a test run. My 
isoperibolic calorimetry showed heat and helium were roughly commensurate. No 
question Big T was more potent but then again it drew more electric power than 
the entire city of San Diego to run while my assymettric sonofusion reactor ran 
on a few watts of input. 

 

No matter how many major labs I trotted my gear to and ran experiments 
demonstrating cold fusion heat and helium reality the forces of evil, aka the 
institutional physics community, never did anything but disparage and 
discourage the work… albeit studying it carefully. My sonofusion reaction was 
and is easily scalable to generate hundreds of kilowatts steady state output 
running with duty cycled input of a fraction of 1% of the output. Such 
sonofusion development to large scale energy production would cost a few 
million to refine into devices that would cost mere thousands to mass produce. 

 

Don’t think for a moment that the Big T money folks will ever allow their pork 
barrels, aka retirement funds, to be run dry by competition. 

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 3:15 PM
To: John Milstone
Subject: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking 
in general, not about Rossi)

 

Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output is 
0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and the 
remaining 0.099 wasted in other means.
 1mW is a big deal. For example, if it were hot fusion, it would give a lethal 
dose, being close to the source, in minutes. It's just that hot fusion sources 
are much more easily detected.
 If hot fusion research relied on COP, there would be no proof of it, save for 
H-Bomb explosions. There must be other ways to measure the yield cold fusion.


 

-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com  

RE: [Vo]:Neuglu - the newly discovered boson

[Russ George]

Given that CERN and SLAC claim a 5 sigma signal is "PROOF" in their work the
10 sigma signal seen of this fifth force boson ought to count for something.
The 17mev is remarkably within the energy ball park for many here-to-fore
23mev cold fusion events. A really interesting bit is whether this new force
and exchange particle can accommodate neutrons and protons switching their
nature(s) inside of a nucleus, after all neutrons become protons by shedding
an electron/beta once outside the nucleus. In a quark bag model for the
atoms nucleus such a new force would be very apropos. Not-with-standing this
discovery there is still plenty of evidence for D+D to 4He in many cold
fusion modalities.

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neuglu - the newly discovered boson

 

Oops that post went out before it was edited and before the falsifiability
prediction could be made, which is just as well. That prediction was a bit
self-serving as it is already validated. Another will follow. hopefully with
better editing.

 

-

Imagine a previously unrecognized bosonic nuclear force, somewhat like a
gluon - but which has an associated force which is "protophobic" meaning
that it attracts and binds neutrons, and repels protons. By analogy - this
new force acts like a magnet for neutrons and a diamagnet for protons. 

The new force/particle has received little attention . and since we are
among the first to consider it in all its newfound glory, let's name it
"neuglu" for the obvious reasons. It has a lot of mass-energy - nearly 17
MeV, and possibly can provide the lost mass needed to account for the
thermal gain seen in LENR. 

The neuglu-boson is thus a range force which can arise between neutrons and
electrons or between small groups of low Z nuclei if the neutron alignment
is correct, since the above description of "protophobia" is eliminates it
from large nuclei. Even so, these groups must present exposed contact zones
of only neutrons, and possibly it adds stability. Plus, it is not easy to
account for why the neuglu boson has been completely unrecognized all these
years - but if SLAC says is so, then I am not going to argue with SLAC. 

To continue, if neuglu is real and it can act between exposed neutrons when
groups geometrically favorable, then it will be found in predictable
circumstances. Such a particle would carry a force that acts over distances
only several times the width of an atomic nucleus and could temporarily bind
atoms like deuterium ***without fusion*** into agglomerations which mimic
other atoms and provide excess energy on decay.

Now, imagine a cluster of four deuterons arranged in a tetrahedron, such
that all the four neutrons pointed inward to the focal point of the
arrangement, where the neuglu boson is spatially active. The four protons
point outward - giving a rather pronounced positive near field. We can call
this species beryllium-8, and it is short lived, but ironically the neuglu
may prohibit fusion. Yet, this isomer does not need to decay to alphas and
may instead sequentially form and reform from only UDD. 

Moreover, other neuglu bound nuclei are possible which are longer-lived,
including 10B, 12C, 14N, 16O. Thus - here is a prediction which will provide
some falsifiability to the premise that neuglu can bind deuterons in a way
that mimics low Z elements.

--

One way that the "fifth force" (or sixth, since the fifth force is already
spoken for) could be relevant to LENR relates to Takahashi's TSC theory, or
a revised version of it. This involves a Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate .
which, of course, has four vertices, or four active components - normally
four deuterons. This is a very stable platonic solid form, and it can look
very much like beryllium-8.

This is sometimes called cluster fusion since more than two particles are
involved. Four deuterons in the ultradense UDD state could react giving the
fusion product or else the appearance of a 8Be atom which the Hungarians
base everything on. If we want to go beyond Takahashi, fusion is NOT
required -- merely the temporary formation of the tetrahedron, which has
binding energy, followed by its energetic breakup back to deuterons -
courtesy of the fifth force. Implied is asymmetry.

That is one way to avoid the problem of lack of gamma radiation. Of course
no one knows the expected ash, but if helium is found, then it is real
cluster fusion - but this is highly unlikely IMO and otherwise, there would
be a new type of gain based on 5th force dynamics.

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

That’s a cool concept

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 7:15 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

I previously observed the coincidental similarity between the difference in 
photonic thrust and Shawyer thrust and the Q of the cavity - let me propose how 
a connection might exist.

According to Don Hotson (deceased), the ether is composed of epos (shrunken, 
neutral, electron-positron orbital pairs) that can be polarized.  This provides 
the displace-able element needed in Maxwell's equations (without something to 
displace, Maxwell's assumptions fail).  They also resolve the wave particle 
duality that stimulated all of the wasted formulation in quantum mechanics (I 
say wasted because, while it works, it is an unnecessarily painful formulation 
of the problem).  So, if the vacuum is not empty, then there is something there 
that may be affected by the field enhanced by the Q of the resonator.  Epos are 
tiny and neutral, but polarizable.  They would pass easily through the metal 
resonator.  Could there be some acceleration of epos caused by the device?  If 
that were possible, then it could provide an effect proportional to the field 
and hence Q-proportional due to the field enhancement by Q.

Bob

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

From: Eric Walker 

Bob Higgins wrote:

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive 
thrust.

If this is true, then I like the anisotropic neutrino explanation that has been 
floated here sometime back.  Presumably the neutrinos would come from electron 
capture (or possibly beta decay).

Eric,

A simpler explanation could be this: entangled photons couple better (to the 
vacuum) than does the same flux of un-entangled photons.

The analogy would be this: ice-treads couple better to ice than ice-skates. The 
ratio probably exceeds the 100,000:1 shortfall of the Shawyer.

 

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

The momentum of Higgin’s electron/positron pair would be large by comparison!

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 9:13 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

The momentum of an emitted photon is very small 

 

Momentum = energy / c



Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

OK Dr. Photon just how do we like this news on the EM Drive and the paired out 
of phase photons? 
http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/06/new-paper-claims-that-em-drive-doesnt.html#.V2LfsvkrKVM

 

RE: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

[Russ George]

Clearly all of the ‘inside the box’ ideas cannot possibly explain the EM Drive 
thrust, that’s the interesting bit, oh no ‘bits’ are inside the dang box as 
well… now what?

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:EM Drive powered by entangled photons

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, if you want to see how the photons can leak 
out, just have a look at the Fabry-Perot etalon.  At resonance it is a high Q 
filter, even though the boundaries are highly reflecting.

But, photonic leakage still doesn't explain the measured Shawyer EM drive 
thrust.  The Shawyer tests are showing 0.3-0.9 mN/W of thrust, but photonic 
thrust is only 3E-6 mN/W, a ratio of >100,000!  Interestingly, Shawyer is also 
quoting present device Q's of about 50,000 which makes his thrust on the same 
order as Q x photonic thrust.

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, John Berry  > wrote:

Well, particles (electrons, protons, atoms, bucky balls, ignored cats) fired at 
a screen still produce an interference...

 

So maybe protons could tunnel through a barrier if there is a wave from another 
proton that interferes?

 

Could this be how tunneling works?

 

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

Oops… obviously, that should read “photon” instead of “proton”:

If photons [not protons] can become paired and out-of-phase due to some kind of 
cavity resonance effect, such that one result of the pairing is that they can 
escape metal confinement, then almost every citizen is at risk from microwave 
ovens. 

If you are old enough to remember Ralph Nader and the Corvair, another low 
point from that era was the microwave oven scare. Supposedly, this was 
debunked, but now … who knows. There certainly could be oven configurations 
which unknowingly promote photon-pairing more than others. Recently, there are 
reports of ovens with plastic windows, instead of glass windows, melting. This 
could be due to the spacing in the see-thru metal grids… who knows?

 

 

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

[Russ George]

Or in more direct wording the benefit of the mentioned radiation was a greater 
than 30 fold reduction in cancer when compared to those people who were not 
"accidentally' exposed to long term Co60 radiation.  Children born to parents 
exposed to the radiation showed 14 times fewer congenital defects! The list 
goes on. The whole topic of radiation and humans has been forever the victim of 
lies by those with economic and political power aspirations, avarice, and 
arrogance.

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 2:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Powerful Shot Against Believers In "No Safe Dose" Of Radiation

Not only is there good evidence that the LNT theory is wrong, there is quite a 
lot of evidence for hormesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
"The observation that the cancer mortality rate of the exposed population is 
only about 3 percent of the cancer mortality rate of the general public" (!)

I know this paper was challenged but it was in general terms, rather like you 
know AGW is true because the consensus says so.

LNT is the safe, conservative theory, but what most people don't realize is 
just how much money it costs, that is probably unnecessary.

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

[Russ George]

For many years some few of us, in the lab not in our armchairs, have been doing 
just this. Proposing new names for others work and discoveries doesn’t further 
the progress of science.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

 

Associate Professor Vaccaro can save herself a huge amount of time and money by 
using the B-mesons and the K-mesons produced in Leif Holmlid's experiment than 
to go to CERN where these special mesons are usually found. She first needs to 
get up to speed using Holmlid's technique in her own LAB and begin to 
understand why there are no unstable isotopes produced in the LENR fusion 
reactions that she is producing there. 

 

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Time out ;) or is it time in… the game is afoot!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/02/06/the-force-of-time/

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

 

LENR produces K-mesons and B-mesons which violate CPT symmetry.  This is where 
the electrons come from that are created in LENR. The counter reaction is the 
backward flow of time when radioactive isotopes are stabilized in a LENR 
reaction. This negative time is produced by the development of negative vacuum 
energy. 

 

Because this mass of the electron is created from the vacuum and is reacted 
from nothing, there is a negative gravity produced as a countering reaction. 
This is dark energy produced by inflation.

 

Cold fusion happens all over space in huge amounts.

 

Cold fusion is just one trivial implication of the LENR reaction that will be 
revealed to science when LENR is taken seriously by the professional theorists 
in science.

 

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

Fran--

 

Take a look at the following link regarding the nature of time and space.  I 
noticed it when reading you last email regarding crack production you sent. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128122011.htm

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

[Russ George]

Don’t get me wrong, I like many of your ideas

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 12:42 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

 

I don't like to invent new names for things. In my posts, I like to use the 
names that professional science uses as far as my limited knowledge of that 
subject allows. Keeping all this terms stright is not easy but is vital for 
proper communication.

 

If there is any contradictions in my terminology, I will be obliged to correct 
it to the best of my ability.

 

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

For many years some few of us, in the lab not in our armchairs, have been doing 
just this. Proposing new names for others work and discoveries doesn’t further 
the progress of science.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 11:55 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

 

Associate Professor Vaccaro can save herself a huge amount of time and money by 
using the B-mesons and the K-mesons produced in Leif Holmlid's experiment than 
to go to CERN where these special mesons are usually found. She first needs to 
get up to speed using Holmlid's technique in her own LAB and begin to 
understand why there are no unstable isotopes produced in the LENR fusion 
reactions that she is producing there. 

 

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Time out ;) or is it time in… the game is afoot!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/02/06/the-force-of-time/

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

 

LENR produces K-mesons and B-mesons which violate CPT symmetry.  This is where 
the electrons come from that are created in LENR. The counter reaction is the 
backward flow of time when radioactive isotopes are stabilized in a LENR 
reaction. This negative time is produced by the development of negative vacuum 
energy. 

 

Because this mass of the electron is created from the vacuum and is reacted 
from nothing, there is a negative gravity produced as a countering reaction. 
This is dark energy produced by inflation.

 

Cold fusion happens all over space in huge amounts.

 

Cold fusion is just one trivial implication of the LENR reaction that will be 
revealed to science when LENR is taken seriously by the professional theorists 
in science.

 

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

Fran--

 

Take a look at the following link regarding the nature of time and space.  I 
noticed it when reading you last email regarding crack production you sent. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128122011.htm

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

[Russ George]

Time out ;) or is it time in… the game is afoot!  
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/02/06/the-force-of-time/

 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nature of time and space==

 

LENR produces K-mesons and B-mesons which violate CPT symmetry.  This is where 
the electrons come from that are created in LENR. The counter reaction is the 
backward flow of time when radioactive isotopes are stabilized in a LENR 
reaction. This negative time is produced by the development of negative vacuum 
energy. 

 

Because this mass of the electron is created from the vacuum and is reacted 
from nothing, there is a negative gravity produced as a countering reaction. 
This is dark energy produced by inflation.

 

Cold fusion happens all over space in huge amounts.

 

Cold fusion is just one trivial implication of the LENR reaction that will be 
revealed to science when LENR is taken seriously by the professional theorists 
in science.

 

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Bob Cook  > wrote:

Fran--

 

Take a look at the following link regarding the nature of time and space.  I 
noticed it when reading you last email regarding crack production you sent. 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160128122011.htm

 

Bob Cook

 

 

RE: [Vo]:BLP demo video

[Russ George]

Well we can only hope… I think when he looks as I have he will see which silver 
isotope is peculiar. Whether that adds insight or confusion is another question.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 7:35 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP demo video

 

Dear Russ,

 

Mills wll never give isotopic data because that info would undercut the hydrino 
theory in preference for the LENR theory. Hydrinos have no nuclear impact 
whereas LENR does.

 

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I would argue that the present context Mills work better supports a 
philosophical as opposed to scientific discussion. It’s much the same as 
Rossi’s work. The data is lacking so what is there to talk about other than 
appearances. For me Mill’s engine core is such a perfect facsimile to 
Roddenberry’s StarTrek engine core it’s hard not to love it. Now if Randy were 
to offer some isotopic ratio data on his silver I could perhaps compare his 
results with my own where dramatic isotope shifts in silver in cold/sono fusion 
experiments were apparent. Alas that would mean Mill’s would have to meet me in 
a middle ground as to what his and my energy are… I propose hydrino cooled 
fusion. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/02/04/did-technology-to-end-the-fossil-fuel-age-just-become-available/

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 7:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP demo video

 

In the presentation, Mills showed the spectrum from Ag plasma.  It included a 
soft x-ray band of lines and a UV band of lines.  The spectrum did not look 
blackbody.  If there was any evidence that Mills was producing something other 
than resistive plasma heating, perhaps the spectrum was some evidence.  Even 
still, Mills provided NO EVIDENCE for excess heat at all - zero, zip, nada.  
This doesn't mean he is not realizing excess heat, he simply provided no 
evidence for it.

 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote:

Bob, I would assume that the emissions from the plasma would contain spectral 
lines.   Mills states that the when the hydrino releases its energy into a 
receptor atom that this atom becomes ionized.  When a free electron recombines 
with the ion it seems likely that many transition states are possible on the 
way to the lowest energy state.  It seems likely that a broadband spectrum as 
well as a spectrum with lines would be emitted during that process.

Would you expect to see something of a different nature with regard to 
radiation from the plasma?

I agree that once the plate is heated only a blackbody radiation spectrum would 
be emitted which illuminates the solar cells.

Dave

 

 

RE: [Vo]: BLP demo video

[Russ George]

As a high school freshman I won a blue ribbon at a science fair for my 
electrostatic generator wherein I dropped water drop by drop past my two 
electrical contacts which in turn made a tiny neon tube light up in a flash. 

 

Perhaps Randy has been dropping drops of water with colloidal silver. >From his 
healthy appearance on camera he doesn’t have a case of argyria, so he’s not 
been taking too much of the medicinal colloidal silver internally.

 

I am ever more convinced that what is being produced is ‘cooled fusion’ perhaps 
hydrino cooled fusion. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/02/04/cooled-fusion/

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 8:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: BLP demo video

 

When Mills described his latest device, it wasn't clear to me how he was 
delivering the water along with his molten silver droplets.  In the previous 
incarnation of his machine, he has porous solid pellets that were delivered 
into the discharge with water in the porosity.  Now he has switched to droplets 
of molten silver as his "Mills catalyst" and discharge switch.  From what I can 
gather from analysis of the pictures of his machine, he introduces hydrogen 
and/or water directly into the large reaction chamber - either of which would 
be a gas cloud in the reaction chamber after startup heating.  With the 
explosive convection created by the discharge through the silver drops, 
evaporating them, it is not clear how much hydrogen or water vapor is actually 
in the discharge area.  It left me with a couple of questions:

Did Mills ever show the discharge without the water vapor or hydrogen for 
comparison?  I.E. would plain silver behave the same?

Does Mills' catalytic action to shrink the hydrogen require that the silver and 
hydrogen both be present in the discharge or would it be enough to have the hot 
silver vapor co-mingled with the hydrogen or water to cause the catalytic 
release of energy? 

RE: [Vo]:BLP demo video

[Russ George]

I would argue that the present context Mills work better supports a 
philosophical as opposed to scientific discussion. It’s much the same as 
Rossi’s work. The data is lacking so what is there to talk about other than 
appearances. For me Mill’s engine core is such a perfect facsimile to 
Roddenberry’s StarTrek engine core it’s hard not to love it. Now if Randy were 
to offer some isotopic ratio data on his silver I could perhaps compare his 
results with my own where dramatic isotope shifts in silver in cold/sono fusion 
experiments were apparent. Alas that would mean Mill’s would have to meet me in 
a middle ground as to what his and my energy are… I propose hydrino cooled 
fusion. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/02/04/did-technology-to-end-the-fossil-fuel-age-just-become-available/

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 7:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BLP demo video

 

In the presentation, Mills showed the spectrum from Ag plasma.  It included a 
soft x-ray band of lines and a UV band of lines.  The spectrum did not look 
blackbody.  If there was any evidence that Mills was producing something other 
than resistive plasma heating, perhaps the spectrum was some evidence.  Even 
still, Mills provided NO EVIDENCE for excess heat at all - zero, zip, nada.  
This doesn't mean he is not realizing excess heat, he simply provided no 
evidence for it.

 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson  > wrote:

Bob, I would assume that the emissions from the plasma would contain spectral 
lines.   Mills states that the when the hydrino releases its energy into a 
receptor atom that this atom becomes ionized.  When a free electron recombines 
with the ion it seems likely that many transition states are possible on the 
way to the lowest energy state.  It seems likely that a broadband spectrum as 
well as a spectrum with lines would be emitted during that process.

Would you expect to see something of a different nature with regard to 
radiation from the plasma?

I agree that once the plate is heated only a blackbody radiation spectrum would 
be emitted which illuminates the solar cells.

Dave

 

RE: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Russ George]

lly fits the data. Besides some non Gaussian noise that is 
always present in the detector the observed waveforms look like the solution of 
a GR graduate textbook end of chapter exercise problem. 



  
<http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v4LR3dW8qSMPY7dKPKPW7fRYjz2zlZNzW5CvrmQ1k1H6H0?si=6537132302139392=e685b7b9-3be6-42b1-e4e7-0d6a77c5834e>
 

 

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:57 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote:

How can we be confident that this is not just a false alarm?  It seems a bit 
premature to make this announcement since the claimed event is a billion light 
years away from Earth.  Are we to assume that this particular event at that 
great distance is the only one that is showing up on the instrument?  What 
proof is there that millions more are not present at closer distances which 
would be noise to filter out?

 

Has anyone released information concerning the signal to noise for this 
discovery?  Also, it is a bit difficult to believe that the device can tell the 
actual distance and direction of the black hole collision.

 

Has this been replicated?  There is much more evidence for cold fusion than for 
this discovery and I have a strong suspicion that it will be overturned one 
day.  Big science making big claims again...I hope it is true but it is 
unlikely.

 

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com <mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com> 
>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

By the way, gravitational waves were the topic of my dissertation so feel free 
to ask any question about the topic. It is very fascinating.   
<http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v4LR3dW8qSMPY7dKPKPW7fRYjz2zlZNzW5CvrmQ1k1H6H0?si=6537132302139392=38d3ee9c-f9b9-4eb3-a590-d8a1cd23c038>
 

 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com 
<mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com> > wrote:

It opens a complete different window on the Universe. 
The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV show. 
Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on. 
Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the 
universe. 
We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM radiation. 
For example that there are black holes systems with such large masses. 
This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were formed. 
And this is just the beginning. 
The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big Bang. 
While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very early 
stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about the 
universe using EM radiation. 
The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells 
information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only gravitational 
radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early. 

Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would give 
us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together.  

The consequences of this discovery are enormous. 





  
<http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v4LR3dW8qSMPY7dKPKPW7fRYjz2zlZNzW5CvrmQ1k1H6H0?si=6537132302139392=72763a4e-c9e7-434e-d37c-0ae30919601a>
 

 

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of value to 
obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate us about 
some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the findings.

 

 

 

 

[Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Russ George]

It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of value
to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate us
about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the findings.

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

[Russ George]

I vote for option #2 being the source of this signal, the ‘neutral’ particles 
being crazy neutrons, ‘mischugenons’ as described Edward Teller in earlier 
closely related cold fusion work. Some few of us have been able to produce 
these critters. It’s good news if this particular recipe works and is rapidly 
repeated. Some obvious steps will define the nature of the emission.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 9:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the spectrum 
looked like a blackbody radiation.  I did some analysis and can tell you that 
it does NOT look like blackbody radiation.  Blackbody radiation cuts off very 
sharply on the high energy side.  At 100 million degrees, there would be some 
energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would 
have declined by 40 orders of magnitude.  That is not what is seen here.

 

It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it probably 
spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with maximum energies 
over 1MeV.  The best explanations so far (and there has not been a chance for 
widespread vetting) are that it is due to:  1) Bremsstrahlung from really high 
energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] with a distribution of 
energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a flux of neutral particles 
causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the Na, I, and Th in the 
detector crystal.

 

Thank you for the links.  I will have a look these papers.

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha  > wrote:

The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided...

Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you have, 
unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei. There are not 
experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is formed by B8, which is 
stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something less than 10^-23s in 
coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will shine at a few kev. 
There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays. 

http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057

http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202

 

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

[Russ George]

Was there some sort of calibration with some known radiation sources performed 
with the same NaI instrument in the lab setting. Say placing a Coleman lantern 
mantle, thorium laced, for a reading, or a banana or cupful of Salt Substitute 
KCl…. Plenty of known ‘reference radiation sources’ are easily within reach of 
the local Walmart or grocery store. Just to make sure the instrument was 
performing as expected? 

 

How about the time series of the counts, hopefully the counts were binned in 
many files and not a single lumped file. 

 

Any insight on the instrument and its performance would be very useful. 

 

If Santa Cruz is as reported a high radon area then a simple filter collection 
will provide plenty of ‘radon fleas’ to study with the instrument. Quick and 
dirty - place a paper coffee filter over the end of a vacuum cleaner hose, run 
the vacuum for a time – say half an hour, stir up the dust in the room by 
sweeping the floor with a broom… examine the filter with the instrument. A 
longer slower collection seeking ‘radon fleas’ is easily accomplished with a 
computer CPU fan, box it in duct tape, apply the paper coffee filter, run for a 
few days, examine filter for flea signature. 

 

 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 2:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

Yeah ... I don't thinks so.  Think about it.  At 100,000,000K, you get some 
small output at 100keV.  But, by the time you get to 1MeV, the blackbody 
radiation intensity is down by 40 orders of magnitude - I.E. by a factor of 
1E-40 . So what are you saying, that some parts of the reaction are at 1 
billion K and other parts are at 100 million K?  The temperatures are just 
absurd.  Can you check my calculations?

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Rocha  > wrote:

 

Bob Higgins,

 

It could really be a black body radiation. Consider many cooling bodies. They 
will have different black body distributions at different times. So what you 
see is the sum of many black bodies at different times of a cooling process. It 
will be steep at large temperatures, since it will be a brief time, due fast 
cooling.


-- 

Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com  

 

RE: [Vo]:Bose condensation in LENR

[Russ George]

Of course this BEC condition as the means to allow for ‘cold fusion’ and 
suppress gammas is precisely what Julian Schwinger proposed in 1989… 

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:54 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bose condensation in LENR

 

I believe that the LENR reaction happens in two steps. First, Surface Plasmon 
Polaritons (SPP) form. This marks the formation of the LENR reaction. This is 
the weak version of the reaction where the COP is limited to 1.2.

 

The preferred state of SPPs is Bose condensation. After SPPs form, they will 
naturally form a Bose condensate. In this superconductive state, radiation is 
thermalized.

 

The LENR+ reaction is marked by the creation of Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM). 
This special crystal structure will amplify the SPPs that accumulate on the 
surface of the HRM. It is the SPP cover that makes HRM superconductive. The 
nuclear reactions that are catalyzed by HRM are thermalized and stored in the 
SPP condensate in a dark mode on the surface of the HRM. The more energy that 
is stored on the HRM, the more LENR+ active that HRM becomes and the more 
indestructible that that crystal gets.

 

Any dark mode energy accumulation on the surface of the HRM will eventually 
leak into the vacuum as hawking radiation. This leakage is the method of 
thermalization that converts gamma to thermal EMF.

If a magnetic field is applied to the HRM, the Bose condensation on the surface 
of the HRM will be destroyed and all the energy content stored there will be 
released in a burst. 

 

But the SPP which is a photon plasmoid soliton will immediately reform if the 
magnetic field that destroyed the superconductive nature of the HRM is removed. 
While the magnetic field is in place, the nuclear energy will be released as 
gamma radiation and not thermalized by the vacuum.

 

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Axil Axil  > wrote:

I believe that the energy production mechanism in LENR is based on nuclear 
reactions that occur in a state of bose condensation. This is indicated by a 
comparison of the way gamma is produced in the Rossi type reaction as compared 
to the electric arc driven Defkalion type of reaction. 

 

In the Rossi reaction, a burst of gamma happens in a fraction of a second at 
startup just before the bose condensate is established in the reactor. Once 
condensation takes hold, radiation is not seen since super-absorption of gamma 
radiation takes hold to thermalize the gamma radiation.

 

In the Defkalion system, a steady state generation of gamma radiation that 
ranges from 200 counts per second to 600 counts per second is seen. The reason 
for this condition for radiation production is because the DC arc that drives 
the DGT reaction destroys the Bose condensate through the production of a large 
magnetic field. DGT was noted for the production of very large magnetic fields. 
A bose condensate just as in superconductivity  that state cannot exist for 
long in a highly magnetically active environment.

 

I predict that if a Rossi type reactor that is producing overunity heat is 
subjected to a large magnetic field, the overunity heat production will cease 
and then will be replaced by a continuous production of gamma radiation as the 
magnetic field destroys the state of bose condensation inside the reactor.

 

I am happy that we now have the chance to test these theories in a open source 
format. 

 

RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

OK having watch Bob’s great video I finally get it. The rad burst was from 
segment 7 in a series of data collections. It represents a few minutes of 
collecting and shows a clear signal… the rest of the many similar time slices 
of rad data before and after show no such anomaly. End of story, well 
controlled, very clear signal, anomalous for sure, in total not a lot of events 
relative to joules/watts of nuclear reaction.

 

This further seems to fit well with the Cellani observation of a few years ago 
with a Rossi demo… so two events are now starting to make a story. There is no 
longer a question that lenr is without dangerous radiation, it most certainly 
has an abundance of same. Build a large unshielded e-cat in your garage and 
irradiate the neighborhood.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

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

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

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

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

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

 

 

[Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

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

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

The number of nuclear events/radiations in the recent MFMP test is very very 
tiny, perhaps representing 1 million events in total , ??. Considering DD 
fusion as an example to make a single watt/joule of output requires e12 events 
it is no wonder that this signal is hard to observe. The 'nuclear' event 
observed is likely to have been less than a billionth of a watt of 'cold 
fusion' equivalence.

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
more than 50 cm from the reactor. (see Appendix 1) 
http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/1/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
I don't understand all the jargon but over the 32 day duration test it looks 
like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background.
If the MFMP reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters 
register any radiation?

harry

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

The photo of the detector placement has helped to understand this mystery

As far as 'breaking radiation' aka Bremstrahlung, any form of energetic 
particle coming to a halt produces that characteristic signal, whether they are 
crazy heavy muons or speeding electrons...or ??? Neutron clusters or 
tetraquarks or Rydberg hydrogen perhaps as they are rare but on the cold fusion 
flavor of the day menus.

The present situation with not even a dental x-ray worth of radiation being 
observed is one thing as it derives from an infinitely small fraction of a 
joule of nuclear activity, if hundreds of joules of cold fusion nuclear 
activity are seen in similar x-rays the dose would be multiplied by a very 
large number. 

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 4:41 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:
>
> "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron 
> production in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in 
> sensitive GRS experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may 
> interact with target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be 
> accounted for otherwise"
>
> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:htt
> ps://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11
> =en=clnk=us#87
>

This paper might be a good resource so here is a link which displays all the 
charts and pictures.
https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf

It is just my opinion, but I doubt that muons interacting with lead would be 
capable of generating the observed the spectrum.
However, couldn't muons and electrons could both generate Bremsstrahlung 
radiation?

harry

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

A much better test might be to add a more efficient 'crazy muon' receptor 
occluding perhaps half of the detector. Say a foil of silver or gadolinium. 
With such material the count rate might go up.  How many cm away was the NaI 
from the source?  Of course this presumes the signal can be reproduced at will.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

-Original Message-
From: H LV
 
> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
> radiation?


I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.

The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the muons 
are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.

This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known muon 
interaction with lead:

"overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron production in 
Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in sensitive GRS 
experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may interact with 
target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be accounted for 
otherwise"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11=en=clnk=us#87

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

Many years ago in the early days of cold fusion I was running an experiment at 
Los Alamos. We had a high quality Germanium gamma detector and a neutron 
detector. The neutron detector was old but good though it printed it's data 
counts onto a paper tape. It had been calibrated in another lab down the hall 
from the lab I was working in. We wheeled it into my lab and placed it near ( 2 
meters away) my deuterium palladium fueled sonofusion experiment which was 
known to produce prodigious amounts of 4He, (prodigious = e16 atoms in machines 
sensitive to e9 atoms.) 

No one had paid much attention to the neutron detector and its big box of 
spirals of paper tape that had the counts recorded. In a lull in work on the 
sono-fusion machine I paused to look at the paper tape counts. They were very 
simple having just a time code and a counts per minute recorded on each line. 
Every minute the machine would type out a new line of data. As I peered at the 
tape I noticed that the count rate had gone up suddenly by 1-2 orders of 
magnitude. Yikes I thought and with the other guys in the lab we stepped 
outside of that lab and down the hall just to put some distance between us and 
the experiment while we talked it over. We phoned the labs top neutron guy 
whose counter we were using and I told him what was happening. His immediate 
response was 'get out of that lab', I told him we were already calling from a 
phone down the hall. He came over immediately and once having briefed him he 
and I ran quickly back into the lab so I could show him the counts on the tape 
and back out again. 

Well he said that's a lot of additional counts but not so high as to be 
terribly dangerous. We should think about it a bit. He then walked to the door 
of the lab and peered in. Ah Hah he exclaimed I see the culprit. In the cornor 
of the lab, 15 feet from the detector, was a very massive block of lead that 
was used to encase the Germanium detector when it was in use. It was sitting on 
a wheeled cart. "That hunk of lead is catching cosmic rays and kicking out 
neutrons", he said. "Let's get it out of the lab and see what happens." Sure 
enough we wheeled the lead out of the room and that was that the count rate in 
the neutron detector went right back down to normal background.   When we 
looked carefully at the paper tape and time codes we could see the count rate 
had gone up when we moved the detector from its home lab to our 'lead heavy' 
lab.  No one had looked at it until I had done so and there was no mark as to 
the switch of labs. We were all well acquainted with looking for radiation from 
many cold fusion experiments and had not seen any up to that time. 

Moral of the story is radiation measurements are so wonderfully sensitive one 
can be fooled by what appears to be large signals but which are really such 
tiny signals many simple explanations can explain them away.

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 5:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV
>
>> In the Lugano test dosimeters were used to check for gamma/xray emissions at 
>> more than 50 cm from the reactor... over the 32 day duration test it looks 
>> like the dosimeters didn't record anything above background... If the MFMP 
>> reactor resembles the Lugano reactor why didn't the dosimeters register any 
>> radiation?
>
>
> I may sound like a broken record on this but it is fairly obvious: remove the 
> lead bricks - the "apparent" radiation goes away. No lead at Lugano.
>
> The operative difference was the bricks. The lead captures muons which are 
> documented by the adjoining scintillator as gamma radiation. Some of the 
> muons are cosmic but some can be produced in the Holmlid effect.
>
> This can be easily tested next time around: remove the lead - the apparent 
> radiation goes away. In a thesis which was referenced earlier on the known 
> muon interaction with lead:
>

If it is do due cosmic rays then it is quite a coincident that it happens just 
when the reactor enters phase 7.
Also if it is due to muons then it supports some of Holmlid research.
Nobody loses here.

Harry

> "overall the study has demonstrated that effects such as neutron 
> production in Pb shielding from muon interaction is an important effect in 
> sensitive GRS experiments as the secondary/tertiary neutrons produced may 
> interact with target nuclei to produce γ-ray events which could not be 
> accounted for otherwise"
>
> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OzhUEPLFX44J:htt
> ps://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:161164/Turnbull.pdf+=11
> =en=clnk=us#87
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

Bob, our solution to the cosmic spallation creating neutrons from lead was to 
move the lead far away… no lead no neutrons… I shared that story only to tell 
how easy it is to fuss about small signals… sometimes the signals are 
‘relatively’ large for the instrument but meaninglessly tiny for you and I. 

 

If one is making neutrons then there are neutron initiated gammas that one 
might need to watch out for. I found that having some neutron sensitive 
materials around like silver and gadolinium is a sure fire way to reveal 
neutrons with simple detectors. But there are almost certainly some strange 
emissions lurking in cold fusion/lenr that are not yet well understood, perhaps 
never having been described!

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 7:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

 

Do you have a reference on this?  Otherwise, a lead cave would not be useful - 
it is there to protect the sensor from the cosmic rays.

My understanding is that the cosmic rays produce the neutrons by spallation.  
If the neutrons are absorbed in the lead, they will likely cause isotopic shift 
which will lead to beta emission and then characteristic x-rays for lead at 78 
keV.  My plan is to follow the inside of the lead with 1/4" of Fe which will 
absorb all of the 78 keV but will produce the characteristic x-ray of Fe at 6 
keV.  Then there is the boric acid neutron absorber, and then the aluminum 
absorbs the 6  keV from the Fe, but gives off 1.5 keV Al characteristic x-ray 
in small amount.

 

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Jones Beene  > wrote:

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Jones, the moral of the story is that the large amount of lead (and it 
probably took a whole lot for the HPGe detector) converted some of the cosmic 
rays into a small neutron flux. 

Bob, as the thesis clearly states – the neutrons then are absorbed by the lead, 
causing the gamma radiation.

 

 

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

[Russ George]

What might be the comparison of this recent radiation flux signature with that 
of something like a Farnsworth Fusor?

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

Alan has a full set of gamma check sources.  Initial calibration was done with 
137Cs.  The energy scale drifted over time with heating from the reactor.  The 
background always showed the 78keV x-ray and 1461 40K background peaks.  I 
re-calibrated the energy scale on every file, resampled each to 1keV/bin, and 
insured that the resampled file was adjusted to have the same photometric 
counts.  Once that was done I could subtract my calibrated background. 

We have since run another calibration with the equipment still in place.  We 
setup to simultaneously capture spectra files with the NaI scintillator - 
spectrometer, and also with the GMC-320+ GM counter he had alongside the 
reactor.  He placed the check sources 1 by 1 on top of the reactor tube and 
captured the response to each.  These sources were used:  54Mn, 133Ba, 57Co, 
109Cd, and 137Cs.

There is the capability to capture the time series of counts out the back of 
the spectrometer, but Alan did not have anything to capture it.  We will get 
that setup for next time.  He also didn't know that the software had provision 
for automated successive integrations and captures.  Now I have told him, and 
that won't be manual and irregular next time.

The background was quite constant - the radon was either a minor factor or was 
essentially constant over the course of the integrations.  Finlay McNab wrote 
me and asked about possible cosmic ray shower.  It would be good to have 
another detector placed away from the reaction, but I think that was covered 
and here is what I told him about why I don't think it was a cosmic ray shower:

"The NaI detector was in a cave of lead bricks 3" thick.  At 500keV, only 1ppm 
of incident cosmic ray energy will penetrate.  By 1MeV, 0.2% will penetrate.  
So when high energy cosmic rays hit the lead cave, some will penetrate and when 
they interact with the lead, and the 78keV characteristic x-ray will be 
generated.  However, this will not go very far in the lead.  The very high 
energy cosmic rays that penetrate almost all the way through the lead and 
excite the 78keV x-ray near the inside surface will be picked up in the NaI 
detector - and we see this.  What we see is that this 78keV peak and the rest 
of the background stayed photometrically stable.  When we subtract the 
reference background from other traces with no signal, we just get zero mean 
noise.  If the cosmic rays had peaked, it would have peaked the 78keV signal 
and this would no longer have subtracted out.  We see a clean subtraction in 
our Spectrum-07 with no evidence of the 78keV peak, so it is reasonable to 
conclude that the cosmic rays did not have a sudden shower."

 

I don't think trying to measure the radon daughters is worthwhile.  They would 
have to be checked with a beta detector anyway, not with the NaI because there 
is little or no gamma from radon decay as I understand it.

Bob

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Was there some sort of calibration with some known radiation sources performed 
with the same NaI instrument in the lab setting. Say placing a Coleman lantern 
mantle, thorium laced, for a reading, or a banana or cupful of Salt Substitute 
KCl…. Plenty of known ‘reference radiation sources’ are easily within reach of 
the local Walmart or grocery store. Just to make sure the instrument was 
performing as expected? 

 

How about the time series of the counts, hopefully the counts were binned in 
many files and not a single lumped file. 

 

Any insight on the instrument and its performance would be very useful. 

 

If Santa Cruz is as reported a high radon area then a simple filter collection 
will provide plenty of ‘radon fleas’ to study with the instrument. Quick and 
dirty - place a paper coffee filter over the end of a vacuum cleaner hose, run 
the vacuum for a time – say half an hour, stir up the dust in the room by 
sweeping the floor with a broom… examine the filter with the instrument. A 
longer slower collection seeking ‘radon fleas’ is easily accomplished with a 
computer CPU fan, box it in duct tape, apply the paper coffee filter, run for a 
few days, examine filter for flea signature. 

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Russ George]

Here’s a question of those whose imaginations include exotic particles.. what 
might be the characteristics of polyneutrons? Would they have the same 
half-life as a single neutron or ??? Clearly they have been observed in 
Fisher/Orianni work and produced large showers of radiation. They also travel 
ample distances to reach the detector. 

 

From: Mark Jurich [mailto:jur...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung radiation

 

The Lead Cave must be nearby (with the scintillator in it) to replicate.  If 
another scintillator is secured, it is quite possible to run it without 
immediate lead surrounding it, but it will be close to the Lead Cave, I’m 
afraid (within a couple feet away, tops).  Actually, we do not have enough Lead 
to house two scintillators anyway, at the moment, but I am digressing...

 

Although a run could be done with the lead and a run could be done without the 
lead, this would require another experiment and a huge delay in confirmation 
unless Alan were to duplicate parts ahead of time...

 

Also keep in mind that when it happens, we cannot be near it moving things 
until we assess it’s safe to do so.  We can automate a few things and we will.

 

It is our understanding that if this is NOT an artifact, that we only have one 
chance to see it during an experiment, unless we master controlling it.

 

Last time, we set a mouse trap and caught a mouse ... This time, we are hoping 
to watch as the mouse gets caught, with everything we can throw at it.

 

Right now it’s Mouse 4, MFMP 1 (this is GS 5 Series) ... It’s the Bottom of the 
Sixth Inning and we are about to take our bat.  We’re not out of this yet!

 

- Mark Jurich

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 8:19 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bremsstrahlung radiation

 

From: Eric Walker 

*  To play devil's advocate, the hypothetical neutron flux could have 
produced short-lived beta radioisotopes when they activated something in or 
near the experiment.  

Eric,

Even without activation - the neutron itself is a beta emitter. Free neutrons 
have a half-life of about 10 min and are almost gone in 15. The usual beta 
electron is .78 MeV and is charged so it will not look like a gamma. And there 
is no evidence of an accelerated decay in a well-investigate field.

However, a fraction of free neutrons do produce a gamma ray on decay. This 
gamma ray is sometimes called “internal bremsstrahlung” but is soft. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung#Inner_and_outer_bremsstrahlung

If Bob’s procedure is to test the ongoing reaction with no shielding and then 
with shielding, and compare the two - then many of these issues can be 
resolved. If no shielding gives significantly more counts, then cosmic rays can 
be blamed. However, my prediction is that no shielding will show fewer, not 
more gammas. That is especially true if the reaction itself is making muons 
(the Holmlid effect). 

IMO - the most important finding which could come out of this next test is to 
see significantly more gammas in the cave than with no shielding - and to see a 
variance from inverse square drop-off, when the cave is moved back from the 
reactor. Lastly, the peaks can be matched with the temperature differential.

If a gamma burst is  correlated with apparent endotherm, as happened in the 
last test – then it would be a significant indication that Holmlid is correct.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

If x-ray "warming" is taking place then we are at the very simple 'dead 
graduate student' test phase.. a dose of radiation capable of warming anything 
is surely lethal so just look into the lab and count the number of dead grad 
students lying on the floor, any number greater than 0 means a dramatic nuclear 
process in hand :(

-Original Message-
From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> H LV  wrote:
>
>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The
>>
>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed 
>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside.
>
>
> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at 
> around time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes 
> before.) T4 suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like 
> delayed dissipation to me.
>
> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the 
> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for 
> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached 
> with adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside 
> temperature might change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such 
> changes to the cell during a test.
>
> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after 
> the power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising 
> at a steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not 
> have leveled off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell 
> continued in a stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 
> was working correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal 
> temperature.
>
> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It 
> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I 
> think that T1 and
> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly 
> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature.
>
> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase 
> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to 
> that increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would 
> be a continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does 
> after the initial jump, followed by a gradual decay.

Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor why is T1 
dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising?
Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted was warmed 
by a burst of xrays.

harry

RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

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

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

 

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

 

Hi Russ:

 

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

 

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

   

 

From:  <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> Russ George 

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

To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

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

RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com 
<mailto:jur...@hotmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Russ:

 

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

 

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

   

 

From: Russ George <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>  

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

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>  

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

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

 

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

[Russ George]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

From: Russ George <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>  

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

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>  

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Hi Russ:

 

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

 

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

   

 

From:  <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> Russ George 

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

To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

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

RE: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

[Russ George]

This is helpful as the context of this experiments radiation measurement seems 
to be much less than the radiation needed to expose/fog a single dental x-ray 
film. It’s the digital/digitized equivalent of such. Clearly no danger to 
humans in the vicinity. Given that a single joule/watt of fusion is ~e12/sec 
D+D events here we might see evidence of a long time cumulative rate that comes 
from an impossibly small fraction of a single joule of cold fusion. The devil 
once again seems to be revealed in the details. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Implied personal radiation dose ?

 

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

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

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

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

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

 

 

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

[Russ George]

This is very helpful… seeing that most of the ordinary efforts have been well 
attended to and the obvious bugs eliminated makes the signal more mysterious… 
that’s a good thing. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Big surprise or big dud ?

 

Alan has a full set of gamma check sources.  Initial calibration was done with 
137Cs.  The energy scale drifted over time with heating from the reactor.  The 
background always showed the 78keV x-ray and 1461 40K background peaks.  I 
re-calibrated the energy scale on every file, resampled each to 1keV/bin, and 
insured that the resampled file was adjusted to have the same photometric 
counts.  Once that was done I could subtract my calibrated background. 

We have since run another calibration with the equipment still in place.  We 
setup to simultaneously capture spectra files with the NaI scintillator - 
spectrometer, and also with the GMC-320+ GM counter he had alongside the 
reactor.  He placed the check sources 1 by 1 on top of the reactor tube and 
captured the response to each.  These sources were used:  54Mn, 133Ba, 57Co, 
109Cd, and 137Cs.

There is the capability to capture the time series of counts out the back of 
the spectrometer, but Alan did not have anything to capture it.  We will get 
that setup for next time.  He also didn't know that the software had provision 
for automated successive integrations and captures.  Now I have told him, and 
that won't be manual and irregular next time.

The background was quite constant - the radon was either a minor factor or was 
essentially constant over the course of the integrations.  Finlay McNab wrote 
me and asked about possible cosmic ray shower.  It would be good to have 
another detector placed away from the reaction, but I think that was covered 
and here is what I told him about why I don't think it was a cosmic ray shower:

"The NaI detector was in a cave of lead bricks 3" thick.  At 500keV, only 1ppm 
of incident cosmic ray energy will penetrate.  By 1MeV, 0.2% will penetrate.  
So when high energy cosmic rays hit the lead cave, some will penetrate and when 
they interact with the lead, and the 78keV characteristic x-ray will be 
generated.  However, this will not go very far in the lead.  The very high 
energy cosmic rays that penetrate almost all the way through the lead and 
excite the 78keV x-ray near the inside surface will be picked up in the NaI 
detector - and we see this.  What we see is that this 78keV peak and the rest 
of the background stayed photometrically stable.  When we subtract the 
reference background from other traces with no signal, we just get zero mean 
noise.  If the cosmic rays had peaked, it would have peaked the 78keV signal 
and this would no longer have subtracted out.  We see a clean subtraction in 
our Spectrum-07 with no evidence of the 78keV peak, so it is reasonable to 
conclude that the cosmic rays did not have a sudden shower."

 

I don't think trying to measure the radon daughters is worthwhile.  They would 
have to be checked with a beta detector anyway, not with the NaI because there 
is little or no gamma from radon decay as I understand it.

Bob

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Was there some sort of calibration with some known radiation sources performed 
with the same NaI instrument in the lab setting. Say placing a Coleman lantern 
mantle, thorium laced, for a reading, or a banana or cupful of Salt Substitute 
KCl…. Plenty of known ‘reference radiation sources’ are easily within reach of 
the local Walmart or grocery store. Just to make sure the instrument was 
performing as expected? 

 

How about the time series of the counts, hopefully the counts were binned in 
many files and not a single lumped file. 

 

Any insight on the instrument and its performance would be very useful. 

 

If Santa Cruz is as reported a high radon area then a simple filter collection 
will provide plenty of ‘radon fleas’ to study with the instrument. Quick and 
dirty - place a paper coffee filter over the end of a vacuum cleaner hose, run 
the vacuum for a time – say half an hour, stir up the dust in the room by 
sweeping the floor with a broom… examine the filter with the instrument. A 
longer slower collection seeking ‘radon fleas’ is easily accomplished with a 
computer CPU fan, box it in duct tape, apply the paper coffee filter, run for a 
few days, examine filter for flea signature. 

RE: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Russ George]

But surely they cannot replace Vanna White

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:59 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

 

Frank Znidarsic  > wrote:

 

The last good paying jobs remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold up?

 

Not long. When computers can drive cars better than people, and when they can 
win at Jeopardy better than the world's experts, it is only a matter of time 
before they take all remaining manual labor jobs.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]: Mischegunon polyneutrons at 4.9 Sigma

[Russ George]

Hot out of the liquid helium

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.052501. 

Quad neutrons clusters reliably produced   Holy Batman another meaning for 
Pauli exclusion.

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Russ George]

It seems to me that all the chatter about the 350 day term of Rossi’s test is 
just so much babble from armchair dilletantes. It is tantamount to trolling. I 
for one have no end of admiration for Rossi in performing his test so 
diligently and as openly as he has done. In the face of the nasty trolls that 
he seems to have attracted one thing is clear this guy is no shrinking coward. 
Of course his real test comes with making some report of the test public and of 
its effect in the real world. 

 

From: Mats Lewan [mailto:m...@matslewan.se] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 8:09 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

 

Jed,

I would expect the 350-day term to be a condition in some kind of agreement, 
e.g. something between IH and Rossi.

To me it looks like a condition set up by managers, not engineers, who want to 
find a water proof condition for making sure the technology is valid, not only 
for themselves but also for convincing customers and the public. Thus not for 
convincing engineers only. 

In this sense, from an engineering perspective, you could say the story is 
incomplete. 

 

I also think you should make a distinction between the Lugano report and this 
one. 

The Lugano report were produced by academics, whereas I expect this one to be 
produced by experienced industrial experts/engineers. 

A part from taking some time to analyse all data and produce a report according 
to internal standards for the certifying institute, whichever it is, I guess 
there’s also the issue that IH, Rossi and the client have to agree on what to 
report to the public, and when. 

 

So even though I have reported that sources say the result was successful, I 
know nothing of the evaluation the third party is doing, and it could of course 
be different.  

 

Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com  

 

 

 

On 21 Feb 2016, at 04:29, Jed Rothwell  > wrote:

 

 > wrote:

 

That may be true of normal commercial equipment that has already had the
teething problems removed, and where one may expect consistent action. However
that is not likely to be the case with Rossi's reactor.

 

If it works for an hour, any HVAC engineer could confirm that. Or if it is not 
working that particular hour, the equipment would show that, too. The whole 
purpose of HVAC test equipment is to sort out whether the machine is working 
consistently or not. Things stop working in an ordinary HVAC installation. 
Baffles get stuck; fans turn off. It often happens at my office. That's why the 
guy comes around with his air flow vane velocity fan and thermometer.

 

I am just saying the story is incomplete. This cannot mean a "test" in the 
normal sense of the word, because people test heaters a hundred thousand times 
a day, and these tests take an hour.

 

 

He was baby-sitting it for the year, and fixing things whenever it broke down.

 

If it is broken that day, the HVAC guy comes back the next day. My point is, 
you can confirm it is working in less than a year.

 

 

The customer needed to know that it would pay off in
the long term. Hence the year long test.

 

If so, I could have saved the customer the trouble. No, it is not possible this 
thing can work trouble free for a year. And even if it could, the machine would 
be obsolete long before that. Rossi demonstrated that when kept describing new 
configurations and new gadgets during the test.

Prototypes are never stable in performance. They are obsolete in months. Even 
first-generation production devices are soon obsolete, and seldom on the market 
for a year. Frederick Brooks described prototypes in his book "The Mythical Man 
Month", in the chapter "plan to throw one away:"

In most projects, the first system built is barely usable. It may be too slow, 
too big, awkward to use, or all three. There is no alternative but to start 
again, smarting but smarter, and build a redesigned version in which these 
problems are solved. The discard and redesign may be done in one lump, or it 
may be done piece-by-piece. But all large-system experience shows that it will 
be done. Where a new system concept or new technology is used, one has to build 
a system to throw away, for even the best planning is not so omniscient as to 
get it right the first time

 

The management question, therefore, is not whether to build a pilot system and 
throw it away. You will do that. The only question is whether to plan in 
advance to build a throwaway, or to promise to deliver the throwaway to 
customers. Seen this way, the answer is much clearer. . . .

 

- Jed

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Merging Holmlid and Heffner

[Russ George]

What might be a variety of means, low tech to high tech, to detect low
energy muons?

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Merging Holmlid and Heffner

 

The deflation hypothesis of Horace Heffner is still of significant interest
- but seldom discussed. Here is the paper

 
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf

There is a new twist which is possible to consider on this hypothesis since
it was last updated. (The following suggestion is independent of Horace but
borrows his concept relating to collapse of the wave function of an
electron). That deflated electron in question is now to be identified as the
electron of UDD (Rydberg matter) after irradiation by a laser and SPP
compression.

In the context of Holmlid, then - it is possible to reconsider the
collapsing wave function as something other than part of a helium fusion
event. The alternative event is simpler and would involving the electron
collapsing into the proton (of a deuteron) which has been triggered by laser
interaction with the electron. The interaction of three particles in the
nucleus (neutron, proton and deflated electron) has the surprising QCD
result of nucleon disintegration (as opposed to fusion). 

The observable outcome, as documented by Holmlid - would be muons, which are
detected when they decay elsewhere than the reactor (as they are weakly
interacting and decay meters away). Far greater initial excess energy is
involved - but it dissipates mostly as neutrinos, so less local energy is
seen in the reactor. 

The details remain to be worked out but we would not expect to see massive
excess-heat locally. Instead we should see a spatial signal which is evident
some distance away from the reactor - which is muon decay into neutrinos and
electrons. This muon decay signature is easily detectable but prior to
Holmlid, no one thought to look for it.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

[Russ George]

What part of my qualifying word about Rossi’s test “as openly” did you not 
understand. I see no complaints about Rossi’s work coming from those who have a 
history of work at the lab bench as opposed to the keyboards. Of course there 
is no end of whining from many who are his ‘competitors’ and self-appointed 
pundits who would love to see if their ranting and trolling might tweak some 
additional insight out of Rossi as to how to make progress in the field that 
they are demonstrably proven unable to contribute to. 

 

I am all for an open society, let’s begin with the revelation of all computer 
code everywhere.

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:the expected LENR Surprise Rossi's long time test over!Re:

 

Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

I for one have no end of admiration for Rossi in performing his test so 
diligently and as openly as he has done.

 

He has not been open. He has withheld many critical details.

 

The tests he has published have been poorly done and not convincing, in my 
opinion and in the opinions of many experts. He did sloppy things, such as in 
one test, he neglected to insert an SD card in the handheld thermocouple. Mats 
Lewan had to manually record temperatures because of that. He also neglected to 
measure the outlet temperature just downstream of the reactor, even though he 
had a free thermocouple. I and others urged him to do this before the test, but 
he refused. That made the results inconclusive at best.

 

He has every right to withhold details. He is under no obligation to report 
anything. I have no objection to secrecy. However, I believe that when a 
researcher decides to report a result, he should do a careful test, and then 
publish a credible, detailed report. I think it is a bad idea to publish an 
unconvincing report. That is how I would describe both Rossi's reports and the 
Lugano report. I agree with McKubre's analysis of Lugano, which is linked here:

 

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589

 

Levi's first report was better than Lugano. I do not understand why they did a 
worse job the second time. Usually, people do a better job the second time 
around. This is baffling, and disappointing.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Merging Holmlid and Heffner

[Russ George]

What about a secondary muon target re-emitter… what would the ideal target and 
emission be?

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:38 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Merging Holmlid and Heffner

 

>From the top of my head, a cloud chamber...

 

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

What might be a variety of means, low tech to high tech, to detect low energy 
muons?

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> ] 
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Merging Holmlid and Heffner

 

The deflation hypothesis of Horace Heffner is still of significant interest - 
but seldom discussed. Here is the paper

 <http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf> 
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf

There is a new twist which is possible to consider on this hypothesis since it 
was last updated. (The following suggestion is independent of Horace but 
borrows his concept relating to collapse of the wave function of an electron). 
That deflated electron in question is now to be identified as the electron of 
UDD (Rydberg matter) after irradiation by a laser and SPP compression.

In the context of Holmlid, then - it is possible to reconsider the collapsing 
wave function as something other than part of a helium fusion event. The 
alternative event is simpler and would involving the electron collapsing into 
the proton (of a deuteron) which has been triggered by laser interaction with 
the electron. The interaction of three particles in the nucleus (neutron, 
proton and deflated electron) has the surprising QCD result of nucleon 
disintegration (as opposed to fusion). 

The observable outcome, as documented by Holmlid - would be muons, which are 
detected when they decay elsewhere than the reactor (as they are weakly 
interacting and decay meters away). Far greater initial excess energy is 
involved - but it dissipates mostly as neutrinos, so less local energy is seen 
in the reactor. 

The details remain to be worked out but we would not expect to see massive 
excess-heat locally. Instead we should see a spatial signal which is evident 
some distance away from the reactor – which is muon decay into neutrinos and 
electrons. This muon decay signature is easily detectable but prior to Holmlid, 
no one thought to look for it.

Jones

 

[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge

[Russ George]

I surely hope that there are mirrors of that data being created and saved 
everywhere. Paywalls in science have always been deplorable and have been 
avariciously supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. Once 
upon a time that is no longer there were costs associated with publication of 
science. There can be no reason to allow and sustain the billion dollar science 
journal banksters game.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 10:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers 
free online to spread knowledge

 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:57 AM, H LV  > wrote:

 

A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost 
every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online. And 
she's now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a 
lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world's biggest publishers.

 

Interesting finding. I was unaware of this site.

 

I am sympathetic with Alexandra Elbakyan's cause.  It is frustrating not to 
have ready access to a number of cold-fusion-related papers that one sees 
reference to from time to time.  But I don't see this case going the way she 
hopes it will.

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Russ George]

What, if anything, does this new LIGO GW work say about the ideas of Tom
VanFlandern whose papers showed the speed of gravity to be e9 times C.
Perhaps there is room for more than one kind of gravity wave, much like the
P and S waves in seismology. 

 

From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

 

It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of value
to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate us
about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the findings.

[Vo]:EM drive actually a GW drive?

[Russ George]

Given what the methods and discovery of LIGO teach is it likely that the EM
drive is in fact a GW drive and thus an immediate realization of some
utility of GW. If so then Shawyer's 'GW detector' has far outdone LIGO.

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Russ George]

What, you don’t believe Casimir’s oxen pull?

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:18 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

 

I don't believe that the vacuum does work.

 

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Eric Walker  > wrote:

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:36 PM,  > wrote:

 

I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative energy".

 

It's what is needed to do negative work.

 

Eric

 

 

[Vo]:Chinese tokamak fusion

[Russ George]

I am curious as to the neutron count in the recent Chinese Tokamak test,
years ago a GenAtomics tok test produced some e16 neutrons in total for a
'shot' of ~1 second. Did the Chinese see e18 neutrons? 

RE: [Vo]:Chinese tokamak fusion

[Russ George]

Thanks for the protium pointer. so no data on fusion events is possible.
We'll have to wait for a DT run ;)

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chinese tokamak fusion

 

 

The reports coming out of China are embarrassing lacking in detail. It
appears they only used protium, so zero neutrons are expected. 

 

From: Russ George 

 

I am curious as to the neutron count in the recent Chinese Tokamak test,
years ago a GenAtomics tok test produced some e16 neutrons in total for a
'shot' of ~1 second. Did the Chinese see e18 neutrons? 

RE: [Vo]:Chinese tokamak fusion

[Russ George]

Oh yeah I forgot before we can see the data from a DT Tokamak run we'll need
to see the machine rebuilt with unobtanium to resist the neutron flux

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Chinese tokamak fusion

 

 

The reports coming out of China are embarrassing lacking in detail. It
appears they only used protium, so zero neutrons are expected. 

 

From: Russ George 

 

I am curious as to the neutron count in the recent Chinese Tokamak test,
years ago a GenAtomics tok test produced some e16 neutrons in total for a
'shot' of ~1 second. Did the Chinese see e18 neutrons? 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

Ludwik, What's your opinion of Fisher's polyneutrons these days? 

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team

 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to
send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

 

Ludwik

===

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski. 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:





Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

 

Ludwik

=

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:





I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

His 'alpha' showers seem to be about the same number of events as the recent
MFMP Bremstrahlung.

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I am not familiar with new experimental results. Dr Fisher said he will
publish a new report, before the end of 2015. But he didn't I hope he is OK.

 

Ludwik

==

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Russ George wrote:





Ludwik, What's your opinion of Fisher's polyneutrons these days? 

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team

 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to
send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

 

Ludwik

===

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski. 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:






Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

 

Ludwik

=

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:






I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

Perhaps a Fisher polyneutron would reveal itself in a 'beta shower' that the
NaI instrument would see.

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I am not familiar with new experimental results. Dr Fisher said he will
publish a new report, before the end of 2015. But he didn't I hope he is OK.

 

Ludwik

==

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Russ George wrote:





Ludwik, What's your opinion of Fisher's polyneutrons these days? 

 

From: Ludwik Kowalski [mailto:kowals...@mail.montclair.edu] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I suppose that at least one member of the Chinese Team

 is following this thread. If not then perhaps someone will be willing to
send them an invitation. It would be useful to be able to ask questions.

 

Ludwik

===

 

 

Ludwik Kowalski. 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:






Thank you very very much, to both you, Jed, and others.

 

Ludwik

=

 

 

On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:






I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the
trouble to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google
translate just wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate
version, you skip over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and
in fact, there were some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

[Russ George]

As a cold fusion experimentalist it is astonishing to see such experiments 
being done with so few thermocouples. They are incredibly cheap and using many 
for redundancy purposes is just common sense.  It used to be that the data 
channels were in short supply but these days many data channels is also very 
available. Thermocouples commonly fail for many reasons, especially when 
pushing their limits. Sigh :(  Even if data channels are few just add extra 
thermocouples and manually switch the wiring to redundants if one fails! It 
takes but a moment.

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 6:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese

 

I was interested enough in Dr. Jiang's latest paper that I went to the trouble 
to do a proper translation from Chinese to English.  Google translate just 
wasn't good enough.  If you read through the Google translate version, you skip 
over things that Google didn't translate well enough - and in fact, there were 
some gems hidden in there.

For your reading pleasure ... on my Google Drive

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2bV9DLUp1MTkwU1U 

Bob Higgins

 

RE: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Russ George]

It is a telling and sad story on the character of LENR when this Chinese report 
that shows inadequate experimental design and clearly defective thermocouples 
with no redundancy is proposed by some as a ‘confirmation’ of lenr. Whether the 
reported experiment(s) are shoddy or not, the data presented can certainly not 
make anything clear, save to reveal a path to repeat with improved design and 
methods. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 11:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

 

I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward the 
end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some temperatures on the 
right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not trust T1. Times are 
approximate:


Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.

Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.

Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.

Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.

Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.

Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after the 
power has cut off.

Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C, in 
response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around 1100°C. In 
other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree increase in T1 and 
T2.

Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4 rose 
proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C. Instead, it 
jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed to a peak of 
167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already fallen drastically 
when it peaked.

I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death, it 
should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2 seems 
intact.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:RE: An experiment you never heard of

[Russ George]

Most of what the anonymously posted notions of 'Axil' are indeed not new. 
Martin Fleischmann, Kiril Chukanov, and I had a spirited conversation about 
very similar ideas more than 20 years ago while examining Kiril's working 
device as it was making prodigious 'anomalous heat.' There was no denying the 
heat or the measurement of it at hand. SmCo5 loads hydrogen at a ratio of 5:1 
by the way, far above Pd's 1:1. If you want nano-fractures in metals I defy 
anyone to make more such nano-features than what occur in SmCo5 that is 
hydrogen loaded and deloaded repeatedly. The 5x hydrogen loading shatters the 
lattices causing hydrogen embrittlement to such a degree that after many such 
cycles one can crush the metal to nano-dust with your fingertips! What Kiril, 
myself, Martin and others were missing at the time was the very high 
intentional temperature zone that Rossi's work has engendered! Not to say that 
we were not familiar with dramatic effects at such high temperatures as 
Fleischmann's Singularity and my cavitation sono-fusion metal volcanoes clearly 
proved. http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:05 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: An experiment you never heard of

My way of thinking about LENR goes way back

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedingc.pdf

NEW PULSE GAS LOADING

COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY

K. B. Chukanov

ABSTRACT

In the last few years the shadow of a new limitless and

nonpolluting source of energy has begun to trouble the mind of

scientists in the world - energy torn out from hypothetical "BLACK

HOLES" and "PHYSICAL VACUUM", energy produced by so-called "Cold

Fusion" and energy from "Ball Lighting". In the early 1980's my

theoretical investigations begun to show me that some exotic

objects exist in nature which do not obey the familiar laws of

physics'. These exotic objects are liquid helium II, Cosmic rays,

superconductivity, super rarified solutions, "dark" matter in the

universe, quasars, ball lightning, Pons-Fleischmann effect and etc.

In this paper I am going to report on Space Energy ("Cold Fusion"

would not be the right name for this phenomenon) theory,

measurements and some practical applications.

Experiments were carried out on one Space Energy active material:

magnet alloy SmCo 5 . My preliminary investigations have shown me

that this alloy is best (point of view energy production) among

other rare earth magnetic alloys.

Many scientists have investigated hydrogen absorption and thermal

effects in rare earth metals and metal alloys'''. However no one

has ever carried out circumstantial thermal investigations on this

field. But precisely these thermal measurements (change in the

temperature of the metal alloys, calorimetry) are crucial in

discovery of a new phenomenon "Space Energy".

About this demo from Russ Gerg

"What about the demo of Chukanov at the ICCF meeting in Hawaii many years ago. 
In large cylinders crushed and powdered SmCo5, magnetic metal, was cycled with 
hydrogen loading and deloading and produced kilowatts of apparent excess heat!"



On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> From: David Roberson
>
> It appears that there are so many materials that are Mill's catalysts 
> that it would be easier to list those that are not!
>
> Dave,
>
> Yes – the large number of catalysts has been a major criticism of 
> Mills from the start.
>
> The number of elements which are catalytic depends on how close in 
> mass-energy to a multiple of 27.2 eV (the Hartree energy) the IP 
> electron hole of the catalyst needs to be… and it is not as close as you 
> might think.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartree
>
> As a practical matter, most of the alkalis and almost all of the 
> transition metals have been implicated in “shrinkage” as well as 
> encompassing three-body reactions (including hydrogen as a 
> self-catalyst). There is almost nothing, in the range of common 
> materials, which can be used as a control, since oxygen is also a 
> catalyst. Adding to the problem is that the one common alkali (sodium) 
> which Mills early on said was NOT a catalyst, turns out in later 
> Mills’ papers to be one of the most used. Instead of explaining this 
> discrepancy, Mills has conveniently overlooked and removed his earlier 
> publications from his site. (I have an early addition hardback, which he 
> can’t alter).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene
>
> Cobalt is also a Mills (Rydberg) catalyst with IP “holes” 
> complementary to nickel and iron. A most interesting catalyst mix for 
> exploiting ferromagnetism would be Ni, SmCo5, Fe2O3 and potassium. 
> There could be 8 distinct Rydberg multipl

RE: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

[Russ George]

Interesting work. One simple thing to perhaps try is to set up a ‘radon flea’ 
trap at the lab, capture some ‘fleas’ and examine their spectra with the 
instrument. This comparison would settle this question one way or the other 
pretty quick and easy.

 

The fellow who runs Aware Electronics and make Geigers has pages and pages of 
info on catching and examining radon fleas.  http://www.aw-el.com

 

Russ

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 7:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]: Radon not a likely explanation for GS5.2

 

Based on comments from Jones and others, I have done some analysis to determine 
if the GS5.2 signal in Spectrum-07 could have come from gamma produced from 
radon gas decay progeny.  First, Alan Goldwater produced a map showing the 
areas where radon levels were high in his area.  In the area of his lab, radon 
levels are low, but they are higher where Jeff Morris did his work.  Internet 
participant, Ecco, found a plot of gamma emissions from radon progeny - I put 
it here:  

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2cnV6U0V5Z3MxSXM

I took this graph, digitized it, calibrated the energy scale, and resampled it 
to the same energy scale and samples as the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 calibrated signal 
data.  Then I hypothesized, what if the Spectrum-07 signal came from radon?  
So, I normalized the radon progeny spectrum to have the same total counts as 
the Spectrum-07 signal and overlaid the two on the same graph.  You can find 
the high resolution graph here:

   https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2Yk8xQlNZOHo3ZVk

I am going to try to include a small version of the graph in this email, but I 
am not it will be passed on:


​

What can be seen in the overlay is that the two spectra are clearly different.  
If the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 signal were due to radon progeny gamma, a distinct 
peak would have been seen at 610 keV, and by contrast, the GS5.2 Spectrum-07 
signal is clearly smooth.

 

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others) 
speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat 
extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever tech 
they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social media 
caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans and 
groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not showing 
legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and stock-holders. 
In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with regard to 
breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors regardless of 
whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.  Neither Rossi nor 
Darden are that naïve. Meow!

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

 

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite 
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

 

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

 

March 10, 2016

 

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy 
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that 
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we 
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation and 
development.

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in the 
development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound 
experiments which we design, control and monitor. 

 

Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from both. 
Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature 
proclamations in the LENR sector. 

 

Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society 
suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are stifled; 
likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are promoted and claims 
are made without rigorous verification and precise measurement.

 

We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims made 
about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by 
Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our 
results in repeated experiments.

 

Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about the 
potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet a great 
deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met with viable, 
clean, safe and affordable solutions.

 

RE: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Russ George]

I am sure Rossi and IH have good ‘curmudgeon’ filters as this field is rift 
with such pests. They have been remarkably and admirably open to date and I see 
no reason for them to change that behavior. As they get closer to ‘success’ 
more caution not less is warranted. Of course caution is the bane of the world 
of social media where beneath every ‘sata bridge’ lie legions of trolls ready 
to reach out to pounce or rather slime.

I think Rossi et al have plenty of cash at hand. Rossi is very adept of working 
in a very economical manner. It would seem that sufficient Italian bread crumbs 
that might lead those ‘skilled in the art’ to replicate have been and continue 
to be dropped by Rossi. One problem is that the bread crumbs are mostly gobbled 
up and regurgitated by quacks who are not ‘skilled in the art’ and angry about 
that fact.

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans' or 
negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I read the 
statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive climate for 
the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can hardly continue to 
send money into a total failure. They would have abandoned the test long time 
ago if it did not show indications of a possible good outcome.

 

Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise that 
capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and 
distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up until 
they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they want to 
delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)   

 

I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would 
they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to communicate 
with the investors than by making general statements. Negative results would 
have been shared with major investors long time ago.

 

I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a 
report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know the 
source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)  




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com <mailto: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, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others) 
speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat 
extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever tech 
they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social media 
caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans and 
groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not showing 
legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and stock-holders. 
In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with regard to 
breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors regardless of 
whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.  Neither Rossi nor 
Darden are that naïve. Meow!

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> 
] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

 

[Marianne Macy asked me to post this]

 

The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for Infinite 
Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy

 

Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments

 

March 10, 2016

 

Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy 
available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that 
demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we 
believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation and 
development.

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in the 
development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound 
ex

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Great vibrations but where you say, “Without physical reaction mass, such a 
system has its own unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be 
conserved, but which from without, cannot be.”   Might we start using common 
terminology…. Your description is of course more popularly known as the ‘warp 
bubble’;)

 

 

From: Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 4:04 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

Yes, and this is why KE = 1/2 MV^2 - ie., why the acceleration unit cost 
escalates; a given force has to be applied over an ever-greater distance as 
velocity (time rate of change of position) increases.  Alternatively, we could 
hold displacement constant and progressively raise the force magnitude.  

Yet Craig still seems to have a point - without some kind of corporeal reaction 
mass, what is an EM drive's velocity actually relative to?  What's its 
reference frame, if not the thing it's pushing against?

To illustrate the conundrum, suppose i have an EM drive aboard a train, and you 
the observer are standing on the platform as the train passes through the 
station:  I fire the engine, and it accelerates by 1 meter / sec.

Suppose the engine weighs 10 kg.  From my perspective, its KE has increased by 
5 Joules - ie. it's perrformed 5 J of mechanical work, regardless of how much 
more energy may have been wasted to heat.

But if the train was already travelling at 10 m/s, and the drive accelerated in 
the same direction, then from your stationary perspective the drive has 
accelerated up from 10 to 11 m/s - and for a 10 kg mass that's a workload of 
105 J - bringing its KE up from 500 J to 605 J.

So, has the drive burned 5 J or 105 J?



If i cheated - the drive doesn't really work, and i just gave it a 
surreptitious shove - this same paradox is resolved by a corresponding 
deceleration of the train - ie. if i accelerate a small mass against the 
inertia of a larger mass, the latter is decelerated and net momentum is 
conserved.

Except here, the drive ISN'T pushing against the train.  Yet it still benefits 
from its ambient velocity.  Net momentum is NOT conserved, and neither is 
energy.



And so the question arises, how does the EM drive "know" what its reference 
frame is?  Shawyer claims (or seems to imply) that the unit cost of 
acceleration increases as we would normally expect (distance over which a given 
force is applied keeps rising) - but how does it measure "distance"?  Relative 
to what, exactly?   Without physical reaction mass, such a system has its own 
unique reference frame - from within which, energy may be conserved, but which 
from without, cannot be.

I mean this not as a crtitique against the plausibility of such systems, and 
share the prevailing cautious optimism.  But if they do work, then we also have 
an energy anomaly.

In the many years i've been researching classical symmetry breaks, one thing 
has become clear - the only way to explain away a real symmetry break is to 
invoke another somewhere else up or downstream (it's a standard recourse for 
pseudoskeptics).  As much as i'd welcome free energy, momentum and FTL travel, 
and despite Shawyer's assurances everything's classically consistent, these 
enigmatic implications remain..   for me, at least.

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:17 AM,  > wrote:

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2016 21:08:43 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

Note the use of the word "acceleration".

Acceleration produces a force. Force times distance = energy.

>This doesn't make any sense:
>
>"For a given acceleration period, the higher the mean velocity, the
>longer the distance travelled, hence the higher the energy lost by the
>engine."
>
>Since we're not talking about relativistic speeds, then the idea that a
>device will consume more energy, over a given period of time, simply
>because it's moving, would violate Einstein's Special Relativity which
>says there's no preferred frame of reference. The moving object cannot
>be said to be moving at all.
>
>Craig
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

 

RE: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

In building a Shawyer EM Drive cavity copper is typically used but Shawyer 
notes a higher Q would result with silver. Would a cavity that was made of 
copper sheet then electroplated with silver suffice to give the cavity the Q of 
silver? Is there any potential for improved Q based on the design of the 
internal cavity antennae that emits the microwaves. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:44 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

The problem with this is creating the anisotropy in emissions from an induced 
LENR so as to produce a directional thrust.

 

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Of course what the EM Drive energy mystery suggests is an experiment where an 
addition inside the EM Drive might be made, a simple small amount of 
crystalline Li2D2 could well provide more available reactant than what the 
ordinary copper which always has some tramp H2 the EM Drive is made of holds. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> ] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: EM Drive(s)

 

Eric, my understanding of the Crookes radiometer is that it measures light 
intensity by the rotation of its vane, but the effect is NOT due to photon 
emission recoil, it is due to the effects of the differential heating of the 
minute amount of gas present in the bulb.  In a hard vacuum, this radiometer 
would not work - photon emission recoil would be insufficient to make the vanes 
move.  I had one of these as a teen.

As I recall, the radiated photon recoil is proportional to power in the photons 
emitted, but not wavelength of the photon.  For a given power emitted, it takes 
fewer short wavelength photons but you would get more recoil per photon.  Laser 
emission would seem to be ideal.  But the effect is very small.

 

I wish I had some insight in the case of the Shawyer thrust effect.  I cannot 
say that I really even have an informed opinion - that would require far more 
study than I have done.  It is a marvelous mystery and perhaps someday I will 
participate.  For now, I am trying to stay focused on LENR.

Bob

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the thrust Shawyer calculates 
and measures from his devices is several orders of magnitude higher than what 
could be obtained from photon radiation recoil - even if all of the generated 
RF were radiated unidirectionally.  A small leak of RF would provide an 
undetectable thrust.  That's what makes his devices interesting.

 

My intuition is actually in line with this.  Obviously there is no observable 
thrust with a flashlight, for example.  And a powerful spotlight doesn't budge, 
even though enough power is being fed into it to drive a motor.  Nonetheless I 
was curious what the relationship between energy and radiation pressure is.  
Here is what Wikipedia says for a blackbody emitter:

 



P is pressure, epsilon is emissivity, sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 
and T is the temperature.  I wonder what the relationship would be for a 
non-blackbody emitter emitting photons at a specific frequency.  Although 
radiation pressure is a small force, apparently it's nonneglible.  Wikipedia 
says that "had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of 
the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by 
about 15,000 kilometers."  We also see it doing real work in the case of a 
Crookes radiometer:

 



I see that the Shawyer device is operating more or less at the level of 
measurement uncertainty. There are no unequivocal results at this point by 
third parties. Some of the tests even show reverse thrust when positive thrust 
was intended.  Given this level of uncertainty, it would seem that little can 
be ruled out at this point.  Even air convection.  One imagines that much more 
testing is needed.

 

Have you formed an opinion on what might conserve momentum in the case of the 
EM drive, if something like radiation pressure is ruled out?

 

Eric

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

“And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered to, 
so far as I'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration would 
remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll 
ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence 
passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as observed from an 
external frame.” 

I thought that was the essence of why Shawyer’s EM Drive has been described as 
a ‘warp drive’ not because of the simple notion that it ‘might’ reach ‘faster 
than light’ but that if the energy required for acceleration remains constant 
it ‘MUST’ be capable of reaching ftl speeds.

The super conducting version of Shawyer’s drive that he says is the real 
goal/gold is surely very near to hand. That sort of tech is widely in use in a 
variety of fields and simple adaptations of on the shelf hardware could be 
immediately diverted to build such a drive. It seems likely this is already 
underway by Shawyer and his ilk as they are very ‘coy’ on this topic.

Of course using EM Drives to spin an electrical generator shaft is a logical 
useful earth bound tech. There seem to be a whole flock of black swans starting 
to be heard honking in the distance and getting louder by the day.

 

 

From: Vibrator ! [mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

@Jones - i have no doubt the efficacy of the principle can be tested in the lab 
- i'm not talking about an ability to detect thrust.



I use the qualifier "effective" N3 violation in reference to a system in which 
mechanical (classical) momentum is not conserved - quantum or relativistic 
effects notwithstanding.

An EM drive would be such a system.

And as regards conservation of energy, an effective N3 break, like a real one, 
creates free energy from the classical perspective.

KE squares with veloicty, so a 1 m/s/kg acceleration from stationary only costs 
1/2 J.   But the cost of that same 1 m/s/kg is then subject to compound 
interest as velocity rises - it costs 9.5 J to get from 9 m/s up to 10 m/s, and 
95 J to get from 99 m/s up to 100 m/s.  In short, acceleration costs more per 
unit the faster we go.

And if you consider WHY this cost escalates, it boils down to Newton's 3rd law, 
and the need for reaction mass.

If however our reaction mass can be quantum or relativistic, ie. non-classical, 
then we circumvent this limitation of diminishing returns - the cost per unit 
of acceleration remains constant, regardless of velocity.

Like the magnetic field, or a rotating body, these systems have their own 
independent resting frames.  

And it is this direct implication that Shayer et al have not yet answered to, 
so far as i'm aware.  The conversion of input energy to acceleration would 
remain constant, at any velocity.  If 1 m/s/kg costs a whopping kJ, it'll 
ALWAYS cost 1kJ, whether from 0 - 1 m/s or from 999 m/s to 1 km/s, and hence 
passing a threshold beyond which energy is being created as observed from an 
external frame.

This point applies to whatever the exploit - chiralty effects included 
(obviously the force mediator for an EM drive is virtual photons which exchange 
signed (+/-) quantum momentum between moving charges, so a SSB is already 
implicit - albeit more likely an active, rather than passive example).

By its very nature, this I/O energy anomaly requires cummulative acceleration - 
momentum has to be allowed to build up, in order to measure the input energy 
per unit of acceleration as a function of rising velocity... and it is this 
that is difficult to perform in a lab.  Though not impossible - given a long 
enough vacuum chamber, i suppose..

 

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Bob Cook  > wrote:

It may be that the intrinsic spin (and angular momentum) of a particle is 
converted preferentially to a particle with linear momentum in the direction of 
a magnetic field.  In this case there would be no apparent conservation of 
linear momentum.  This seems to happen in macroscopic systems—a kid running and 
jumping on a merry-go-round to make it go faster.  It may only require a QM 
coherent system to produce linear momentum from scratch in the EM drive 
devices.  

 

It’s all about spin...

 

Bob Cook 

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:12 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com   

Subject: RE: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

 

From: Vibrator ! 

 

*  So an EM drive in a lab cannot show an energy asymmetry because it can't 
accelerate anywhere. 

 

That does not add up logically or scientifically… Despite conflicting claims, 
no one has yet “busted” all of the positive results, which are probably about 
“chirality” more so than any other anomaly. Newton may not apply fully to 
chiral systems and possibly not the Laws of thermodynamics 

RE: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Russ George]

A 1-2 second radiation burst in a detector is the 'norm' for capture of a 
cosmic ray in lead! 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:05 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

Axil--

Bremsstrahlung radiation is due to inelastic scattering of electrons as they 
pass through matter.  There are no resonances.  The radiations occurs as a 
result of an electron changing direction as a result of the electric field it 
is passing through.  This change in direction (acceleration) saps energy from 
the kinetic energy of the free electron and distributes that energy as 
electromagnetic radiation equivalent to the loss of kinetic energy of the 
electron.   The spectrum is random photons because the distance and charge 
of particles being encountered by an energetic electron is random.  Thus the 
forces on the electron, whether due to other lattice electrons or positive 
charges in the lattice are random in magnitude.

Landau distributions of the energy of photons do not apply to free electrons 
unless they are at relativistic velocities and have an effective mass like a 
proton, pion, alpha or other heavy particle.

What do you consider is the likely mechanism producing the  "Landau 
distribution" you suggest?  Specifically, what particles are involved in the 
generation of the spectrum?

Bob Cook

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

The seconds long MFMP X-ray burst is smooth and demonstrates no resonance 
energy peaks caused by the interaction of electrons with matter. The MFMP burst 
is strictly a release of photons in a random energy distribution.

A Landau distribution is what we are seeing in the MFMP radiation plot. It is 
the release of energy by particles based on a random release process. This is 
seen when a particle gives up its kinetic energy to a thin film as the 
particles interact randomly with the matter in the thin film.

If SPPs are releasing their energy based on a random timeframe and/or based on 
a random accumulation amount, a Landau distribution of energy release will be 
seen.

You might see a Landau distribution if there is a random mixing of both low 
energy photons (infrared) and high energy photons (gamma's from the nucleus);

Such mixing is produced by Fano resonance, where an SPPs are being fed by both 
infrared photon pumping and nuclear based gamma photon absorption.



On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
> Electrons may have nothing to do with the x-ray radiation.
>
> The radiation could be produced by photon based quasiparticles.
>
> The LENR reaction might start with Surface Plasmon Polaritons 
> initiated nuclear reactions and then after thermalization, the decay 
> of those SPPs. When the SPPs decay, they release their energy content 
> as photons of varng energies,
>
> After a second or two, a Bose condensate of these SPPs form and the 
> energy of the photons are released as hawking radiation which is 
> thermal.
>
> The radiation seen only lasts for a second.
>
> In LENR we get either high energy radiation (x-rays) or heat; not 
> both. This is based on the temperature of the reactor. A cold reactor 
> produces X-Rays because of weak SPP pumping..
>
> The SPP absorbs nuclear binding energy and stores it in a whispering 
> gallery wave (WGW) in a dark mode. The energy is stored inside the WGW 
> until the WGW goes to a bright mode when the SPP decays. This 
> conversion from dark mode to bright mode happens in a random 
> distribution.
>
> When the temperature is raised over a thermal conversion limit, a BEC 
> is formed where the stored nuclear binding energy is released from the 
> SPP BEC as hawking radiation which is thermal.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
>> The effectiveness of the SS can at stopping any high energy electrons 
>> that cause Bremsstrahlung would depend upon the thickness of the can 
>> (or
>> alumina)
>> and the energy of the incident electrons.  I think the loss of energy 
>> per scattering event is proportional to Z ^2 for the nucleus that is 
>> doing the scattering.  Al at Z=13 and with  Fe at Z=26 the intensity 
>> of the Bremsstrahlung signal would be about a factor of 4 different.  
>> The mean length of the path of an electron is a good parameter to 
>> know for any given substance (basically its density) vs the incident 
>> energy of the electron.
>> Shielding engineering curves provide this information I believe.   Iron
>> being significantly more dense than Al2O3 would be much better at 
>> slowing electrons and thus producing Bremsstrahlung IMHO.
>>
>> At high electron energies the change of direction of the electron 
>> going through SS can would be less than for a low energy electron.  
>> For slow electrons scattering can significantly change the 

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected??? Likely no search was 
made for something very exotic. Seems like a ‘cool’ experiment that makes 
thrust… if something is providing an expelled propellant then it has to be a 
crazy mysterious particle or a warp bubble wave to surf on. That’s a good 
question … can a warp bubble wave be very small such that it provides so little 
thrust.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

If you listen to Shawyer speak (find his interview on Youtube) he goes 
overboard on stating how dangerous the microwave radiation is and how great 
care must be taken to avoid it.

 

I think you misunderstood my point.  It was that the power could be transformed 
into portions of the EM spectrum that are not microwave, and the thought 
experiment would still work, provided the output was focused in one direction.  
In this case there would be no microwave radiation escaping, as claimed.

 

Have you seen any claim that there is no observable radiation outside of the 
microwave spectrum?

 

Eric

 

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Clearly a small but very powerful submarine type nuclear fission reactor
looks to be able to power a substantial starship. The reactor would need
very little heavy shielding as it could be positioned so as to shield only
the tiny sector of emissions directed at vulnerable sections of the ship. No
issue emitting radiation into the void of space, indeed one would want to
emit as much to the void as possible as cooling. Of course the utility of a
'cold fusion' direct to electricity reactor is very much more appealing. In
either case the 'thermal radiator' will be the challenge.

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X [mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:36 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

Even kilowatts of electrical energy for kilowatts of propellant-less thrust
- don't need to get OU if we can just dispense with carrying fuel!

-Original Message-
From: Russ George [mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:EM Drive(s)

Now that there are lenr kits and bits being sold and as well the Orbo's it
is time for someone to offer EM Drive kits. Enough of this fantasy about a
cell phone that needs no battery or an efficient home heater... What is
really inspiring is making science fiction's most desired fiction a reality
and seeing tonnes of propellant-less thrust with mere kilowatts of
electrical power that will surely be an effective space propulsion.  Where
is the best discussion and details on DIY EM drives to be found?

RE: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

[Russ George]

It’s right there for all to see hidden behind the Cheshire Cat’s grin!

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:07 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

 

Can you point out the location of the mouse in Rossi's patent?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil  >
To: vortex-l  >
Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2016 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Bremsstrahlung experimental note

Something is getting out of the LENR reactor. The mouse is stimulating the cat 
in Rossi's reactor clustering scheme. The some emission of the mouse is 
producing the LENR reaction inside the Cat type reactor.  

 

That emission only exits the Mouse when the power to the heater coils of the 
Mouse is turned off so that the emission is a some sort of charged particle.

 

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

Muons with less than about 4MeV are not going to escape the reactor.  Cosmic 
muons are average 2GeV.  No magnetic field that I could generate is going to 
significantly deflect either of these.

 

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Axil Axil  > wrote:

@Bob 

 

Use a magnetic shield to divert muons and other charged particles.

 I describe it here

 

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2862-A-Simple-LENR-Magnetic-Radiation-Shield/?postID=15183#post15183

 



 

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment  
 
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348

 

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <  jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <  vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 

 

If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?



 

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

Are you saying ‘why doesn’t this experimentalist do his experiment your way?’ 
That’s a bit presumptuous, clearly this guy has put in a lot of effort and 
diligence. His results are consistent with what other diligent experimentalists 
in the field have presented, faithfully matching their experiments though in a 
remarkably simple form. Noone of those others have done what you suggest and 
they seem to be very learned and well equipped and could have done so. The rule 
used to be in science that those with ‘good ideas’ were expected to contribute 
more than the ‘idea’ and do the work as well lest they be simply considered 
gadflies. The dire proliferation of the ‘skeptic’ point of view in science is 
the result of the rampant university puppy mills that have turned out legions 
of people with learning and no place to use it save in virtual realities.

 

The tiny wires and geometry that power the magnetron in the aforementioned 
experiment don’t appear to offer any support to a notion that some sort of 
thrust between the wires is possible… you might of course replicate the 
experiment with just the wires you speak of (leave out all the complex bits) 
and report on being able to produce a facsimile of the thrust reported by the 
differential in the wires push and pull.

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I would love to see a real EM Drive but it is impossible to believe an 
experiment with external power supply lines attached.   Electric motors operate 
by utilizing the forces that exist between current carrying conductors.  Two 
wires will always push or pull against each other when they carry current and 
this effect must be eliminated in order to prove drive force.

Why does the experimenter not use some form of shielded on board battery for 
power?  A short duration test might be possible especially if they wish to 
convince many skeptics.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Russ George < <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> russ.geo...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:42 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

Here’s a link to a great EM Drive DIY experiment  
<http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348> 
http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/#comment-10348

 

 

From: David Roberson [ <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com?> mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:36 PM
To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

I suppose we will have to discover that aether before we can have confidence in 
that possibility.

Would you expect a normal rocket to behave in the same manner if it had to push 
the aether out of its way?   Why would that not require both effects to be 
present thereby changing the reaction mass expelled by the standard rocket?

How would you detect the bow wave or other mass-equivalents to prove they 
exist?  Something must contain the energy that was lost due to operation of the 
drive and it should be measurable.  Then, you will need to modify Special 
Relativity in order to detect the true absolute reference frame of the universe.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene < <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> >
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2016 3:20 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

Stated another way – does the aether have mass or mass-equivalence (virtual 
mass or effective mass)? 

 

If so, and the EM drive is moving in aether, then leaving a wake (bow wave, 
eddy turbulence, kelvin wake, etc) also leaves a mass-equivalence.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

Good argument.  I just wanted to add one thought.

>From the EM drive's point of view the CoE must be violated because as it 
>accelerates in space a portion of it's mass must be converted into energy that 
>is used to power the drive.  When it ceases to use the drive it begins to 
>remain motionless in space from its point of view.   Where did that mass go 
>which was converted into energy that powered the drive?  Did it simply vanish?

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

[Russ George]

I believe that anyone with eyes and experience can see in the many EM drive 
reports the apparent evidence for the absence of emissions inside and outside 
of the microwave spectrum of the several EM drives that have been widely 
reported on. There is no joy in beating the fantasy strawman to death that 
presumes the researchers were nincompoops. (I acknowledge that there are some 
denizens inhabiting the ecology of atoms and the internet for whom such 
nincompoop presumptions is the reward, but no one here on Vortex-l is such a 
beast, right ;) The amount of apparent thrust and trend of thrust clearly 
demands something unknown about EM Drives and one does not so simply catch the 
unknown in nets of the known.  Perhaps on the 23 of March BBC Horizons will 
reveal more on its program on gravity including Shawyer and his EM drive. The 
pacing and paucity of research reports leaves one nearly breathless in 
anticipation.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: EM Drive(s)

 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Well since most microwave leak detectors are actually pretty broadband rf 
detectors so most rf can be ruled out, no appreciable heating is seen so no ir, 
no visible light, no massive sound so no acoustic, live lab rats so no ionizing 
radiation, what’s left that might be made and detected???

 

Are you inferring that no radiation was observed outside of the microwave 
spectrum, or are you reporting a specific claim?

 

Eric

 

RE: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Russ George]

How about a simple verbal explanation as opposed to movies… few of us open 
movies posted in the wild on the net, it’s rather like poking at a mangy 
looking sleeping dog one comes across. 

 

From: Frank Znidarsic [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

 

Try again on this link somehow its coming out wrong.

 

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/operation.wm 
 v 

 

 

Frank Z

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Russ George]

PLA has a very good lifetime in use 'on the shelf' it doesn't begin to
breakdown until it is kept in the warm, wet, and dark though it has a
relatively short lifetime in the direct sun of some many months so you would
not want to make an inflatable back yard wading pool for your children... on
the other hand it would likely last the summer splashing season then fall to
pieces :)

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 2:47 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by
scientists

In reply to  Russ George's message of Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:36:03 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with
polylacticacid PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the
worlds PLA plastic needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a small
fraction of the sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just take
care of the ocean pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we can
make the planet great again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)

Yes, but how long will the plastic last on the pantry shelf?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

[Russ George]

Far better to just start replacing all of the polyethylene with polylacticacid 
PLA plastic which all bacteria find delicious. All of the worlds PLA plastic 
needs could be met using a sustainable harvest of a small fraction of the 
sargassum seaweed that fills the Sargasso Sea! Just take care of the ocean 
pastures that cover 72% of this Blue Planet and we can make the planet great 
again! This trumps other ideas with ease ;)

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Bacteria able to eat plastic bottles discovered by scientists

 

By the way, here is some other news about plastics that has been widely 
reported in Japan. This is good news for once.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bacteria-able-to-eat-plastic-bottles-discovered-by-scientists-a6927636.html

 

- Jed