Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Also see

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.2261v1.pdf

Optical analogue of spontaneous symmetry breaking induced by tachyon
condensation in amplifying plasmonic arrays

We study analytically and numerically an optical analogue of tachyon
condensation in amplifying plasmonic arrays. Optical propagation is modeled
through coupled-mode equations, which in the continuous limit can be
converted into a nonlinear one-dimensional Dirac-like equation for
fermionic particles with imaginary mass, i.e. fermionic tachyons. We
demonstrate that the vacuum state is unstable and acquires an expectation
value with broken chiral symmetry, corresponding to the homogeneous
nonlinear stationary solution of the system. The quantum field theory
analogue of this process is the condensation of unstable fermionic tachyons
into massive particles. This paves the way for using amplifying plasmonic
arrays as a classical laboratory for spontaneous symmetry breaking effects
in quantum field theory.





On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Mesons come from tachyion condensation inside a SPP black hole. The SPP
> holds energy of 1,000,000 GeV give or take. EMF captured by the SPP is
> reformatted into a quark based subatomic based discharge: Mesons. A tachyon
> condensate is  broken chiral symmetry of the magnetic force.
>
> See
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Stephen Cooke  > wrote:
>
>> Yup it's certainly astonishing if true.
>>
>> If a Nucleon is disintegrating this way, I wonder how it still can meet
>> conservation rules. In order to form pions it implies quark anti quark
>> pairs with combinations of up and down quarks are formed from a nucleon. In
>> effect the equivalent quarks for a anti nucleon need to be produced. If
>> they interact with another nucleon I suppose they may change transfer
>> energy to that nucleon and change the nucleon type and conserve spin etc
>> somehow to maintain conservation states otherwise I suppose the
>> conservation might be taken up by the kind of produced lepton and neutrinos
>> produced. I'm curious how it can work I suppose we will need to wait to see
>> the of their theory.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 23 okt. 2015, at 16:54, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> *From:* Stephen Cooke
>>
>> Ø   That nucleons may actually disintegrate is nothing short of
>> astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe
>> such huge amounts of energy?
>>
>> Yes precisely. This is why it will be more controversial than cold
>> fusion until replicated. Many observers were left in a state of
>> amazement, but … all of this was in the prior papers. We talked about it
>> here earlier.
>>
>> Sometimes you just have to hear it directly from a credible person
>> instead of seeing it in a paper. Ólafsson is a tall, handsome Nordic
>> fellow - not as charismatic as McKubre, but some of that comes with age. He
>> is very believable.
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø   900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and
>> proton (938 MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
>>
>> Yes – it is the entire mass of a nucleon which is being converted into
>> energy. I should not have rounded this off. Much of that energy will be
>> lost to neutrinos but there will be gammas.
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø   When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
>>
>> 1)  Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to
>> Pions to Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma?
>>
>> Yes. They see mesons first, then pions, then muons and finally electrons.
>> They have a detector. I think the skepticism from other Physicists will
>> focus on the detector. Ideally other detectors should be used as well. I
>> hope the slides will be published soon as this would require a lone time to
>> try to explain, otherwise.
>>
>>
>> 2)  If so could it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one
>> that can disintegrate?
>>
>> Either one or both together.
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø   Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release
>> in one reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation.
>>
>> If they can confirm this finding using a neutrino detector – that would
>> go a long way. I walked away from this with the feeling that a new door
>> is opening in the world of alternative energy. They may not have it
>> completely right, but this could represent the final hurdle in the
>> process started in 1989 (or earlier).
>>
>> It is too bad for mainstream physics that most of them have they missed
>> the boat on this. If Holmlid is accurate, it makes the billions spent on
>> the LHC and the Higgs closer to self-promoting fraud than to the
>> efficient advancement of science. Unlike the situation in 1989, it will
>> be much harder to erect obstacles.
>>
>> Let us hope that this is not a Pandora’s box which is opening.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

You may have hit on an important point, Stephen. The hydrogen nucleus (any 
nucleus) contains antimatter/matter pairs, according to the standard model.

 

If we take this literally – then the disintegration event could start simply 
with finding an irradiation window where these pairs are forced to annihilate, 
triggering secondary reactions ?  

 

Above my pay grade but I do remember the laser used was said to be 100 
milliwatt, frequency doubled green YAG – and these common produce 532 nm 
(green, visible), 355 nm and sometimes 266 nm (UV) harmonics. To stimulate a 
2.3 pm target with 532 nm light makes it seem all the more unlikely, but it is 
the “cluster” which is stimulated, not the individual nucleon.

 

I am hoping the Mark Jurich will fill us in on the Q from SJS yesterday.

 

From: Stephen Cooke 

Yup it's certainly astonishing if true. 

 

If a Nucleon is disintegrating this way, I wonder how it still can meet 
conservation rules. In order to form pions it implies quark anti quark pairs 
with combinations of up and down quarks are formed from a nucleon. In effect 
the equivalent quarks for a anti nucleon need to be produced. If they interact 
with another nucleon I suppose they may change transfer energy to that nucleon 
and change the nucleon type and conserve spin etc somehow to maintain 
conservation states otherwise I suppose the conservation might be taken up by 
the kind of produced lepton and neutrinos produced. I'm curious how it can work 
I suppose we will need to wait to see the of their theory.

Sent from my iPad


On 23 okt. 2015, at 16:54, Jones Beene  wrote:

From: Stephen Cooke 

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

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

Sometimes you just have to hear it directly from a credible person instead of 
seeing it in a paper. Ólafsson is a tall, handsome Nordic fellow - not as 
charismatic as McKubre, but some of that comes with age. He is very believable.

Ø   

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

Yes – it is the entire mass of a nucleon which is being converted into energy. 
I should not have rounded this off. Much of that energy will be lost to 
neutrinos but there will be gammas. 

Ø   

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

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

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

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

Either one or both together.

Ø   

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

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

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

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

 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Mesons come from tachyion condensation inside a SPP black hole. The SPP
holds energy of 1,000,000 GeV give or take. EMF captured by the SPP is
reformatted into a quark based subatomic based discharge: Mesons. A tachyon
condensate is  broken chiral symmetry of the magnetic force.

See

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

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

> Yup it's certainly astonishing if true.
>
> If a Nucleon is disintegrating this way, I wonder how it still can meet
> conservation rules. In order to form pions it implies quark anti quark
> pairs with combinations of up and down quarks are formed from a nucleon. In
> effect the equivalent quarks for a anti nucleon need to be produced. If
> they interact with another nucleon I suppose they may change transfer
> energy to that nucleon and change the nucleon type and conserve spin etc
> somehow to maintain conservation states otherwise I suppose the
> conservation might be taken up by the kind of produced lepton and neutrinos
> produced. I'm curious how it can work I suppose we will need to wait to see
> the of their theory.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 23 okt. 2015, at 16:54, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> *From:* Stephen Cooke
>
> Ø   That nucleons may actually disintegrate is nothing short of
> astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe
> such huge amounts of energy?
>
> Yes precisely. This is why it will be more controversial than cold fusion
> until replicated. Many observers were left in a state of amazement, but … all
> of this was in the prior papers. We talked about it here earlier.
>
> Sometimes you just have to hear it directly from a credible person
> instead of seeing it in a paper. Ólafsson is a tall, handsome Nordic
> fellow - not as charismatic as McKubre, but some of that comes with age. He
> is very believable.
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and
> proton (938 MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
>
> Yes – it is the entire mass of a nucleon which is being converted into
> energy. I should not have rounded this off. Much of that energy will be
> lost to neutrinos but there will be gammas.
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
>
> 1)  Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to
> Pions to Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma?
>
> Yes. They see mesons first, then pions, then muons and finally electrons.
> They have a detector. I think the skepticism from other Physicists will
> focus on the detector. Ideally other detectors should be used as well. I
> hope the slides will be published soon as this would require a lone time to
> try to explain, otherwise.
>
>
> 2)  If so could it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one
> that can disintegrate?
>
> Either one or both together.
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release
> in one reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation.
>
> If they can confirm this finding using a neutrino detector – that would go
> a long way. I walked away from this with the feeling that a new door is
> opening in the world of alternative energy. They may not have it completely
> right, but this could represent the final hurdle in the process started
> in 1989 (or earlier).
>
> It is too bad for mainstream physics that most of them have they missed
> the boat on this. If Holmlid is accurate, it makes the billions spent on
> the LHC and the Higgs closer to self-promoting fraud than to the efficient 
> advancement
> of science. Unlike the situation in 1989, it will be much harder to erect
> obstacles.
>
> Let us hope that this is not a Pandora’s box which is opening.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Stephen Cooke]

Yup it's certainly astonishing if true. 

If a Nucleon is disintegrating this way, I wonder how it still can meet 
conservation rules. In order to form pions it implies quark anti quark pairs 
with combinations of up and down quarks are formed from a nucleon. In effect 
the equivalent quarks for a anti nucleon need to be produced. If they interact 
with another nucleon I suppose they may change transfer energy to that nucleon 
and change the nucleon type and conserve spin etc somehow to maintain 
conservation states otherwise I suppose the conservation might be taken up by 
the kind of produced lepton and neutrinos produced. I'm curious how it can work 
I suppose we will need to wait to see the of their theory.

Sent from my iPad

> On 23 okt. 2015, at 16:54, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> From: Stephen Cooke
> 
> Ø   That nucleons may actually disintegrate is nothing short of 
> astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe 
> such huge amounts of energy?
> 
> 
> Yes precisely. This is why it will be more controversial than cold fusion 
> until replicated. Many observers were left in a state of amazement, but … all 
> of this was in the prior papers. We talked about it here earlier.
> 
> Sometimes you just have to hear it directly from a credible person instead of 
> seeing it in a paper. Ólafsson is a tall, handsome Nordic fellow - not as 
> charismatic as McKubre, but some of that comes with age. He is very 
> believable.
> 
> Ø  
> 
> Ø   900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton 
> (938 MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus!
> 
> 
> Yes – it is the entire mass of a nucleon which is being converted into 
> energy. I should not have rounded this off. Much of that energy will be lost 
> to neutrinos but there will be gammas.
> 
> Ø  
> 
> Ø   When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this:
> 
> 
> 1)  Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions 
> to Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma?
> 
> 
> Yes. They see mesons first, then pions, then muons and finally electrons. 
> They have a detector. I think the skepticism from other Physicists will focus 
> on the detector. Ideally other detectors should be used as well. I hope the 
> slides will be published soon as this would require a lone time to try to 
> explain, otherwise.
> 
> 
> 2)  If so could it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one that 
> can disintegrate?
> 
> 
> Either one or both together.
> 
> Ø  
> 
> Ø   Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in 
> one reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. 
> 
> 
> If they can confirm this finding using a neutrino detector – that would go a 
> long way. I walked away from this with the feeling that a new door is opening 
> in the world of alternative energy. They may not have it completely right, 
> but this could represent the final hurdle in the process started in 1989 (or 
> earlier).
> 
> It is too bad for mainstream physics that most of them have they missed the 
> boat on this. If Holmlid is accurate, it makes the billions spent on the LHC 
> and the Higgs closer to self-promoting fraud than to the efficient 
> advancement of science. Unlike the situation in 1989, it will be much harder 
> to erect obstacles.
> 
> Let us hope that this is not a Pandora’s box which is opening.
> 
> 
>  

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

From: Stephen Cooke 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Eric Walker]

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

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

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

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

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

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Peter Gluck]

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

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

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


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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Peter Gluck]

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

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

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



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

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

OK

 

From: Peter Gluck 

 

 

Dear Jones,

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

Peter

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Stephen Cooke]

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

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






Colloquium at SRI




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

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

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

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

The only thing needed now is replication. 

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

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



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

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Frank Znidarsic]

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


-Original Message-
From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI


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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



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


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

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


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


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


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


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




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



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



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





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


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



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


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

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


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


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


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


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




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



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



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





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


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason
> to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I
> suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
> hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
> that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
> transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
> It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
> solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
> process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
> in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>
>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores
>> huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But
>> once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is
>> reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.
>>
>>
>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response.
>> They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long
>> time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.
>>
>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>
>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
>> will save a lot of time.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
>>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>>
>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
>>>> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

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

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 10:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

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

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

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

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



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:


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


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


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


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


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


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


3) Did they imply something else.


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





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


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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Bob Higgins]

Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?

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


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


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


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

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Believe it or not...

After I saw the presentation on tachyon tracks:

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

 I started to read this article:

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

The Inside Story: Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

See

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It is
> not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>
> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!
> :-)
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM entanglement
> is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason
>> to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I
>> suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
>> hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
>> that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
>> transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
>> It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
>> solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
>> process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
>> in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>>
>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional
>>> energy input.
>>>
>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
>>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
>>> become active.
>>>
>>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>>
>>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
>>> will save a lot of time.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
>>>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>>>
>>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
>>>>> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>>>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[mixent]

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

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

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Done that


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

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

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

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

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

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



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


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI




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


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

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


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


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


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


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




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



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



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





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


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>
> See
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It is
>> not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>
>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!
>> :-)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
>>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas
>>> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
>>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
>>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be
>>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
>>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>>>
>>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional
>>>> energy input.
>>>>
>>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
>>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
>>>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
>>>> become active.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>>>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>>>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>>>
>>>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel.
>>>> It will save a lot of time.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>>>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
>>>>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>>>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>>>>
>>>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having
>>>>>> these nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a
>>>>>> patho-skeptic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>>>>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

See

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

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



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
> hawking radiation.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>
>> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
>> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>>
>> See
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It
>>> is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
>>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>>
>>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it!
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>
>>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
>>>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
>>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas
>>>> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
>>>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
>>>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be
>>>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
>>>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>>>>
>>>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>>>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>>>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>>>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional
>>>>> energy input.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick
>>>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel
>>>>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to
>>>>> become active.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not
>>>>> powerful enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the p

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[ChemE Stewart]

Axil, I am on your side man

On Friday, October 23, 2015, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also see:
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole/
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> See
>>
>> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
>>> hawking radiation.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dlrober...@aol.com');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com');>>
>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');>>
>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>
>>>> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole.
>>>> Any wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>>>>
>>>> See
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dlrober...@aol.com');>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It
>>>>> is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
>>>>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>>>>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>>>>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about
>>>>> it!  :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com');>>
>>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');>>
>>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>>>>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>>>>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>>>>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>>>>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dlrober...@aol.com');>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>>>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>>>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','janap...@gmail.com');>>
>>>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');>>
>>>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
>>>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Us against the world...

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:31 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Axil, I am on your side man
>
>
> On Friday, October 23, 2015, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also see:
>>
>>
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole/
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> See
>>>
>>> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video
>>>> produces hawking radiation.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>>
>>>>> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole.
>>>>> Any wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>>>>>
>>>>> See
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.
>>>>>> It is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can 
>>>>>> interact
>>>>>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>>>>>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>>>>>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about
>>>>>> it!  :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>>>>>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>>>>>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>>>>>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>>>>>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>>>>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>>>>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure
>>>>>>> of the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This 
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because 
>>>>>>> gas
>>>>>>> is transformed into

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[David Roberson]

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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI



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


See


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




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

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

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

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

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



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


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

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

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI




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


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

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


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


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


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


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




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote:


Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?



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



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





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


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

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

See

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

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



On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:

> If we are going to consider small black holes why don't we consider small
> supernova explosions.  We could even throw in the kitchen sink.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any reason
> to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR reactions?  I
> suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>
> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of the
> hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might mean
> that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas is
> transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off immediately.
> It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce heavy SPP
> solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be a two step
> process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM accumulates energy
> in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>
>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that stores
>> huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do this. But
>> once these solitons are well formed and their power storage threshold is
>> reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional energy input.
>>
>>
>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick response.
>> They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel for a long
>> time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to become active.
>>
>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful
>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An
>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons.
>>
>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. It
>> will save a lot of time.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Very much so.  I should spend some time looking at the raw data.
>>> Holmlid may have something interesting.  His interpretation may have
>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results
>>> that he may be a little in a bind.  Energy conservation considerations
>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part.
>>>
>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these
>>>> nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all.  What is important is to not write off raw experimental
>>> data.  Explanations of the data are always fair game.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Also see:

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

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> See
>
> https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.036402
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/hawking-radiation-mimicked-in-the-lab-1.16131
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces
>> hawking radiation.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>
>>> The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any
>>> wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water.
>>>
>>> See
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields.  It
>>>> is not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact
>>>> strongly with nucleons.  Is there reason to believe that magnetic
>>>> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate?  The multiparticle
>>>> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR.
>>>>
>>>> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about
>>>> it!  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>
>>>> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the
>>>> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle
>>>> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see
>>>> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM
>>>> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another.  Why is there any
>>>>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR
>>>>> reactions?  I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>>>>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI
>>>>>
>>>>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of
>>>>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might
>>>>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because 
>>>>> gas
>>>>> is transformed into a solid.  But the reaction does not take off
>>>>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce
>>>>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be
>>>>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM
>>>>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black 
>>>>> holes.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that
>>>>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do
>>>>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage
>>>>&g

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[mixent]

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

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

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

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

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Jones Beene]

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

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

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

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

The only thing needed now is replication. 

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

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

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

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

IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense Rydberg
matter in situ (in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not see
harmful radiation. It can be done at the subwatt level, but those two
processes are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high
power.  

Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI

[Axil Axil]

Regarding: ** weeks to accumulate **.

Could this long preparation time be the reason for fuel preprocessing as
seen in the Lugano fuel sample?

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

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