subject:"\[Vo\]\:LENR \- dark mater \- DDL connection\-\-"

From: Bob Cook 

*   … I would only gloat to myself.

Feel free to gloat in a big public demonstration if gammaless fusion is
proved :-)

Side Note: There is a strange mentality, which is seen in some skeptics of
LENR – the relevant characteristic of which is that they actually suspect
(and want to believe) on a gut level that the technology is valid. They can
see that people as smart as they are, who have done the actual experiments,
believe strongly in it. Yet, they have been taught and fully believe in the
mainstream objections, often at a graduate school level. That is their
security blanket, and therefore they “need to be fully convinced” to go
against their schooling and accept a paradigm shift. 

Then, if all goes well – the freshly converted true-believer can become a
minor celebrity of a sort and get their 15 minutes of fame – kinda like the
atheist who gets “saved” by an evangelist, and thereafter enjoys testifying
once a week about how great it all is.

Personally, I am not a skeptic of the excess heat of LENR, quite the
opposite, and so the underlying sentiment is not the same as the above. But
it is easy to recognized that the “easy explanation” for most believers in
LENR (as an alternative religion) is that fusion is happening, since that is
the only way they can conceive, based on their education and the word of a
few role models, to get to greater than chemical energy. And the
unjustifiable rationalizations which become necessary (for the lack of gamma
radiation) which are put forward then become part of the “read my book”
package, and are intrinsic to this easy way out. Bob Higgins objected to my
calling this “read my book” approach “brain dead” but it is only a slight
exaggeration– failure to use one’s cognitive and analytical skills to the
fullest.

The correct approach, scientifically, is seldom easy. It involves finding a
rationale which fits the facts - ALL the facts, and is repeatable in the
Lab, and moreover - makes accurate predictions. The concept of gammaless
fusion has failed us in that regard and after 25 years of failure it should
be obvious that it is almost certainly false and needs full revision. But of
course, there is still hope for those who are fully invested. 

There are two basic choices, when you strip away the fluff:

1)  A two miracle scenario, where the first miracle is fusion at low
input. The second and more difficult miracle is that the known amount of
excess energy is seen, but it is delivered in a completely unique way,
unlike the known reaction, and this happens 100% of the time, with no
exceptions.

2)  The alternative is a single miracle, involving either a non-fusion
kind of nuclear reaction, or a supra-chemical reaction (inner orbital
manipulation), or zero point field – etc, where there is more energy
released than nuclear, but delivered in a standard way.

Aside from the issue of conservation of miracles, the huge problem for
strong believers in 1) - many of whom are contributors here, is that the
undeniable implication of 2) is that the energy available is less than
fusion and possibly limited to a low COP.

In fact, it could be no mistake that many of the best performed experiments
in the field: from Thermacore in the early nineties to the new Mizuno work,
show a COP of slightly less than 2. There is adequate reason to believe that
there is an effective limit at somewhere around this level – COP~2.

We should welcome this limitation ! Even cheer for it. 

Of course, it would be great if it were more, but COP~2 is a game-changer.
Get used to it.

Jones




attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do.  I will begin with some of
the latter comments.

Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so it
must be right.  We stand on the shoulders of giants.  I read and try to
synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read.
 The DDL works by Maly  Va'vra are outstanding inputs.  I didn't derive
the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you.  You obtained your
knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of
experts who studied the topic for years.  Do not promote the delusion that
just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound
synthesis of the facts and faith.  I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he
has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this
technology than perhaps any of us.  We should be grateful that he has
shared his knowledge so willingly.  I don't accept everything I read at
face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my
own view.

Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian.  Both you and Mills are
convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less
transitions below hydrogen ground state.  I can see your point - it is just
not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts.

As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in the
sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the
measurements of the system.  This has been done for Pd-D and the results
are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions.
 That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was
swamped by a greater energy producing reaction.

As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is
ridiculous.  The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per
second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1.  In most Ni-H cases we have zero
data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely
useless as an indicator of what is happening.  A COP of 2 (or anything)
provides no clue to the value for (energy/event).  A COP of 2 is incredibly
valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have
some commercial use.  But it has nothing to do with elucidating the
reaction mechanism.

You also seem to gloss over your own miracles.  The predictions for DDL are
that it requires photon-less transitions.  You throw out spin coupling as
a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that would lead to
dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition [you might as
well throw out ice cream sandwich].  Are you positing that, as per the
Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you are only
descending a few levels below the normal ground state?  How are  you
proposing that coupling occurs?  Spin coupling would be a short range event
requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever you
are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase statistical
concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure of  Mizuno's
experiments].  What is it that you are proposing as the concentrating
mechanism?  Are you proposing a BEC?  A BEC cannot form at these
temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation may
exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely
speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of
miracle).

You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks.  This is another absurd
statement.  Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE,
would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown.
 With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are
cracks.  Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones
unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks.  The bubbly features in
Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the
features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the
effect.  It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he
got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat.  We cannot
expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these
SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment.

Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device.  It is useful as a
thermal neutron source and novel light bulb.  I don't see the connection to
this discussion.  Are you trying to say that production of He and T are
similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR?

I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before.  I
can tell you it is possible to make a good seal against He, and He would
not pass through in any measurable way through even a millimeter of Pyrex
over a fairly long duration.  These Heat/He experiments were expected to be
controversial and the researchers went to great pains to make

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation
of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.

Meson production does not violate conservation laws. I went with meson
production because of this.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do.  I will begin with some of
 the latter comments.

 Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so
 it must be right.  We stand on the shoulders of giants.  I read and try to
 synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read.
  The DDL works by Maly  Va'vra are outstanding inputs.  I didn't derive
 the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you.  You obtained your
 knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of
 experts who studied the topic for years.  Do not promote the delusion that
 just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound
 synthesis of the facts and faith.  I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he
 has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this
 technology than perhaps any of us.  We should be grateful that he has
 shared his knowledge so willingly.  I don't accept everything I read at
 face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my
 own view.

 Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian.  Both you and Mills are
 convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less
 transitions below hydrogen ground state.  I can see your point - it is just
 not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts.

 As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in
 the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the
 measurements of the system.  This has been done for Pd-D and the results
 are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions.
  That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was
 swamped by a greater energy producing reaction.

 As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is
 ridiculous.  The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per
 second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1.  In most Ni-H cases we have zero
 data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely
 useless as an indicator of what is happening.  A COP of 2 (or anything)
 provides no clue to the value for (energy/event).  A COP of 2 is incredibly
 valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have
 some commercial use.  But it has nothing to do with elucidating the
 reaction mechanism.

 You also seem to gloss over your own miracles.  The predictions for DDL
 are that it requires photon-less transitions.  You throw out spin
 coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that
 would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition
 [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich].  Are you positing that,
 as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you
 are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state?  How are
  you proposing that coupling occurs?  Spin coupling would be a short range
 event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever
 you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase
 statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure
 of  Mizuno's experiments].  What is it that you are proposing as the
 concentrating mechanism?  Are you proposing a BEC?  A BEC cannot form at
 these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation
 may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely
 speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of
 miracle).

 You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks.  This is another absurd
 statement.  Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE,
 would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown.
  With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are
 cracks.  Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones
 unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks.  The bubbly features in
 Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the
 features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the
 effect.  It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he
 got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat.  We cannot
 expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these
 SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment.

 Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device.  It is useful as a
 thermal neutron source and novel light bulb.  I don't see the connection to
 this discussion.  Are you trying to say that production of He and T are
 similar novelties that are unrelated to

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Are you proposing a BEC?  A BEC cannot form at these temperatures,

This is not correct.

A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this
almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always
produced at any temperature.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation
 of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.

 Meson production does not violate conservation laws. I went with meson
 production because of this.


 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do.  I will begin with some of
 the latter comments.

 Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so
 it must be right.  We stand on the shoulders of giants.  I read and try to
 synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read.
  The DDL works by Maly  Va'vra are outstanding inputs.  I didn't derive
 the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you.  You obtained your
 knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of
 experts who studied the topic for years.  Do not promote the delusion that
 just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound
 synthesis of the facts and faith.  I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he
 has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this
 technology than perhaps any of us.  We should be grateful that he has
 shared his knowledge so willingly.  I don't accept everything I read at
 face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my
 own view.

 Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian.  Both you and Mills are
 convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less
 transitions below hydrogen ground state.  I can see your point - it is just
 not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts.

 As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in
 the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the
 measurements of the system.  This has been done for Pd-D and the results
 are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions.
  That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was
 swamped by a greater energy producing reaction.

 As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is
 ridiculous.  The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per
 second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1.  In most Ni-H cases we have zero
 data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely
 useless as an indicator of what is happening.  A COP of 2 (or anything)
 provides no clue to the value for (energy/event).  A COP of 2 is incredibly
 valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have
 some commercial use.  But it has nothing to do with elucidating the
 reaction mechanism.

 You also seem to gloss over your own miracles.  The predictions for DDL
 are that it requires photon-less transitions.  You throw out spin
 coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that
 would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition
 [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich].  Are you positing that,
 as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you
 are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state?  How are
  you proposing that coupling occurs?  Spin coupling would be a short range
 event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever
 you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase
 statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure
 of  Mizuno's experiments].  What is it that you are proposing as the
 concentrating mechanism?  Are you proposing a BEC?  A BEC cannot form at
 these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation
 may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely
 speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of
 miracle).

 You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks.  This is another
 absurd statement.  Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the
 NAE, would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is
 shown.  With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that
 there are cracks.  Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are
 the ones unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks.  The bubbly
 features in Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale
 features; and the features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are
 responsible for the effect.  It is just noted that when Mizuno processed
 the wire this way, he got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got
 excess heat.  We cannot expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM
 and can

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-09-01 Thread H Veeder

Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium?
If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium.

Harry


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Obviously I have some catch-up posting to do.  I will begin with some of
 the latter comments.

 Jones, you exemplify the other side of the coin: If I thought of it, so
 it must be right.  We stand on the shoulders of giants.  I read and try to
 synthesize the best understanding I can piece together from what I read.
  The DDL works by Maly  Va'vra are outstanding inputs.  I didn't derive
 the DDL solutions myself, nor, I suspect did you.  You obtained your
 knowledge and opinions of their existence from reading the opinions of
 experts who studied the topic for years.  Do not promote the delusion that
 just because someone has a different opinion that it is based on unsound
 synthesis of the facts and faith.  I do consider Ed Storms an expert as he
 has an order of magnitude more hands on, true analytic experience with this
 technology than perhaps any of us.  We should be grateful that he has
 shared his knowledge so willingly.  I don't accept everything I read at
 face value, but instead weigh facts and expert opinions to synthesize my
 own view.

 Basically, your view has now become Mills-ian.  Both you and Mills are
 convinced that all of the excess energy is coming from photon-less
 transitions below hydrogen ground state.  I can see your point - it is just
 not my viewpoint because it doesn't fit all of the facts.

 As far as I can see, none of the Ni-H experiments have been analytic in
 the sense that the energy/ atomic event has been estimated based on the
 measurements of the system.  This has been done for Pd-D and the results
 are far more consistent with fusion than they are with DDL transitions.
  That doesn't mean that DDL energy extraction wasn't happening, only it was
 swamped by a greater energy producing reaction.

 As far as a COP of 2 being supportive of DDL vs Fusion - that point is
 ridiculous.  The COP of 2 includes the factor of the (number of events per
 second)(energy per event)/(Power in) +1.  In most Ni-H cases we have zero
 data for the number of events per second and so the COP is completely
 useless as an indicator of what is happening.  A COP of 2 (or anything)
 provides no clue to the value for (energy/event).  A COP of 2 is incredibly
 valuable in pointing out new physics being involved, and may prove to have
 some commercial use.  But it has nothing to do with elucidating the
 reaction mechanism.

 You also seem to gloss over your own miracles.  The predictions for DDL
 are that it requires photon-less transitions.  You throw out spin
 coupling as a mechanism without any additional chain of reaction that
 would lead to dissipating the large energy available from DDL transition
 [you might as well throw out ice cream sandwich].  Are you positing that,
 as per the Va'vra paper that the DDL states are many, and like Mills, you
 are only descending a few levels below the normal ground state?  How are
  you proposing that coupling occurs?  Spin coupling would be a short range
 event requiring close physical proximity of the descending atom to whatever
 you are proposed it is spin coupled to - closer than a gas phase
 statistical concentration [and it would have to work with the low pressure
 of  Mizuno's experiments].  What is it that you are proposing as the
 concentrating mechanism?  Are you proposing a BEC?  A BEC cannot form at
 these temperatures, but some other nano-magnetically confined condensation
 may exist - only there is no real evidence for them, they are purely
 speculative (until proven they exist, they are just another form of
 miracle).

 You stated that Mizuno's experiment had no cracks.  This is another absurd
 statement.  Nano-cracks, as have been implicated by Storms as the NAE,
 would not be visible in an SEM at a scale 100x smaller than what is shown.
  With the processing that Mizuno described, I can guarantee that there are
 cracks.  Surfaces that appear smooth and single crystalline are the ones
 unlikely to have significant numbers of cracks.  The bubbly features in
 Mizuno's SEM are micron-scale features, not nano-scale features; and the
 features you see are *unlikely* to be those that are responsible for the
 effect.  It is just noted that when Mizuno processed the wire this way, he
 got this morphology at the micron-scale and he got excess heat.  We cannot
 expect to see the nano-scale features in the SEM and can only use these
 SEMs as signposts in trying to reproduce the experiment.

 Yeah, the Farnsworth fusor is a strange little device.  It is useful as a
 thermal neutron source and novel light bulb.  I don't see the connection to
 this discussion.  Are you trying to say that production of He and T are
 similar novelties that are unrelated to LENR?

 I have been involved in helium leak testing of crystal packages before.  I
 can tell

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Three additional points to add:

* I'm still waiting for a careful writeup of Mizuno's latest NiH/NiD work.  
What we've seen are some slides. It seems premature at this point to draw too 
many conclusions.
* We know relatively little about nickel systems compared to palladium systems. 
 I assume that many of the PdD findings will carry over to nickel, and that 
some will not.  I suspect, for instance, that helium will not.
* With regard to power levels (and integrated energy) seen in experiments, it 
is always nice to see high power levels, in view of the potential for practical 
applications. But in terms of what is needed to draw conclusions about the 
nature of the process, all that is needed is power levels well above the 
measurement errors of the instruments being used.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

I believe the thinking is that the fusion of DDL atoms begins with the
formation of a DDL pico-molecule.  Meulenberg then proposes that the two
electrons in combination (his Lochon) are involved in the fusion.  When
fusion would occur, the electrons are so close to the nucleus that they are
highly coupled to the nucleus.  So, an intermediate DDL He could form, but
as part of the de-excitation of the nucleus, energy could be coupled from
the nucleus to an electron to move it back to ground state (uses up ~511
keV) or completely ionize the atom by coupling more energy to the electron
than is required to restore it to a ground state orbit.  The fusion
mechanics of such a pico-molecule are not very clear.  Meulenberg has a
paper entitled, From the Naught Orbit to the 4He Excited State that you
might find interesting.

This business of DDL atoms other than hydrogen seems kind of fishy.  An
electron would have to descend from an  s orbital to a DDL state that would
be in a new orbital.  2 electrons in an s orbital are synchronized - it
seems like this would have to be lost when an electron descends into a DDL
state in a closer orbital.  Somehow in the process of the electron giving
up energy to enter the DDL state, that energy would have to be given to the
other electrons.  That energy is so great as to completely ionize the atom
for small atomic number.  I can't quite wrap my head around how this can
happen.

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium?
 If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation
 of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.


Not if a neutrino is involved.  (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the
proposed p-e-p reaction.)

Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons.  This seems
tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons.  How does this avoid
the issue?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

This is not correct.

 A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this
 almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always
 produced at any temperature.


Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at
anything above a very low temperature?  Also, something on the proposed
relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

electrons cannot be converted to something that contain quarks. this
violates the conservation of both lepton and baryon number. This reaction
might therefore be forbidden as a violation of particle conservation laws.




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I believe the thinking is that the fusion of DDL atoms begins with the
 formation of a DDL pico-molecule.  Meulenberg then proposes that the two
 electrons in combination (his Lochon) are involved in the fusion.  When
 fusion would occur, the electrons are so close to the nucleus that they are
 highly coupled to the nucleus.  So, an intermediate DDL He could form, but
 as part of the de-excitation of the nucleus, energy could be coupled from
 the nucleus to an electron to move it back to ground state (uses up ~511
 keV) or completely ionize the atom by coupling more energy to the electron
 than is required to restore it to a ground state orbit.  The fusion
 mechanics of such a pico-molecule are not very clear.  Meulenberg has a
 paper entitled, From the Naught Orbit to the 4He Excited State that you
 might find interesting.

 This business of DDL atoms other than hydrogen seems kind of fishy.  An
 electron would have to descend from an  s orbital to a DDL state that would
 be in a new orbital.  2 electrons in an s orbital are synchronized - it
 seems like this would have to be lost when an electron descends into a DDL
 state in a closer orbital.  Somehow in the process of the electron giving
 up energy to enter the DDL state, that energy would have to be given to the
 other electrons.  That energy is so great as to completely ionize the atom
 for small atomic number.  I can't quite wrap my head around how this can
 happen.

 Bob Higgins


 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Also if two DDL hydrogens fuse is the product a DDL helium?
 If they do then the product would tend to look like tritium.

 Harry

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

A electron neutrino is produced.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 All these electron combining with proton theories violate the conservation
 of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.


 Not if a neutrino is involved.  (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the
 proposed p-e-p reaction.)

 Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons.  This seems
 tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons.  How does this avoid
 the issue?

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is not correct.

 A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of this
 almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always
 produced at any temperature.


 Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at
 anything above a very low temperature?  Also, something on the proposed
 relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

I just posted this the other day,,,

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1298v1.pdf




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf


 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is not correct.

 A polariton has a mass the is 10^-11 that of an electron. Because of
 this almost zero polariton mass, a polariton condensate are almost always
 produced at any temperature.


 Could you point us to something credible that says that a BEC can form at
 anything above a very low temperature?  Also, something on the proposed
 relationship between species mass and BEC formation would be helpful.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Correction: Muon neutrino




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 A electron neutrino is produced.


 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 All these electron combining with proton theories violate the
 conservation of leptons. These reactions are forbidden.


 Not if a neutrino is involved.  (Not that I'm at all persuaded by the
 proposed p-e-p reaction.)

 Mesons in your approach produce muons, which are leptons.  This seems
 tangential to the matter of conservation of leptons.  How does this avoid
 the issue?

 Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all... 

Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a Bozo

speculation based on absolutely nothing.  And Rossi is not the only one to
measure gamma from a LENR experiment ...

Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that
one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi have
to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf

Focardi and Rossi: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the
radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead
shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive
neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation
was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No
radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process. 

As for the Bozo speculation apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous
researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have used
a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique
goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of
Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and
Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles
W. Shults III. 

I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the first
to mention this possibility.

All of these guys, and probably Rossi as well found that a small radioactive
source increased the reaction rate by many orders of magnitude at startup -
way, way beyond its own physical contribution. Rusi Taleyarkhan and others
in bubble fusion have also used a radioactive source as a trigger, which
became a problem later on. It may not be S.O.P. but it is done.

Jones



attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf


Following are the rough specs of the polaritons described in these slides:

   - Temperatures on the range of 0 - 16 K.
   - Photon energies (of the photons in the excitons) on the order of meV
   to eV (if I have read this detail correctly).
   - Sizes of the excitons on the order of 7 nm.
   - All of this taking place within semiconductors.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Well, as I went back and checked, it was the earlier paper Focardi wrote
describing Piantelli's Ni-H experiments where Focardi reported substantial
gamma.  You talk about a Mizuno hero experiment where Mizuno reports 108
MJ, in this Focardi paper, Piantelli had one experiment over 900 MJ and
another with 600 MJ, and gamma was detected both.  There were no
radioactive ingredients in these experiments. The paper is:

   - Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup; E. Campari,
   S Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbanco, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; ~2004

Also see this paper where the experimenters went to great length to protect
themselves from previously detected radiation and measures the gamma
spectrum:

   - Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems; S. Focardi,
   V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; 2004

In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being
suitably lead shielded.  Obviously from Focardi's previous experience,
the lead was added.  It was not a desirable component, but deemed
necessary.  In this paper, Focardi describes one of the long tests of
Rossi's early reactors as producing 4774 kWH of excess heat - approx.
17,000 MJ.  Dwarfing what is done by Piantelli and Mizuno.  There was no
mention made of radioactive ingredients.  That paper is:

   - A new energy source from nuclear fusion; S. Focardi and A. Rossi;
   3/22/2010

I think there is still another paper, but I will have to dig deeper in my
archives.  Clearly, gamma HAS been detected coincident with huge (hero)
excess heat in Ni-H systems.

Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments
with radioactive isotopes.  I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use
thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar).  That doesn't mean
that Piantelli or Rossi did.  In analysis of the Rossi ash by Kullander and
Essen, a heavy radioisotope would absolutely have been detected - and it
wasn't.

I never said radioisotopes were never used by anyone.  I just claimed it
was Bozo speculation to say that Rossi uses a radioisotope.  Maybe Bozo
is mean, but I meant it to be because I believe it to be totally unfounded
and defamatory to Rossi (it will affect the perception of what he has).

Now you show me the reports and evidence that Rossi *does* use a
radioisotope in his system.

Time for dinner.  :)

Bob Higgins

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all...

 Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a
 Bozo

 speculation based on absolutely nothing.  And Rossi is not the only one to
 measure gamma from a LENR experiment ...

 Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that
 one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi
 have
 to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat:

 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf

 Focardi and Rossi: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the
 radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead
 shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive
 neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation
 was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No
 radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process.

 As for the Bozo speculation apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous
 researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have
 used
 a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique
 goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of
 Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and
 Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles
 W. Shults III.

 I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the first
 to mention this possibility.

 All of these guys, and probably Rossi as well found that a small
 radioactive
 source increased the reaction rate by many orders of magnitude at startup -
 way, way beyond its own physical contribution. Rusi Taleyarkhan and others
 in bubble fusion have also used a radioactive source as a trigger, which
 became a problem later on. It may not be S.O.P. but it is done.

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Try this one

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.7086v1.pdf




On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf


 Following are the rough specs of the polaritons described in these slides:

- Temperatures on the range of 0 - 16 K.
- Photon energies (of the photons in the excitons) on the order of meV
to eV (if I have read this detail correctly).
- Sizes of the excitons on the order of 7 nm.
- All of this taking place within semiconductors.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for.  This is
an interview with Sergio Focardi where he talks about the technology.  He
says radiation is present and that is why they have the lead. He talks
about having a radiation detector outside the reactor to shut down the
reactor if radiation is detected because the shielding has been damaged.
 The interviewer asks him if Rossi had added uranium to the reactor and
he says no.  He does not say that there are no radioisotopes, but that
appears to be the intent of what he goes on to say.

   - A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold
   Fusion'; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy.

You can get it off of my Google drive at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2VHhPQ0paM1dvME0/edit?usp=sharing


Bob Higgins

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Well, as I went back and checked, it was the earlier paper Focardi wrote
 describing Piantelli's Ni-H experiments where Focardi reported substantial
 gamma.  You talk about a Mizuno hero experiment where Mizuno reports 108
 MJ, in this Focardi paper, Piantelli had one experiment over 900 MJ and
 another with 600 MJ, and gamma was detected both.  There were no
 radioactive ingredients in these experiments. The paper is:

- Overview of H-Ni Systems: Old Experiments and New Setup; E.
Campari, S Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbanco, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi;
~2004

 Also see this paper where the experimenters went to great length to
 protect themselves from previously detected radiation and measures the
 gamma spectrum:

- Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems; S.
Focardi, V. Gabbani, V. Montalbano, F. Piantelli, S. Veronesi; 2004

 In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being
 suitably lead shielded.  Obviously from Focardi's previous experience,
 the lead was added.  It was not a desirable component, but deemed
 necessary.  In this paper, Focardi describes one of the long tests of
 Rossi's early reactors as producing 4774 kWH of excess heat - approx.
 17,000 MJ.  Dwarfing what is done by Piantelli and Mizuno.  There was no
 mention made of radioactive ingredients.  That paper is:

- A new energy source from nuclear fusion; S. Focardi and A. Rossi;
3/22/2010

 I think there is still another paper, but I will have to dig deeper in my
 archives.  Clearly, gamma HAS been detected coincident with huge (hero)
 excess heat in Ni-H systems.

 Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments
 with radioactive isotopes.  I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use
 thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar).  That doesn't mean
 that Piantelli or Rossi did.  In analysis of the Rossi ash by Kullander and
 Essen, a heavy radioisotope would absolutely have been detected - and it
 wasn't.

 I never said radioisotopes were never used by anyone.  I just claimed it
 was Bozo speculation to say that Rossi uses a radioisotope.  Maybe Bozo
 is mean, but I meant it to be because I believe it to be totally unfounded
 and defamatory to Rossi (it will affect the perception of what he has).

 Now you show me the reports and evidence that Rossi *does* use a
 radioisotope in his system.

 Time for dinner.  :)

 Bob Higgins

 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 So many egregious errors ... so little time to correct them all...

 Bob Higgins: This business of Rossi using a radioactive ingredient is a
 Bozo

 speculation based on absolutely nothing.  And Rossi is not the only one to
 measure gamma from a LENR experiment ...

 Oh... Rossi measured gamma? News to me. Can we see your citation on that
 one, please. In the mean time, here is precisely what Focardi and Rossi
 have
 to say in print - about gamma radiation in the E-Cat:

 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSanewenergy.pdf

 Focardi and Rossi: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the
 radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus suitably lead
 shielded, were performed by using a gamma ray detector and three passive
 neutron bubble detectors, one of which for thermal neutrons: no radiation
 was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. No
 radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process.

 As for the Bozo speculation apparently Higgins in unaware that numerous
 researchers, including Dennis Cravens, who he apparently admires - have
 used
 a radioactive ingredient to jump start the LENR reaction. This technique
 goes back a long way in LENR -all the way back to the first issue of
 Infinite Energy See I.E. # 1, p. 46, Cold Fusion in a 'Ying Cell' and
 Probability Enhancement by Boson Stimulation, by Nelson Ying and Charles
 W. Shults III.

 I presume that Cravens is not the Bozo, so who is? Celani? He was the
 first
 to mention this possibility.

 All of these guys, and probably

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for ...

- A radio interview with Sergio Focardi, the father of 'Ni-H Cold
Fusion'; Radio Citta del Capo - Bologna - Italy.

 Excellent sources, Bob.  I enjoyed reading all of them.  Hopefully they
will put to rest once and for all the question of whether Rossi and Focardi
have or have not seen gammas.  It is obviously not a response to reply that
they haven't reported gammas in recent descriptions.

In a different connection, there was this interesting tidbit from the
interview concerning the catalyst used in the E-Cat:

And the purpose of this secret compound is, I believe, to facilitate the
 formation of atomic hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen, because
 hydrogen typically settles down in molecules, but if one has a molecule, it
 can not penetrate into the nucleus. So I think the additive is used to this
 purpose: it forms atomic hydrogen, which penetrates into the nucleus.


This is yet another hint strengthening my suspicion that the catalyst is a
material with a low work function.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: Bob Higgins 

 

*  Yes, I am quite aware that some researchers have salted their experiments 
with radioactive isotopes.  I also know that Dennis Cravens sometimes use 
thorium oxide for that purpose (he showed me his jar).  That doesn't mean that 
Piantelli or Rossi did.

 

 

Where did you get the idea that Rossi ever used a radioisotope for anything 
other than startup?

 

I never said or implied that. It would have been easily seen.

 

What I said was that Celani detected a burst of radioactivity on startup at the 
Bologna demo, behind closed doors, and he (or someone else who was present) 
suggested that the burst could have been from a radioisotope used for startup 
purposes – which was later removed. 

 

Rossi would never answer to what caused the burst – when asked. Obviously it 
was only used at startup.

 

Jones

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: Bob Higgins 

* 

*  Well, supper's done and I found the reference I was looking for.  This is an 
interview with Sergio Focardi where he talks about the technology.  

 

The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi

 

*  In Focardi's 2010 paper with Rossi, Focardi describes the reactor as being 
suitably lead shielded.  

 

Yes but you left out the important point in this document, which shoots down 
your premise. QUOTE: During experimental tests, continuous controls on the 
radioactivity levels in close proximity to the apparatus were performed by 
using a gamma ray detector and three passive neutron bubble detectors, one of 
which for thermal neutrons: no radiation was observed at levels greater than 
natural radiation background. No radioactivity has been found also in the 
Nickel residual from the process.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi


Most obviously not.


 no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation
 background. No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual
 from the process.


Because of the lead shielding, no doubt.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

You must be joking right?

 

Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead.

 

Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings were 
taken: UNDER THE LEAD

 

Jones

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

Jones Beene  wrote:

 

 

The material from 2004 is irrelevant wrt Rossi

 

Most obviously not.

 

no radiation was observed at levels greater than natural radiation background. 
No radioactivity has been found also in the Nickel residual from the process.


Because of the lead shielding, no doubt.

 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 You must be joking right?



 Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead.


Not true, even a little.  There are very good reasons for taking gamma
measurements outside of lead, the primary one being to ensure that the
device can operate safely around humans.

Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings
 were taken: UNDER THE LEAD


I read it.  I will repeat -- it is no reply to say that Rossi did not
report in later descriptions, if he and predecessors have reported them on
earlier occasions.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: Eric Walker 

 

You must be joking right

Only a fool makes a gamma measurement outside the lead.

 

Not true, even a little.  There are very good reasons for taking gamma 
measurements outside of lead, the primary one being to ensure that the device 
can operate safely around humans.

 

Nonsense. In fact within a month – at the very next test there was NO LEAD and 
there has been no lead since then. You do not do this if you think that there 
could be gammas.

 

Please read the Bianchini report. He is very clear about how the readings were 
taken: UNDER THE LEAD

 

I read it.  I will repeat -- it is no reply to say that Rossi did not report in 
later descriptions, if he and predecessors have reported them on earlier 
occasions.

 

You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an 
operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up.

 

In fact Rossi explicitly denies that he has seen gamma radiation. What Focardi 
may have done with someone else is irrelevant to Rossi, since we know it is 
incredibly easy to produce gammas when that is your aim. It is not Rossi’s aim.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

You still have not shown that Rossi ever reported gamma radiation in an
 operating E-Cat ! Please – put up or shut up.


Please read the interview.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL
states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for
the galactic 511keV signal.  He says in this paper that the previous
calculations were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the
problem should be solved using modern QED.  For this, he refers to Dr.
James Vary  (Iowa State University) who is apparently continuing the DDL
work with his graduate students.  Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL
work done by Dr. Va'vra and found no errors.

Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers:

   - The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model.  It doesn't
   predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground
   state due to relativistic effects not being included.  The slower the
   electron is traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its
   solution is.


   - The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to
   the model, but not spin.  The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that
   is very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state
   hydrogen is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi).


   - The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin.  Dr.
   Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels.  These
   levels are solutions to the S- portion of the equation normally discarded
   because conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a
   point source is presumed for the nucleus.  This is solved by re-formulating
   the problem with a distributed charge source model for the nucleus.  The
   resulting solution predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than
   the Shrodinger and KG equations.  The Dirac DDL solutions include states
   with orbits less than 300 Fermi.


   - None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem.
It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center
   of mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position.  This
   effect is not accounted for in any of these equations.


   - These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create
   or absorb a photon [Meulenberg].  So, it becomes problematic for how energy
   is transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states.  With this
   being the case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can
   exchange energy.  This is a problem for detection of DDL states.


   - The DDL atom is also so small, it behaves more like a quasi-neutron
   and has a very low reaction cross-section.  It will readily pass through
   containers.


   - Most agree that if two DDL hydrogen isotope atoms form a DDL molecule,
   they will fuse immediately (within 10's of picoseconds).

Bob Higgins


On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Jones--

 Thanks for that repeat.

 I missed it the first time.

 Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite
 interesting including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a
 change from his actions in the 1993 paper.  I wonder what changed his mind
 about addressing theory?

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Bob,

 

Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually)  – 
which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated 
meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of any 
particle, but instead there are macro accumulations of coherent particles, 
which can be a condensate, which act together as a cohesive unit – over and 
above the particles involved. More on that in a subsequent post.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL 
states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the 
galactic 511keV signal.  He says in this paper that the previous calculations 
were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be 
solved using modern QED.  For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary  (Iowa State 
University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate 
students.  Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and 
found no errors.

 

Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers:

* The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model.  It doesn't 
predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state 
due to relativistic effects not being included.  The slower the electron is 
traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is.

* The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to 
the model, but not spin.  The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is 
very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen 
is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi).

* The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin.  Dr. 
Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels.  These levels 
are solutions to the S- portion of the equation normally discarded because 
conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is 
presumed for the nucleus.  This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a 
distributed charge source model for the nucleus.  The resulting solution 
predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG 
equations.  The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 
Fermi.

* None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. 
 It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of 
mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position.  This effect is 
not accounted for in any of these equations.

* These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create 
or absorb a photon [Meulenberg].  So, it becomes problematic for how energy is 
transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states.  With this being the 
case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy.  
This is a problem for detection of DDL states.  

* The DDL atom is also so small, it behaves more like a quasi-neutron 
and has a very low reaction cross-section.  It will readily pass through 
containers.

* Most agree that if two DDL hydrogen isotope atoms form a DDL 
molecule, they will fuse immediately (within 10's of picoseconds).

Bob Higgins

 

Bob Cook wrote:

 

Jones--

 

Thanks for that repeat.

 

I missed it the first time.

 

Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite interesting 
including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a change from his 
actions in the 1993 paper.  I wonder what changed his mind about addressing 
theory?

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually)  –
 which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated
 meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of
 any particle ...


Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of
the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid
angle, this will add up to 511 keV.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually)  – 
which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter (as emitting entities). These 
are accumulated macro-states in the sense that the signature line comes not 
from a decay of any particle, but instead from accumulations of coherent 
particles, which can be a condensate, and which act together as a cohesive unit 
– over and above the particles involved. 

 

This possibility has come up in regard to fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein 
condensate, which can occur given repulsive inter-particle interactions and a 
non-uniform external potential. The paper is older: “Some Remarks on the 
Fragmentation of Bose Condensates” by Spekkens et al. 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9802053.pdf

 

If one starts with that paper, then adds this: 

http://web.mit.edu/physics/greytak-kleppner/publications/LT22_Talk.pdf

which treats atomic hydrogen as a composite boson which can be condensed, all 
of it raises the remote possibility that the emitting species in question 
(which would correspond to “dark matter” in general) is not necessarily a 
single entity but is a relic of the breakup of larger accumulations of dark 
matter. 

 

If we were talking about a BEC of atomic hydrogen as being dark matter, then 
the radiation which has been seen in the 3.7 keV range for instance, could be 
attributed to the breakup of a larger condensate – except that it seems 
improbable at first that there would be a favored size… which would need to be 
the case if there was a single line, but maybe not. 

 

Fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, along with recombination and even 
a macro-level of oscillating coherence can occur given bosonic repulsive 
inter-particle interactions and a non-uniform external potential. To 
paraphrase: It is customary to approximate the ground state of a coherent 
system of particles (spin free bosons) by the Hartree-Fock state, and as a 
normalized single particle wavefunction.  One can, also consider states where 
the form is normalized but orthogonal single-particle wavefunctions, where we 
distinguish the first as ‘single condensates’ and the second as ‘dual 
condensates’ … so that what we identify as a characteristic signature of dark 
matter is in fact a relic of shifting condensate orientation – possibly 
representing the passage of gravity waves within a cloud of dark matter.

 

It gets curiouser and curiouser…

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Clearly Dr. Va'vra has not given up his belief in the existence of the DDL 
states, as his 2013 paper is proposing DDL as a possible explanation for the 
galactic 511keV signal.  He says in this paper that the previous calculations 
were based on the QM formulations of the 1920's and that the problem should be 
solved using modern QED.  For this, he refers to Dr. James Vary  (Iowa State 
University) who is apparently continuing the DDL work with his graduate 
students.  Apparently Dr. Vary also checked the DDL work done by Dr. Va'vra and 
found no errors.

 

Here are some interesting points I have noted from reading these DDL papers:

* The Shrodinger equation is not a relativistic model.  It doesn't 
predict the DDL states and it is not entirely accurate even in the ground state 
due to relativistic effects not being included.  The slower the electron is 
traveling (larger radius states), the more accurate its solution is.

* The Klein-Gordon equation (KG) added special relativistic effects to 
the model, but not spin.  The KG equation predicts a single DDL state that is 
very about 350 Fermi equivalent Bohr radius (the normal ground state hydrogen 
is 52,900 Fermi, and a muon orbit would be about 250 Fermi).

* The Dirac equation includes both special relativity and spin.  Dr. 
Va'vra's solutions to the Dirac equation predict many DDL levels.  These levels 
are solutions to the S- portion of the equation normally discarded because 
conventional formulations predicts an infinity at r=0 because a point source is 
presumed for the nucleus.  This is solved by re-formulating the problem with a 
distributed charge source model for the nucleus.  The resulting solution 
predicts the normal hydrogen states more accurately than the Shrodinger and KG 
equations.  The Dirac DDL solutions include states with orbits less than 300 
Fermi.

* None of these equations model the effects of the 2-body mass problem. 
 It is well known that the Earth and the Sun orbit around the common center of 
mass and the Earth causes the Sun to wobble in its position.  This effect is 
not accounted for in any of these equations.

* These DDL states appear to not have enough angular momentum to create 
or absorb a photon [Meulenberg].  So, it becomes problematic for how energy is 
transferred into or out of an atom to change DDL states.  With this being the 
case, an auxiliary atom or coupled system is needed that can exchange energy.  
This is a problem for detection of DDL

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

This is in part because Va'vra hypothesizes that it may be possible to
produce DDL transitions with multiple photons.  If multiple photons are
involved, there is nothing to insure that all photon components would come
out in the same direction (like a laser).  Hence, you would have to
integrate all of the photon energies in 4pi solid angle in an instant and
look to see if they added up to the 511keV.  It is not clear how Va'vra
envisions that these photons would be catalyzed out of the DDL atom,
because as Meulenberg points out, the DDL electrons have insufficient
angular momentum to absorb or emit a photon.  Thus, to get multiple photons
out, it would seem that multiple other atoms must be coupled to the DDL
electron to extract energy from it and then those other atoms would emit
the extracted energy as a photon.  Starts to sound like Mills, doesn't it?

Bob

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually)  –
 which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated
 meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of
 any particle ...


 Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of
 the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid
 angle, this will add up to 511 keV.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

I wrote:

Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of
 the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid
 angle, this will add up to 511 keV.


Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities.
 One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining
the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL
emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably)
[1].  He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL
hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6).

Eric


[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something completely 
different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a phenomenon of the Milky 
Way, and the others who see emissions from distant galaxies in the range of 3.5 
keV are seeing a characteristic emission of dark matter which is far removed. 

 

The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is red-shifted, but 
is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or not. At any rate it is 
NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he calculates, since the red-shift 
would lower that. So we know that Mills is wrong, if nothing else as his value 
is lower than what is actually seen, when it should be higher.

 

The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron 
annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too 
coincidental to be otherwise.

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all of the 
photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full solid angle, 
this will add up to 511 keV.

 

Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities.  One 
possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining the signal 
in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL emissions sum up over a 
solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably) [1].  He does something 
similar with the capture cross section of DDL hydrogen -- it might or might not 
be all that high (p. 6).

 

Eric

 

 

[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

It is worth mentioning in the context of:


http://web.mit.edu/physics/greytak-kleppner/publications/LT22_Talk.pdf
which treats atomic hydrogen as a composite boson … which
can be (has been) condensed, all of it raises the remote possibility that
the emitting species in question (which would correspond to “dark matter”)
is not necessarily a single entity but is a relic of the transitory breakup
of accumulations of dark matter. 

The DDL is notably a composite boson – and moreover, it is one which would
possibly condense at a relatively high temperature, given that a parameter
which controls ease of condensation is the limitation of freedom of
movement. 

Thus, we can argue that dark matter is a strange kind of hydrogen
condensate, which forms massive clouds which do not densify into stars. The
reason for that is still a mystery, but the “placeholder” explanation is
that within the cloud of dark matter there is a repulsive force which is
greater than gravity. Magnetism is a good candidate, especially in the guise
of rapidly alternating polarity, which itself can be defined as the virtual
monopole state.

If we were talking about a BEC of atomic hydrogen as being
dark matter, then the radiation which has been seen in the 3.7 keV range for
instance, could be attributed to the transitory breakup of a larger
condensate…

… so that what we identify as a characteristic signature of
dark matter is in fact a relic of shifting condensate orientation – possibly
representing the passage of gravity waves within a cloud of dark matter.

It gets curiouser and curiouser…



attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

One of the dark matter theories that has gained favor through the
observation of many instances of circumstantial evidence for its existence
is based on a soliton that is light years in size. The unexplained emission
lines that are being observed could be that of the EMF single frequency
which allows the soliton to maintain its quantum mechanical correlations
between the ensemble members.

A large entangled structure needs something to keep all the members
correlated. That single frequency might be what is being detected.




On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 This is in part because Va'vra hypothesizes that it may be possible to
 produce DDL transitions with multiple photons.  If multiple photons are
 involved, there is nothing to insure that all photon components would come
 out in the same direction (like a laser).  Hence, you would have to
 integrate all of the photon energies in 4pi solid angle in an instant and
 look to see if they added up to the 511keV.  It is not clear how Va'vra
 envisions that these photons would be catalyzed out of the DDL atom,
 because as Meulenberg points out, the DDL electrons have insufficient
 angular momentum to absorb or emit a photon.  Thus, to get multiple photons
 out, it would seem that multiple other atoms must be coupled to the DDL
 electron to extract energy from it and then those other atoms would emit
 the extracted energy as a photon.  Starts to sound like Mills, doesn't it?

 Bob

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 Another interesting possibility has come up (within the hour, actually)
  – which can be called “meta-states” of dark matter. These are accumulated
 meta-states in the sense that the 511 keV line comes not from a decay of
 any particle ...


 Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all
 of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full
 solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

While Va'vra is recently trying to connect the 511 keV galactic signal with
DDL hydrogen, his theory about multi-photon DDL transitions is older.  He
has been doing work with spark discharge in hydrogen and uses a large
cylindrical scintillator with an axial hole to look for coincident
detection of multiple photons, that he thought may add up to 511 keV.

Of course, the 511 keV galactic signal is not Va'vra's observation.  He was
just citing that with a speculation that DDL hydrogen could be implicated.

One of the things that QED analysis may provide a better handle on is how
DDL transitions might occur.  Meulenberg states that DDL state electrons do
not have sufficient angular momentum for photon transactions, making it
difficult to visualize how DDL state transitions occur.  Shrodinger, KG,
and Dirac really don't contain information about the photon interaction
with the electron, but QED does.

Bob


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something
 completely different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a
 phenomenon of the Milky Way, and the others who see emissions from distant
 galaxies in the range of 3.5 keV are seeing a characteristic emission of
 dark matter which is far removed.



 The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is red-shifted,
 but is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or not. At any
 rate it is NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he calculates, since
 the red-shift would lower that. So we know that Mills is wrong, if nothing
 else as his value is lower than what is actually seen, when it should be
 higher.



 The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron
 annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too
 coincidental to be otherwise.



 *From:* Eric Walker



   Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum all
 of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full
 solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV.



 Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities.
  One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining
 the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL
 emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably)
 [1].  He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL
 hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6).



 Eric





 [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
which  a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
 by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
many protons.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

 While Va'vra is recently trying to connect the 511 keV galactic signal
 with DDL hydrogen, his theory about multi-photon DDL transitions is older.
  He has been doing work with spark discharge in hydrogen and uses a large
 cylindrical scintillator with an axial hole to look for coincident
 detection of multiple photons, that he thought may add up to 511 keV.

 Of course, the 511 keV galactic signal is not Va'vra's observation.  He
 was just citing that with a speculation that DDL hydrogen could be
 implicated.

 One of the things that QED analysis may provide a better handle on is how
 DDL transitions might occur.  Meulenberg states that DDL state electrons do
 not have sufficient angular momentum for photon transactions, making it
 difficult to visualize how DDL state transitions occur.  Shrodinger, KG,
 and Dirac really don't contain information about the photon interaction
 with the electron, but QED does.

 Bob


 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  There is a third possibility – that Va’vra is measuring something
 completely different… since as I recall, he is trying to explain a
 phenomenon of the Milky Way, and the others who see emissions from distant
 galaxies in the range of 3.5 keV are seeing a characteristic emission of
 dark matter which is far removed.



 The emission line which they see (5 or 6 different papers) is
 red-shifted, but is not clear if the originating radiation is 3.7 keV or
 not. At any rate it is NOT as Mills suggests, the 3.4 keV which he
 calculates, since the red-shift would lower that. So we know that Mills is
 wrong, if nothing else as his value is lower than what is actually seen,
 when it should be higher.



 The fourth possibility is the most likely. Va’vra is seeing positron
 annihilation, which he tries to marginalize as a possibility, but it is too
 coincidental to be otherwise.



 *From:* Eric Walker



   Just one point of detail -- I read Va'vra as saying that if you sum
 all of the photon energies from a hydrogen atom going to DDL across a full
 solid angle, this will add up to 511 keV.



 Looking at the 2013 paper again, that is just one of two possibilities.
  One possibility is that the DDL gives off a 511 keV emission (explaining
 the signal in the cosmic background) and the other is that the DDL
 emissions sum up over a solid angle (not explaining the signal, presumably)
 [1].  He does something similar with the capture cross section of DDL
 hydrogen -- it might or might not be all that high (p. 6).



 Eric





 [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf, p. 5

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
 which  a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
  by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
 many protons.


Sounds vaguely like a hydroton.  ;)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-31 Thread Alain Sepeda

the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of
LENr evidence.

one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an
even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result...
finding an explation for those two weirness is a key.
the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as
far as i understood does not.

tritium is a key too...
hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive fusion
to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear for me)
not far from the ladder of Brillouin.

maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts
to sort out the theories...

many keys, but many more doors.



2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
 which  a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
  by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
 many protons.


 Sounds vaguely like a hydroton.  ;)

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL molecules
are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^.  Meulenberg proposes that
these pico-molecules will fuse in 10s of picoseconds.  It is likely
that pico-molecules could form inside of Ed Storms' hydroton.  These
pico-molecules could be responsible for fusion with heavy nuclei, and given
the wierd-ness of the input to the heavy nucleus, it is not inconceivable
that wierd-ness could result - for example the formation of a stable
heavy nucleus.

I don't think I entirely believe Meulenburg's lochon hypothesis (binding of
2 electrons), but his DDL papers are well worth reading for the context of
LENR from DDL state hydrogen isotopes.

Bob


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:

 the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of
 LENr evidence.

 one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an
 even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result...
 finding an explation for those two weirness is a key.
 the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as
 far as i understood does not.

 tritium is a key too...
 hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive
 fusion to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear
 for me)
 not far from the ladder of Brillouin.

 maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts
 to sort out the theories...

 many keys, but many more doors.



 2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
 which  a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
  by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
 many protons.


 Sounds vaguely like a hydroton.  ;)

 Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: Bob Higgins 

 

One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL molecules are 
entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^.  Meulenberg proposes that these 
pico-molecules will fuse in 10s of picoseconds. 

 

The problem with this hypothesis is simple. Mizuno presented the most robust 
experiment in the history of LENR – a full 600% more gain than the next best 
experiment (Roulette/Pons) and guess what – no sign of fusion. No mass-4. No 
gammas. But plenty of excess heat.

 

If there was a route to fusion via DDDL - then it should have shown up in the 
thirty days of the Mizuno experiment. Since there was no evidence of fusion in 
the most important experiment since 1989, it is fair to say that we should 
focus elsewhere.

 

Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to the 
DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. If we stop there, then we do not 
need Storm’s brain-dead explanation for lack of gammas.

 

The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack 
of fusion.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is
 lack of fusion.


I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for
future gloating.  ;)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Magnetic action upon the nucleus is responsible for LENR. A MNR inactive
nucleus (a zero nuclear spin) is required to optimize the effect of the
magnetic field on the nucleus. There, no magnetic energy is wasted.  A NMR
active nucleus (a non zero nuclear spin) will dissipate the energy of the
magnetic field by converting magnetic energy into  RF energy thereby
weakening the effect of the magnetic field.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
wrote:

 the book of Ed Storms beside his theory put the finger on key weirness of
 LENr evidence.

 one is that Iwamura experiments shows a fusion of heavy nucleus with an
 even number of deuterons, precisely one that lead to a stable result...
 finding an explation for those two weirness is a key.
 the even number is explained by the hydroton, but the stable nucleus, as
 far as i understood does not.

 tritium is a key too...
 hydrogen fusion results is not known, and Ed propose some successive
 fusion to deuterium, tritium, helium, and why not more...(it is not clear
 for me)
 not far from the ladder of Brillouin.

 maybe Ni62/64/60/61 specificities in E-cat will lead to some new key facts
 to sort out the theories...

 many keys, but many more doors.



 2014-08-31 20:51 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hydrogen will most likely will preferably assume a metastable state in
 which  a one dimensional crystalline form of Rydberg matter is surrounded
  by a cloud of many electrons in orbit around a long string like core of
 many protons.


 Sounds vaguely like a hydroton.  ;)

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Lack of gamma is a result of superabsorbsion in a  coherent system of SPPs.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is
 lack of fusion.


 I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for
 future gloating.  ;)

 Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Eric,

 

These statements are in the archive so there is no need to collect them. There 
are many of them over the years, so there will be plenty to gloat over - if 
gammaless fusion is proved. 

 

My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion - at low input energy, 
without gammas - is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous miracles. 
These are actually two completely separated miracles –not one which includes a 
subset.

 

The first is the fusion itself, which is a strong miracle if the probability is 
high - and the second is a previously unknown channel for shedding the immense 
energy of fusion events. That second one is actually a stronger miracle then 
the first one. Nuclear tunneling via QM is known to happen at low probability 
but it always involves a gamma channel.

 

Actually – it would be fabulous to be wrong on this point, but I am not worried 
in the least about that happening. Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and 
sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really was helium, then mea 
culpa.

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

 

The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is lack 
of fusion.


I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for future 
gloating.  ;)

 

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Nanoplasmonic experiments can be performed that evoke nuclear reactions
through the use of laser irradiation of metallic nanoparticles. The
nanoparticles amplify, concentrate, focus and convert the photons from the
lasers into magnetic energy as described in my previous posts, for example
see this experiment:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.0830.pdf

Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid
targets in heavy water.

In this nanoplasmonic experiment, tritium can be increased or reduced or
both simultaneously based on the parameters manipulated by the experimenter.

The metal used is sensitive to the degree of reflection of the laser light.
More reflection produces more reactivity.

The duration of the laser pulse also is a factor. I believe that tritium
production in Deuterium systems is a matter of timing related to an
incomplete reaction cycle.

In a system that flickers magnetically, and/or does not sustain a state of
Bose Einstein condensation will produce nuclear products. A good example of
this is the cavitation system that Mark LeClair has developed.

The experimenter in the referenced paper remarks as follows:

“The efficiency of nuclear processes occurring during the course of heavy
water electrolysis can depend on the character of roughness of the
electrode surfaces on a nanometer scale, the “spikiness” parameters [17,
18] in particular. Indeed, it is precisely in the regions of the sharpest
surface relief alterations that high electric field strengths making for
the acceleration of electrons and high mechanical stresses depressing the
activation barriers for electrochemical processes can both get realized.
This parameter is out of control in most experiments with electrolysis of
heavy water. On the contrary, laser ablation of metallic targets by
sub-nanosecond laser pulses leads to formation of self-organized
nanostructures (NS) on the target. The average size and density of NS
depends on laser fluence on the target and target material. Typical view of
such NS on Ti and Au target ablated in water with 10 ps laser pulses are
presented in Fig. 1.”


The paper is reflecting the rationale I gave for the formation of static
and dynamic nuclear active environments.

Clearly, uncontrolled creation of NAE is consistent with what happens in
many uncontrolled LENR systems using electrolysis. By the way to avoid
chance in NAE formation, in recent Misuno reactor experiments, Mizuno
preconditions his electrodes to form metal spikes to enable the static NAE
in the nanoplasmonic LENR process.

The authors of this paper has their own theory of what is going on, my
agreement will the author will vary on certain issues.

At the end of the day, uncontrolled random effects can increase and/or
decrease the creation and/or destruction of tritium. Tritium is not an
indicator of a hot fusion like reaction but instead shows that a marginal
system is flickering in terms of sustaining a nanoplasmonic LENR reaction.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

  Eric,



 These statements are in the archive so there is no need to collect them.
 There are many of them over the years, so there will be plenty to gloat
 over - if gammaless fusion is proved.



 My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion - at low input
 energy, without gammas - is proved then it will consist of two simultaneous
 miracles. These are actually two completely separated miracles –not one
 which includes a subset.



 The first is the fusion itself, which is a strong miracle if the
 probability is high - and the second is a previously unknown channel for
 shedding the immense energy of fusion events. That second one is actually a
 stronger miracle then the first one. Nuclear tunneling via QM is known to
 happen at low probability but it always involves a gamma channel.



 Actually – it would be fabulous to be wrong on this point, but I am not
 worried in the least about that happening. Yet in November, if Mizuno
 backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter earlier - and there really
 was helium, then mea culpa.



 *From:* Eric Walker



 Jones Beene wrote:



 The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is
 lack of fusion.


 I'm sooo tempted to collect statements from you along these lines for
 future gloating.  ;)



 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is proved then it
 will consist of two simultaneous miracles.


Yes -- agreed.


 Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we had a bad meter
 earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa.


I don't think we need to detect helium to have fusion (in a manner of
speaking) -- we could have a nucleon capture of some kind as well, leading
to spallation and so on.  Helium is relevant to PdD systems (and possibly
NiD systems, I suppose).

Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: Eric Walker 

Jones Beene wrote:

My only excuse will be to say that if nuclear fusion ... is
proved then it will consist of two simultaneous miracles.

Yes -- agreed.
Yet in November, if Mizuno backtracks and sez… oops... we
had a bad meter earlier - and there really was helium, then mea culpa.
I don't think we need to detect helium to have fusion (in
a manner of speaking) -- we could have a nucleon capture of some kind as
well, leading to spallation and so on.  

Spallation events would have been detectable before now, if they were
happening. The major “blind spot” in prior radiation testing has been the
x-ray range below 10 keV. Spallation and the O-P effect involve much higher
energy than the blind spot.

Helium is relevant to PdD systems (and possibly NiD systems,
I suppose).

Curiously, helium can technically result from a non-fusion event in either
system.

Alpha decay is the best example of that. Therefore helium alone does not
signal fusion. If we were to find that LENR involves a new form of alpha
decay from an element like nickel, not known to be in that category, then
that is NOT gammaless fusion.  

As an example - it has been mentioned before that iron has two stable
isotopes that are exactly an alpha particle of mass-energy removed from two
corresponding nickel isotopes. How this could be accomplished is anyone’s
guess, but it is a physical certainty that it would not be fusion; and…
cough, cough … there is the claim of finding iron in the ash of the Rossi
reactor.

Jones


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments.  He,
Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported.  You
cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated,
experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally
satisfying.

I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess heat.  The
Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess heat, and with
a similar COP.  The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable (by similarity
to control) and has not been replicated.

It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both contribute heat
in more or less proportion depending on the conditions.  We know that early
on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?) system.  Later
it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and shutdown of his
reactor.  Could it be that the gamma was present when the conditions were
right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output was simply from
sending H/D into the DDL state?  It is an interesting, ironic conjecture.
 If such is the case, then H should work as well as D, because it is
unlikely that the extra neutron in the D will have much affect on the DDL
states or the ability of the electron to transition into them.

To relegate Storms' theory to being brain-dead is the pot calling the
kettle black.  You have not proposed anything that suggests how energy that
is coupled out of an atom to take it into a DDL state is dissipated.  There
is so much energy in sending the H/D atom into a DDL state [if not, then
you have no argument that the excess heat is from DDL]  that it must
somehow be split among many atoms all at once or taken out serially by some
mechanism.  Those that are close to the DDL solution math insist that
photons cannot be used to transition in the DDL states (inadequate angular
momentum in DDL electrons - Meulenberg).  I think Ed Storms provides a
mechanism for serially removing the energy from the atom that is a match
made in heaven.  The hydroton is a multi-atom coupled resonant system -
just the kind of evanescent coupling needed to move H atoms into DDL
states.  Even if fusion is rare, the hydroton may be the mechanism for
shrinking the H/D into the deep DDL state.  If hydroton DDL shrinkage is
happening, then it is likely that the hydroton is going to shrink multiple
atoms in unison, making the pico-molecules of Meulenberg a highly likely
result, and fusion likely to occur.

Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going to
the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain.


Heat / mole of He produced suggests much greater heat per event than DDL
can explain by itself, so DDL is not sufficient to explain the thermal
gain. The heat-He correlates to nearly the 24MeV of a D-D fusion event in a
Pd-D system.  Even if the 24MeV per event were off by an order of
magnitude, it would still be 3 times what is achievable via DDL.  So we
know that DDL cannot be responsible for the Pd-D data.  It doesn't mean
that DDL is not a part of the puzzle, just not the whole puzzle.  Maybe it
is a bigger part of the puzzle in Ni-H(D).

Jones, you are standing on a stool with only 1 leg - you have more juggling
to do to substantiate your position.

Bob Higgins

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

   *From:* Bob Higgins



 One more facet of the DDL connection is that chemically bound DDL
 molecules are entirely possible - such as D^D and D^D^.  Meulenberg
 proposes that these pico-molecules will fuse in 10s of picoseconds.



 The problem with this hypothesis is simple. Mizuno presented the most
 robust experiment in the history of LENR – a full 600% more gain than the
 next best experiment (Roulette/Pons) and guess what – no sign of fusion. No
 mass-4. No gammas. But plenty of excess heat.



 If there was a route to fusion via DDDL - then it should have shown up in
 the thirty days of the Mizuno experiment. Since there was no evidence of
 fusion in the most important experiment since 1989, it is fair to say that
 we should focus elsewhere.



 Why invent a fusion pathway when you do not need one to show gain? Going
 to the DDL is sufficient to explain thermal gain. If we stop there, then we
 do not need Storm’s brain-dead explanation for lack of gammas.



 The best explanation for lack of gammas – the only explanation needed – is
 lack of fusion.



 Jones

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments.
He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported.  You
cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated,
experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally
satisfying.  

First of all – we all agree that the Farnsworth Fusor produces nuclear
fusion on a very small scale at very low energy. We have a clear boundary
condition for understanding LENR - where at a sufficient voltage (which
translates into acceleration gradient) there will be fusion, but it is far
from breakeven and it shows that almost no He4 comes from deuterium fusion
at low power, at least in that kind of design. 

The Fusor ash is tritium and He3 (equal proportions) and it has exactly the
expected amount of gamma radiation. The Fusor gives clear and unambiguous
results of fusion with a few hundred Watts of input. Understanding this
difference is of extreme importance as LENR moves past this power level
toward the kW level but many observers want to write the Fusor off as “hot
fusion” since it does not meet their expectations for what “cold fusion”
should be. In fact, there could be no such beast as cold fusion, and this is
a semantics issue.

Yet the Fusor is clearly fusion at 100 watts - and that is LENR by
definition - unless you are trying to hide something – like the fact that
there is almost no helium 4 produced with its distinctive signature gamma.
Most of the experiments where helium-4 is seen in “cold fusion” have been
subwatt to watt. The helium could be incidental or due to contamination, or
a QM relic, in the sense of low probability – and with reverse economy of
scale. The attempts to solve the disproportion problem via gettering
deuterium can introduce huge errors. The only two large power experiments in
cold fusion- Roulette and Mizuno – did not show helium, and they may account
for more net gain in megajoules (hundreds) - than all the others which
purport to show helium, combined ! 

Claytor produces tritium, but is a tiny amount, like the Fusor - and he uses
relatively high voltage. No one doubts that with sufficient voltage, fusion
can happen but it is far from breakeven. Claytor admits he is thousands of
times below breakeven. It almost imperative in pursuit of accuracy, after 25
years to completely marginalize all claims that helium is proportional to
excess heat when we are dealing with watt level systems, and especially
using gettering to solve the disproportion problem. (not to mention that
Pyrex is porous to helium and the background levels of helium in many labs
is enormous, compared to normal atmosphere.

*   I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess
heat.  The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess
heat, and with a similar COP.  The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable
(by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. 
 
Because this experiment stands head and shoulders above everything prior in
deuterium LENR, and because of the Cravens similarity of result – it is
disingenuous to suggest that this experiment does not represent the state of
the art in the field. It should be given benefit of doubt until someone
tries and fails to replicate. It is more convincing than anything from Rossi
in my mind, but that could change with the TIP2. 

*   It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both
contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions.  We
know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?)
system.  Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and
shutdown of his reactor.  Could it be that the gamma was present when the
conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output
was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state?

Rossi was using a radioactive emitter to start the reaction at one time -
but there is no evidence of gamma from the reaction now or ever, and he no
longer uses lead shielding, even with the HotCat.
 
*   To relegate Storms' theory to being brain-dead is the pot calling
the kettle black.  You have not proposed anything that suggests how energy
that is coupled out of an atom to take it into a DDL state is dissipated. 

Well, let’s be clear that I am not heavily promoting a book that claims, but
fails, to explain LENR; and moreover – a book that conveniently overlooks
the hero experiment in the field. Cannot that  rejection by Storms, almost
without comment - of the most robust experiment in 25 years of deuterium
fusion (by a factor of 600%), and rejecting it ostensibly because it
nullifies one’s own conclusion … hmm… isn’t that troublesome to you? It is
extremely troublesome to me. And by the way, there are no “cracks” in the
images of active nickel from Mizuno, which is the crux of the problem –
essentially adding

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-31 Thread Bob Cook

Higgins and Jones-




Dr. Va’Vra  Identified QED as being the correct theory to consider spin energy 
and coupling to many-body systems.  (He or Dr. Vary may have an informed 
opinion on the  issue of  spin energy dissipation in LENR.)




I think Bob Higgins  pointed this out in his nice evaluation of the Va’Vra 
papers.  If I get time I intend to follow up on this question with one or both 
of them.  However, feel free to beat me to a possible conclusion on this issue 
based on some recognized analysis, if not accepted theory




Bob Cook




PS Jones--I do not know you apparently as well as Eric does.  I would only 
gloat to myself.




Bob











Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎August‎ ‎31‎, ‎2014 ‎6‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





From: Bob Higgins 

*   Lack of fusion cannot be claimed over all of the LENR experiments.
He, Tritium, gamma, and transmutation have all been reliably reported.  You
cannot simply brush away these good, and in many cases replicated,
experiments simply because you find the Mizuno results personally
satisfying.  

First of all – we all agree that the Farnsworth Fusor produces nuclear
fusion on a very small scale at very low energy. We have a clear boundary
condition for understanding LENR - where at a sufficient voltage (which
translates into acceleration gradient) there will be fusion, but it is far
from breakeven and it shows that almost no He4 comes from deuterium fusion
at low power, at least in that kind of design. 

The Fusor ash is tritium and He3 (equal proportions) and it has exactly the
expected amount of gamma radiation. The Fusor gives clear and unambiguous
results of fusion with a few hundred Watts of input. Understanding this
difference is of extreme importance as LENR moves past this power level
toward the kW level but many observers want to write the Fusor off as “hot
fusion” since it does not meet their expectations for what “cold fusion”
should be. In fact, there could be no such beast as cold fusion, and this is
a semantics issue.

Yet the Fusor is clearly fusion at 100 watts - and that is LENR by
definition - unless you are trying to hide something – like the fact that
there is almost no helium 4 produced with its distinctive signature gamma.
Most of the experiments where helium-4 is seen in “cold fusion” have been
subwatt to watt. The helium could be incidental or due to contamination, or
a QM relic, in the sense of low probability – and with reverse economy of
scale. The attempts to solve the disproportion problem via gettering
deuterium can introduce huge errors. The only two large power experiments in
cold fusion- Roulette and Mizuno – did not show helium, and they may account
for more net gain in megajoules (hundreds) - than all the others which
purport to show helium, combined ! 

Claytor produces tritium, but is a tiny amount, like the Fusor - and he uses
relatively high voltage. No one doubts that with sufficient voltage, fusion
can happen but it is far from breakeven. Claytor admits he is thousands of
times below breakeven. It almost imperative in pursuit of accuracy, after 25
years to completely marginalize all claims that helium is proportional to
excess heat when we are dealing with watt level systems, and especially
using gettering to solve the disproportion problem. (not to mention that
Pyrex is porous to helium and the background levels of helium in many labs
is enormous, compared to normal atmosphere.

*   I find the Mizuno results to be compelling in the case of excess
heat.  The Ni-D system is also where Dennis Cravens is reporting excess
heat, and with a similar COP.  The Mizuno gas composition data is refutable
(by similarity to control) and has not been replicated. 
 
Because this experiment stands head and shoulders above everything prior in
deuterium LENR, and because of the Cravens similarity of result – it is
disingenuous to suggest that this experiment does not represent the state of
the art in the field. It should be given benefit of doubt until someone
tries and fails to replicate. It is more convincing than anything from Rossi
in my mind, but that could change with the TIP2. 

*   It is interesting to speculate that DDL and fusion may both
contribute heat in more or less proportion depending on the conditions.  We
know that early on Rossi had problems with gamma emission in his Ni-H (D?)
system.  Later it seemed that gammas showed up only in the startup and
shutdown of his reactor.  Could it be that the gamma was present when the
conditions were right for fusion and the excess heat during the main output
was simply from sending H/D into the DDL state?

Rossi was using a radioactive emitter to start the reaction at one time -
but there is no evidence of gamma from the reaction now or ever, and he no
longer uses lead shielding, even with the HotCat.
 
*   To relegate Storms' theory to being

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-30 Thread Bob Cook

Jones--


After reviewing this thread I do not think I made the following observation 
stemming from the theory of relativistic DDL discussed by Vavra etal in their 
1993 paper.  It notes that the strongest repulsion of the lower electronic 
levels is not the lowest energy level, but about level 10.  This suggests that 
there is a potential well attracting enectrons to the lower levels with only a 
relatively little kinetic energy to get there.


This may work to cause fusion much like muon  catalyzed fusion is though to 
proceed.


I do not know if Vavra etal has disavowed this part of their theory since 1993.




I do not have his/their later papers.  


Bob


Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎1‎:‎23‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





From prior post: 

The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other
is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range
perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, leaving a large gap
which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet encourages large
diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass which cannot
densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much stronger.

For those who do not have an understanding of the phenomenon
of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a visual demo of
poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D the
characteristic of monopoles in 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-30 Thread Jones Beene

Bob - There were substantial changes made by Va’vra in
moving to QED which confuse the overall situation - but when we look at the
big picture – and consider all the theorists who have looked at the DDL,
there is still an excellent fit for the 3.7 keV species of Naudts fitting
the mold of dark-matter, virtual monopole, DDL, deep hydrino and most of the
gain seen in LENR. That was basically the intent of this post.


https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg96638.html

As you know, the possibility of real fusion has been
marginalized in this view, since it is no longer needed with the DDL, and it
requires the “second miracle” of lack of gammas.
  
From: Bob Cook 

Jones--

After reviewing this thread I do not think I made the
following observation stemming from the theory of relativistic DDL discussed
by Vavra etal in their 1993 paper.  It notes that the strongest repulsion of
the lower electronic levels is not the lowest energy level, but about level
10.  This suggests that there is a potential well attracting enectrons to
the lower levels with only a relatively little kinetic energy to get there.

This may work to cause fusion much like muon  catalyzed
fusion is though to proceed.

I do not know if Vavra etal has disavowed this part of their
theory since 1993.

I do not have his/their later papers.  

From prior post: 

The characteristic interaction of monopoles
with each other
is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial
distance (cm range
perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter,
leaving a large gap
which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet
encourages large
diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass
which cannot
densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much
stronger.

For those who do not have an understanding
of the phenomenon
of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a
visual demo of
poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D
the
characteristic of monopoles in 3D.


http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1





 
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-30 Thread Bob Cook

Jones--


Thanks for that repeat.


I missed it the first time.


Eric also identified the recent (2013) Va’vra paper, which is quite interesting 
including it reluctance to try to discuss theory, this being a change from his 
actions in the 1993 paper.  I wonder what changed his mind about addressing 
theory?


Bob






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Jones Beene
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎August‎ ‎30‎, ‎2014 ‎4‎:‎00‎ ‎PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





Bob - There were substantial changes made by Va’vra in
moving to QED which confuse the overall situation - but when we look at the
big picture – and consider all the theorists who have looked at the DDL,
there is still an excellent fit for the 3.7 keV species of Naudts fitting
the mold of dark-matter, virtual monopole, DDL, deep hydrino and most of the
gain seen in LENR. That was basically the intent of this post.


https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg96638.html

As you know, the possibility of real fusion has been
marginalized in this view, since it is no longer needed with the DDL, and it
requires the “second miracle” of lack of gammas.
  
From: Bob Cook 

Jones--

After reviewing this thread I do not think I made the
following observation stemming from the theory of relativistic DDL discussed
by Vavra etal in their 1993 paper.  It notes that the strongest repulsion of
the lower electronic levels is not the lowest energy level, but about level
10.  This suggests that there is a potential well attracting enectrons to
the lower levels with only a relatively little kinetic energy to get there.

This may work to cause fusion much like muon  catalyzed
fusion is though to proceed.

I do not know if Vavra etal has disavowed this part of their
theory since 1993.

I do not have his/their later papers.  

From prior post: 

The characteristic interaction of monopoles
with each other
is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial
distance (cm range
perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter,
leaving a large gap
which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet
encourages large
diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass
which cannot
densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much
stronger.

For those who do not have an understanding
of the phenomenon
of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a
visual demo of
poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D
the
characteristic of monopoles in 3D.


http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-23 Thread Jones Beene

This latest Va’vra paper could be an extremely important stimulus for and
evolving LENR version of the DDL. It is chock full of detail that bears
reading and rereading.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf

Although the DDL transition is at 511 keV is the focus this paper, which is
ostensibly ruled out for LENR (looked for and not found) … the discussion of
the lower x-ray ranges from 2.5-4 keV are still in play, although it is not
certain how they would be evidenced in a working reactor. 

In short, the DDL of Naudts at 3.7 keV is definitely still a player for an
emerging theory, as mentioned in this paper.

Given the similarity of this higher 511 keV value to positron annihilation,
it would be interesting to try to fit this into Don Hotson’s theory. Too bad
Don is not around to do that but others may take up the cause. It almost
seems possible that some of what passes for Wheeler’s “quantum foam” in not
virtual positronium, per se, but DDL hydrogen.

From: Bob Higgins 

*   I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email
and asked him about the latter 3 papers.  Here was his interesting response:

 However, there is a problem with all these types of
calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment
must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more
recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3.

 Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no
for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong.

 Regards, Jerry

*   Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper
(http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to
this thread.  If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the
duplication.

Bob Higgins

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-23 Thread Jones Beene

The easiest way to reconcile the latest Va’vra paper (and the 511 keV line
which comes from the center of the Milky Way galaxy) with the predicted
Naudts x-ray spectral value for DDL can be rather simple (hopefully not
naïve).

The DDL reaches a plateau of electron orbital stability at 3.7 keV. Dark
matter accumulates having this bond strength. There is no lower plateau for
a stable orbital. The rapidly alternating magnetic field of the DDL is
indistinguishable from a monopole. (in fact, a monopole is most easily
defined as rapidly alternating polar magnetism where only a intense but
nonpolar field is felt). The characteristic interaction of  monopoles with
each other is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance
(cm range perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, prohibiting
any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet large diffuse clouds of dark matter
having substantial net mass are possible. The DDL are only subject to
attraction from the extreme gravitomagnetic field of a dense object like a
black hole.

The emission line which is seen in the center of our galaxy is related to
the total disappearance of electrons from an adjacent cloud of dark matter
into a black hole, and not to DDL formation ab initio. The dark matter had
been there for a very long time in DDL form.

_

This latest Va’vra paper could be an extremely important
stimulus for and evolving LENR version of the DDL. It is chock full of
detail that bears reading and rereading.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf

Although the DDL transition is at 511 keV is the focus this
paper, which is ostensibly ruled out for LENR (looked for and not found) …
the discussion of the lower x-ray ranges from 2.5-4 keV are still in play,
although it is not certain how they would be evidenced in a working reactor.
In short, the DDL of Naudts at 3.7 keV is definitely still a player for an
emerging theory, as mentioned in this paper.

Given the similarity of this higher 511 keV value to
positron annihilation, it would be interesting to try to fit this into Don
Hotson’s theory. Too bad Don is not around to do that but others may take up
the cause. It almost seems possible that some of what passes for Wheeler’s
“quantum foam” in not virtual positronium, per se, but DDL hydrogen.

From: Bob Higgins 

*   I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email
and asked him about the latter 3 papers.  Here was his interesting response:

 However, there is a problem with all these
types of calculations. They use a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct
treatment must use QED. There were attempts to do that, and I mention that
in my more recent ArXiv paper: 1304.0833v3.

 Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That
is a no no for the classical quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method
wrong.

 Regards, Jerry

*   Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper
(http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I think it is a fascinating fit to
this thread.  If someone else already cited this, I apologize for the
duplication.

Bob Higgins

attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-23 Thread Jones Beene

From prior post: 

The characteristic interaction of monopoles with each other
is strong mutual attraction up to a fairly substantial distance (cm range
perhaps) and then strong mutual repulsion thereafter, leaving a large gap
which prohibits any dense aggregation of DDL, but yet encourages large
diffuse clouds of dark matter having substantial net mass which cannot
densify due to gravity, since the magnetic forces is so much stronger.

For those who do not have an understanding of the phenomenon
of attract/repel, with a large gap in between - here is a visual demo of
poly-magnets in spring mode, which precisely simulate in 2D the
characteristic of monopoles in 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/J8w6gwSm_ak/?autoplay=1





 

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-23 Thread Eric Walker

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) -
 I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread.  If someone else already
 cited this, I apologize for the duplication.


I had a moment to read this paper.  Va'vra identifies his DDL hydrogen with
dark matter.  He suggests, for example, going down into the Gran Sasso lab
to better detect the signals which he proposes should add up to 511 keV
(when measured across a full solid angle).  I get the impression he
understands the DDL hydrogen to be passing *through* the earth, as one
would expect of dark matter.

This move raises a challenge to be addressed.  A DDL hydrogen atom is
baryonic matter and can reasonably be expected to approach the behavior of
a neutron.  I would expect the significant amount of DDL hydrogen dark
matter passing through the earth to be equivalent to a high neutron flux,
causing all kinds of capture events.  Va'vra mentions in passing that maybe
such capture events would be unlikely because of a small dipole moment.
 But I think this is just a way to have things both ways.  Even if we
suppose that the DDL hydrogen-capture cross section is smaller than that
for a neutron, one presumes it would still be nontrivial.  (Mills's theory
must also address this challenge.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-23 Thread Axil Axil

I believe that hydrogen in space will form spontaneously into solid crystal
chains  comprised of many atoms with the protons concentrated in the
interior of these one dimensional particles and many of the electrons
orbiting on the outside zone of these nanoparticles. It is in these types
of nanoparticles that cosmological LENR will occur.


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf)
 - I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread.  If someone else already
 cited this, I apologize for the duplication.


 I had a moment to read this paper.  Va'vra identifies his DDL hydrogen
 with dark matter.  He suggests, for example, going down into the Gran Sasso
 lab to better detect the signals which he proposes should add up to 511 keV
 (when measured across a full solid angle).  I get the impression he
 understands the DDL hydrogen to be passing *through* the earth, as one
 would expect of dark matter.

 This move raises a challenge to be addressed.  A DDL hydrogen atom is
 baryonic matter and can reasonably be expected to approach the behavior of
 a neutron.  I would expect the significant amount of DDL hydrogen dark
 matter passing through the earth to be equivalent to a high neutron flux,
 causing all kinds of capture events.  Va'vra mentions in passing that maybe
 such capture events would be unlikely because of a small dipole moment.
  But I think this is just a way to have things both ways.  Even if we
 suppose that the DDL hydrogen-capture cross section is smaller than that
 for a neutron, one presumes it would still be nontrivial.  (Mills's theory
 must also address this challenge.)

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Axil Axil

The indication that muons are produces in the Ni/H reactor are based on the
ash assay that shows heavy production of Lithium, Boron, and beryllium as
produced by the Proton Proton reaction. I admit that it is an open quest of
how those muons are produced.

Be advised that the magnetic field in the Ni/H system is powered in part by
the energy from fusion reactions..

However, the Ni/H reactor produces at best only moderate magnetic fields.
It is a moderate system suitable for home instantiation.

On the other hand still assuming magnetic field causation is the
fundamental LENR causation, LeClair's system produces transuranic elements.
To do that, the magnetic fields in that system are high enough to produce a
gluon/quark condensate. This cavitation system produces the highest field
strength generated so far.

In the near future, I will explain how the LeClair system is based on the
same principles as the Ni/H reactor but more powerful. By the way,
LeClair's system is a LENR system; not hot fusion as some have suggested.

LeClair: The more sensitive LA-ICP-MS detected a total of 78 elements
ranging from lithium to californium and 108 isotopes ranging from 7Li to
249Cf, a standard detection set that does not include all the possible
isotopes, but including most of the stable isotopes and many short and long
lived radioactive isotopes.

The only way that this type of transmutation can be done from water and
aluminum is through a breakdown of matter into a quark/gluon plasma.

Magnetic fields in excess of 10^^16 tesla are needed to accomplish such a
feat. This involves a twilight zone level field strength.


On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf


 The paper you cite talks about the changing masses of ⍴ and A mesons under
 strong magnetic fields.  It does not talk about meson condensation.  It
 does mention some interesting points, however:

- It is known that cosmic space objects called magnetars or neutron
stars possess magnetic field in their cores equal to ∼ 1 MeV. [sic]
- The values of magnetic fields in non-central heavy-ion collisions
can reach up to ... ~ 290 MeV^2

 Another paper indicates that in the cores of neutron stars [2], where the
 magnetic field is ~ 10^15 Tesla, ⍴- mesons *might* condense (the ⍴ meson
 is only slightly heavier than the π- meson, which is what we need for
 muons).  We have a number of degrees of freedom to pin down to get any
 closer to our meson condensation:

- What is the strength of the local magnetic field in a small volume
in DGT's reactor?  Is it in the twilight zone?  Is it actually pretty 
 small?
- What is the effect of an extreme magnetic field on the condensation
of π mesons?  Does it enhance it?  Does it inhibit it?  I get the sense it
could go either way.
- How does the environment in a small volume in DGT's reactor compare
to that in the core of a neutron star?  Is it as extreme?  Is it perhaps
less extreme?

 I'm going to guess that we don't even have a prima facie case to become
 interested in the possibility of meson condensation at this point.

 Eric


 [1] http://physik.uni-graz.at/~dk-user/talks/Chernodub_25112013.pdf (see
 p. 3).
 [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0139.pdf (see the second half of p. 4).

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Jones Beene

From: Dave

How does the pin move if not confined by the tube?  Does it move from the
center region and stick to another spot?

From: Bob 

How is the ferrite conditioned?  Is it magnetized?  Have you reproduced
this effect?  What happens to the hat pin when there is no tube?

Soft iron needles easily become magnetized.  What is seen in the photo could
easily be reproduced with a ferrite magnet slab and an [inadvertently]
magnetized pin.  Of course, what you described with the levitation happening
when the pin is inverted 180 degrees doesn't make sense with that simple
explanation - I am asking if you personally verified that the ferrite slab
was not permanently magnetized and that flipping the pin still caused it to
levitate.

Guys,

There is no anomaly if the pin becomes magnetized and is in repel
alignment. That should go without saying. Actually, it is not a hat-pin per
se, but a shorter ladies lapel pin. It never becomes magnetized from the
modest field of a ferrite, but possibly could from a stronger NIB magnet. It
was never magnetized during this test and was un-magnetized after the test.

This is an anomaly ! and that is the reason it is shown.

The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back
in the tube - and/or - get this: the pin stays in the same place when the
entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to
gravity in either of the two upside down alignments)

The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in the
same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the four
possibilities - to prove this.

The pin has no lateral/vertical stability - thus lateral support is needed
to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners otherwise.

This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work of
Floyd Sweet. The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid
coils place in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is
information online about this.

Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is thinner
(1/4) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light sewing
pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce the
energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the circuit is
the key to it.

This levitating pin effect can, and has been, simulated with two magnets -
one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That should tell
you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid which will hold
the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of a woofer speaker
magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is locked in space, and
levitated no matter what alignment it is in.

From: Bob Higgins 

Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably.  The
long thin hat pin is magnetized  and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin
magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate.  I don't see anything
mysterious here.  It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently
magnetized.

Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet.
With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since
the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this
ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic
field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You
can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Bob Higgins

Thanks for the input, Jones.

The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back
 in the tube - and/or – get this: the pin stays in the same place when the
 entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to
 gravity in either of the two upside down alignments)



 The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in
 the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the
 four possibilities - to prove this.



 The pin has no lateral/vertical stability – thus lateral support is needed
 to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners otherwise.


If the pin is just a lightweight soft reluctor, then it would tend to stay
aligned to magnetic field lines and a symmetric divergence of the field
could hold it in place.  OK, I can buy that.  I don't buy that there is a
continuous oscillation of the magnetic field.  What evidence is there of
any oscillation?  Obviously if there were oscillations, it would be
possible to extract energy.



 This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work
 of Floyd Sweet.


There is an old technology called magnetic amplifiers which could be
related to this effect.  See the wikipedia page:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier* .  I would look closely
at this old technology to hypothesize how the Sweet device works.

The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place
 in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information
 online about this.


This is the classic description of how an uncharged magnet gets charged -
with a burst of current through a solenoid.  It appears that this ferrite
magnet material gets charged in multiple domains at the same time to
produce a prescribed field pattern.



 Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is
 thinner (1/4”) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light
 sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce
 the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the
 circuit is the key to it.



 This “levitating pin effect” can, and has been, simulated with two magnets
 – one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That should
 tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid which
 will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of a
 woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is “locked” in
 space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in.


It would seem important to create a field axis normal to the slab, but also
create a second domain near the surface to cancel the field there, so that
above the slab is a field divergence to hold the pin in place.  This
levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it
would be related to energy production.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Bob Higgins

Also see:
*http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm*

Bob

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks for the input, Jones.

The pin stays in the same place when it is rotated 180 degree and put back
in the tube - and/or – get this: the pin stays in the same place when the
entire system is turned 180 degree (the pin does not drop away due to
gravity in either of the two upside down alignments)

The are four possibilities for levitating alignment and the pin stays in
the same spot for all 4 of them. Brian Ahern actually has 4 images of the
four possibilities - to prove this.

The pin has no lateral/vertical stability – thus lateral support is
needed to keep it stable. It flies over to any one of the four corners
otherwise.

If the pin is just a lightweight soft reluctor, then it would tend to stay
aligned to magnetic field lines and a symmetric divergence of the field
could hold it in place. OK, I can buy that. I don't buy that there is a
continuous oscillation of the magnetic field. What evidence is there of
any oscillation? Obviously if there were oscillations, it would be
possible to extract energy.

This billet has been conditioned in a manner which was based on the work
of Floyd Sweet.

There is an old technology called magnetic amplifiers which could be
related to this effect. See the wikipedia page:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_amplifier* . I would look
closely at this old technology to hypothesize how the Sweet device works.

The conditioning involves huger burst of power though solenoid coils place
in different areas around the edges of the magnet. There is information
online about this.

This is the classic description of how an uncharged magnet gets charged -
with a burst of current through a solenoid. It appears that this ferrite
magnet material gets charged in multiple domains at the same time to
produce a prescribed field pattern.

Yes I have such a billet and have seen the effect, but my billet is
thinner (1/4”) and the levitation distance is less, and I must use a light
sewing pin. A nail is too heavy. Sadly, I have not been able to reproduce
the energy gain but believe it is there and that this magnet and the
circuit is the key to it.

This “levitating pin effect” can, and has been, simulated with two
magnets – one toroid and one ring speaker magnet, axially magnetized. That
should tell you something. Place a clear tube with a pin inside a toroid
which will hold the tube, and place that assembly inside, near the top, of
a woofer speaker magnet, and the effect can be seen. The pin is “locked” in
space, and levitated no matter what alignment it is in.

It would seem important to create a field axis normal to the slab, but
also create a second domain near the surface to cancel the field there, so
that above the slab is a field divergence to hold the pin in place. This
levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I cannot see how it
would be related to energy production.

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Jones Beene

From: Bob Higgins 

*   Also see:
http://www.rfcafe.com/references/radio-news/subminiature-magnetic-amplifiers
-dec-1957-radio-tv-news.htm

Very good, Bob. Brian and I actually spent several hundred hours a few years
ago researching mag-amps – thinking that the old technology could be
applicable to this device. Kind of a “lost art”- mag-amps, but there is a
connection. Our conclusion… a definite “maybe”…

*   This levitation demonstration seems to be just spectacle and I
cannot see how it would be related to energy production.

It is possible that it is not related and coincidental, but there is also a
way that it could be related.

As stated earlier - I could not reproduce the gain in the device or else I
would be more enthusiastic. If there is an anomaly, it probably relates to
field lines in the large billet which move “on their own” or with less input
stimulation than the secondary effects which they can induce in wires. The
better known analogy to an interlocked balance of superparamagnetism and
superferromagnetism is “negative resistance” which is actually only
“negative differential resistance” and not useful for gain, since the
differential zone is small.

However, superparamagnetism is probably useful for gain, but that is not yet
proved. 

I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in a
transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly
below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong
indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device.

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Bob Higgins

There is also such a thing as a thermomagnetic heat pump.  It is usually
envisioned with moving magnets.  However, just as one can imagine a moving
magnetic field from a 3-phase drive producing a linear magnetic motor, one
can envision a motion-less thermomagnetic heat pump in a ferrite.  There
may be a thermomagnetic heat pumping effect involved in the cooling effect
of the core.

Bob

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 From: Bob Higgins

 I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in
 a
 transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly
 below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong
 indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device.

 Jones

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Jones Beene

Yes the magneto-caloric effect.

 

This precisely what we think is happening (rather could be happening if there 
was actual gain) where the moving magnetic field creates EMF in the windings 
and cooling in the core BUT where the cooling loss balances the EM gain. Best 
of both.

 

BTW – the windings around the billet are on x,y and z axes and the effect 
happens at what turns out to be the Larmor frequency of the ferrite. We did not 
know that initially.

 

I should add – for the benefit of others who may wonder why this project was 
stopped… that Arthur Manelas suffered a severe stroke and is still bedridden 
but alive. It is one of those stories that I hate to repeat, since it sounds 
too much like the typical “OU cop-out” where the men-in-black arrived, or the 
inventor was poisoned, or the antigravity device broke through the roof, or in 
the case of Gene Mallove – murdered in a purely coincidental tragedy. There are 
some coincidences in life. 

 

BTW – Gene knew Arthur, and all of this is taking place in southern New 
Hampshire within a short radius of where Les Case also died unexpectedly and 
Rossi’s lab was located and several other alternative energy “coincidences”.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

There is also such a thing as a thermomagnetic heat pump.  It is usually 
envisioned with moving magnets.  However, just as one can imagine a moving 
magnetic field from a 3-phase drive producing a linear magnetic motor, one can 
envision a motion-less thermomagnetic heat pump in a ferrite.  There may be a 
thermomagnetic heat pumping effect involved in the cooling effect of the core.

 

Bob

 

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

From: Bob Higgins

I am convinced of this connection: if one can document a cooling effect in a
transformer core which should be heating up (but instead is significantly
below ambient during operation) then that physical property is strong
indication of electrical gain. This was documented in the Manelas device.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-22 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another
 anomalous device – which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here
 before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of
 levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in
 slide-6, here:

 http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/



 I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface
 is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the
 surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where
 the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength
 purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away
 (removed) from the surface.



 This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of
 “nanomagnetism” which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic
 devices.



 BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several
 degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt
 transformer!


From:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MIT2014Colloq.pdf

Following a few years of collaboration with Yoshiaki Arata
and Akito Takahashi and discovery of the 5 to 10 nanometer
“sweet spot” in which the materials behave “cooperatively,”
in 2011 Ahern conducted high voltage experiments using
magnetic nanopowders. During this time, he was visited by
New Hampshire inventor Arthur Manelas, also interested in
high voltage pulses through magnetic nanoparticle systems.
In September 2011, Ahern visited Manelas’ home and tested
a barium ferrite power supply that was running a 1997
Solectria; the ferrite billet had high voltage pulses traveling
through it, creating excess electricity. They drove the car for
25 miles with four passengers, then stored the car for one
week. The battery capacity increased from 69.6% after the
trip to 89.4%. Ahern stated, “I believe in the measurements
as much as anything that I have ever done, but I don’t know
why it worked.”
Ahern noted, “I think LENR is something extraordinary
that we have yet to figure out...We can anticipate new and
exciting properties from these kind of magnetic interactions
that may be the root cause of what we see in LENR.” 

end p.18 (p.6 of the article)

Manelas also had a piece of a solar energy company in Dracut, MA in the
late 70s, Solectro Thermo, Inc.

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova
 because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam.


I will answer my own question.  There's little reason to think that a 1
Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers.  Even more -- we
don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field.  Maybe
there was; maybe there wasn't.  It's hearsay at this point.  I will
postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain
reliable data.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists
in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do
you know the size of the reaction at time zero?


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova
 because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam.


 I will answer my own question.  There's little reason to think that a 1
 Tesla field was localized to within a few nanometers.  Even more -- we
 don't have (much) reason to believe that there was a 1 Tesla field.  Maybe
 there was; maybe there wasn't.  It's hearsay at this point.  I will
 postulate a first rule in getting to the heart of a matter -- obtain
 reliable data.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

You have the word and reputation of Dr Kim, as good a researcher as exists
 in the field of LENR experimentation. When there is an explosion, how do
 you know the size of the reaction at time zero?


Perhaps you're referring to these slides?  [1]  (I was unable to find the
Kim-Hadjichristos paper.)  Yes, that brings the 0.6-1.6 Tesla DGT claim out
of the realm of hearsay and into the realm of slideware (which is about as
good as one can expect in this field).

Eric


[1]
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread David Roberson

The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at a 
dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those poles. 
 If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles you get the 
second order behavior.

The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known so 
it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field originates 
from one tiny region within the reactor.   I personally think that the field is 
the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not 
become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources.

The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to 
understand the penetration of that field through the structure.  A rapidly 
changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady 
field has a free pass.

It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding 
principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn out 
to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--



DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs intheir reactor.
 
This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. Thereaction zone is located 
inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micronparticles. The magnetic 
activity is observed in localize magnetictraps (LMT). Because the 5 micron 
particles are not destroyed by thebosenova , the magnetic reaction must be 
centered is atthe tips of or just beyond the nanostructures that are associated 
with the 5micron particles. The dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be 
on thenanometer scale and nondestructive to micron level structures.
The reactor is double faraday shielded. Was this magneticmeasurements done on 
an unshielded reactor. Let us assume the worst case thatthe magnetic 
measurements were done on an unshielded reactor. But the magneticfield must 
have penetrated the stainless steel pressure vessel and the metalreactor 
wall(s?).
The tesla level field was detected at multiple points aroundthe reactor and the 
bosenova was depicted to occur inside the 200 micron nickelfoam. 
There are 20,000,000 million nanometers in 20CMs. But to thedistance of the 
bosenova must be added the radius of the hydrogen pressurevessel and the 
distance of the pressure vessel to the outside metal wall of thereactor; so 20 
CMs is a worst case.
There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of thebosenova because 
that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam.
By the inverse square law, the power of a nanometer sized reactionis reckoned 
as the square of 20,000,000 with the dimension of tesla. Thatcomes to a 
MINIMUM of 10^^14 tesla which is correct for the creation of aquark/gluon 
plasma.
I thought that the inverse cube law was the correct law to use but that would 
but the strength of the magnetic reaction into the twilight zone. I welcome 
opinion on this point.

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

From: David Roberson 

 

The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed at
a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between those
poles.  If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the poles
you get the second order behavior.

The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not known
so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic field
originates from one tiny region within the reactor.   I personally think
that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources
and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those
individual sources.

The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to
understand the penetration of that field through the structure.  A rapidly
changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady
field has a free pass.

It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding
principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn
out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed.

Dave

 

Good post. Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens
with another anomalous device - which is called the Manelas/Sweet device,
mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A
visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is
seen in slide-6, here:

http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/

 

I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface
is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the
surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where
the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength purposely
located above the center region, which is significantly away (removed) from
the surface. 

 

This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of
nanomagnetism which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices.


 

BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by several degrees
below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of 50-watt
transformer!

 

Go figure.

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod to more deductive
speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/H reactor.

 I notice that there is a disbelief associated with this magnetic field
observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstrate
when they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just
unbelievable counter indicative of observational reality.

 A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering rule of thumb as a
guide to estimation.

 There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst case estimate, the
magnetic field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micron nickel
foam. That is 1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla.

 If an anapole field is involved when the field acts within a few
nanometers of the source, applying second order effects might be warranted.
The inverse cube might be valid to use. Therefore, 1000 cubed or
1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is the worst case originating from the 200
micron nickel foam.

 Dave: *I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very
large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is
suggested as we close in on those individual sources.*

 If this is the case,  the field is ferromagnetic

 A ferromagnetic field applies only if *all* of its magnetic ions add a
positive contribution to the net magnetization. The spins of all the unit
field contributors must be aligned.

 If some of the magnetic ions *subtract* from the net magnetization (if
they are partially *anti*-aligned), then the material is ferrimagnetic

 In materials that exhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of
atoms or molecules, usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a
regular pattern with neighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing
in opposite directions

 If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignment of the
individual magnetic contributions?

The electron for example is a dipole with a north and South Pole. Any anti
alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagnetic effect.

 One important clue to the nature of the magnetic field inside the reactor
as determined by experimental observations is that the eternal magnetic
field is basically the same all around the outside of the reactor. This is
not indicative of a ferromagnetic field.  Such a field would produce a
strong north pole and a strong  anti-aligned south pole field with little
field strength in between.

If the magnetic units were anapole, any misalignment would not diminish the
strength of the composite combined field. An antiferromagnetic anapole
field would project equal field strength in all directions whose field
strength at an arbitrary distance would be a non-additive refection of each
individual’s source generators field strengths.  The individual unit
magnetic sources would not be additive because of their random aliments.


















On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed
 at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between
 those poles.  If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the
 poles you get the second order behavior.

 The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not
 known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic
 field originates from one tiny region within the reactor.   I personally
 think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny
 sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on
 those individual sources.

 The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to
 understand the penetration of that field through the structure.  A rapidly
 changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady
 field has a free pass.

 It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding
 principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn
 out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed.

 Dave



  -Original Message-
 From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

   *DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor.*

  This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. The reaction zone is
 located inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micron particles. The
 magnetic activity is observed in localize magnetic traps (LMT). Because
 the 5 micron particles are not destroyed by the bosenova , the magnetic
 reaction must be centered is at the tips of or just beyond the
 nanostructures that are associated with the 5 micron particles. The
 dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be on the nanometer scale and
 nondestructive to micron level structures.
  The reactor is double faraday

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread David Roberson

The magnetic field distribution can be quite complex and depends upon how the 
various component fields combine.  One thing that I feel comfortable in saying 
is that the external field must behave in such a manner that the total normal 
flux through any external volume element must add to zero at any particular 
time.   The discovery of a monopole has not been established so far and that 
would be necessary if this were not the case.

Flux must arise from some regions of the metal box and then return through 
others.  This type of distribution would not be consistent with a constant 
steady state flux at every point around the device.  Of course, if they are 
finding that the magnetic flux varies with space and time as the reaction 
proceeds, then perhaps it is possible for the average to work out.  That would 
appear to be a major observation with interesting implications.  If I recall, 
there remains a highly conductive shield surrounding the unit which would make 
a strong effort to slow down outside observations of the internally rapid 
magnetic fluctuations.   The conductive metal behaves somewhat analogous to a 
low pass filter in electronics since it attempts to keep the magnetic flux 
passing through it constant.

Some have suggested that the large external magnetic field is a measurement 
error.   We must await release of additional data before anyone can draw that 
conclusion.  Also, the interaction of an electromagnetic field and LENR has 
many attributes that we have been discussing.

An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is due 
to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas that 
are battling for supremacy.  The fact that such a large net field is seen would 
indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly enormous local 
fields as suggested by Axil.   This might further indicate that the low pass 
nature of the conductive shield ultimately dominates the external field 
distribution and time domain characteristics.   Think of this effect as 
somewhat comparable to the way an oscilloscope views the impulse response of an 
electronic low pass filter.  What you see is so strongly influenced by the 
filter that the output signal no longer closely resembles its original shape 
prior to filtering.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--



Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod tomore deductive 
speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/Hreactor.
 I notice that there is a disbelief associated with thismagnetic field 
observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstratewhen 
they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just 
unbelievablecounter indicative of observational reality.
 A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering ruleof thumb as a guide 
to estimation.
 There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst caseestimate, the magnetic 
field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micronnickel foam. That is 
1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla.
 If an anapole field is involved when thefield acts within a few nanometers of 
the source, applying second ordereffects might be warranted. The inverse cube 
might be valid to use. Therefore,1000 cubed or 1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is 
the worst case originating fromthe 200 micron nickel foam.  
 Dave: I personally think that the field is the net vectorsum of a very large 
number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large asis suggested as we 
close in on those individual sources.
 If this is the case,  the field isferromagnetic
 A ferromagnetic field applies only if allof its magnetic ions add a positive 
contribution to the net magnetization. Thespins of all the unit field 
contributors must be aligned.
 If some of the magnetic ions subtract from the netmagnetization (if they are 
partially anti-aligned), then the material isferrimagnetic
 In materials thatexhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of atoms or 
molecules,usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a regular pattern 
withneighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing in opposite directions
 If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignmentof the 
individual magnetic contributions? 
The electron for example is a dipole with a north and SouthPole. Any anti 
alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagneticeffect.
 One important clue to the nature of the magnetic fieldinside the reactor as 
determined by experimental observations is that the eternalmagnetic field is 
basically the same all around the outside of the reactor.This is not indicative 
of a ferromagnetic field.  Such a field would produce a strong north poleand a 
strong  anti-aligned south pole fieldwith little field strength in between.
If the magnetic units

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Poser: can there be an operative cross-connection between
ferrite magnet anomalies and LENR thermal anomalies involving protons and
the DDL ? The two seem completely unrelated at first.

First, consider magnet composition, but dispense with prior assumptions that
there is no embedded hydrogen in ferrites - since there are various ways to
manufacture them. One way, which is preferred for hard magnets (using
strontium or barium, or a mix of the two) and which will introduce hydrogen
into the magnet composition even after firing at high temperature - is
called the wet process. A water slurry of powdered ferrite material is
pressed and then calcined. Most, but not all of the hydrogen from the water
content is driven off.

Even so, the final hydrogen content of wet processed ferrite magnets can be
as high as 1-2 % (atomic ratio). There is a patent for a process using
ammonia wetting, allowing 10% hydrogen in ferrites (atomic). Even without
ammonia, a one pound billet made from the wet process could contain a  gram
of protons... and consequently, up to a gram of HDDL if optimally processed
and conditioned. An atom of HDDL (hydrogen deep Dirac level), at least on
paper, has a rather enormous magnetic field strength. The HDDL is also
highly mobile, unlike the iron oxides - which is important in the context of
superparamagnetism and superferromagnetism. There can be a rapid
self-oscillation between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic alignments due
to the mobility of the species.

Therefore, the connection of dark matter to LENR and also to magnetic
anomalies - can be tentatively defined as a DDL hydrogen connection (with an
IP of ~3.7 keV and an orbital near 100 fm) - and this can serve to explain
thermo-magnetic anomalies in two disparate systems. 

But the big surprise is that the thermal anomalies can be exothermic or
endothermic (or absent) depending on circumstances. Endothermic anomalies
are more interesting in a way since they are easier to document reliably.
Thermal endotherm could be related to motional field-lines and thereby to
direct conversion of that motion into electricity - and thermal endotherm
has been documented. This does not violate CoE since thermal loss is
balanced by electrical gain.

Jones

From: David Roberson 

The inverse cube law is normally seen when a
two pole magnet is observed at a dimension that is relatively large compared
to the spacing between those poles.  If you monitor the field variation when
close to one of the poles you get the second order behavior.

The actual internal structure of the
magnetic field generation is not known so it is highly speculative to assume
that the external magnetic field originates from one tiny region within the
reactor.   I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very
large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is
suggested as we close in on those individual sources.

The time rate of change of the field becomes
important as one attempts to understand the penetration of that field
through the structure.  A rapidly changing field is attenuated strongly by
conductive material while a steady field has a free pass.

It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since
that is one of the guiding principles, but we must always realize that most
of these ideas will turn out to be false once the true nature of the beast
is revealed.

Dave

Good post. Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic
field happens with another anomalous device - which is called the
Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here before. There may be a non-obvious
connection to LENR. A visual image of levitation of a hat pin, above the
magnet of this device, is seen in slide-6, here:
http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/

I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength
on the surface is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in
polarity across the surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in
certain areas where the poles change. There is a focal point of highest
field strength purposely located above the center region, which is
significantly away (removed) from the surface. 

This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a
theory of nanomagnetism which is seen in both LENR and in exotic
electronic devices. 

BTW, in operation the Manelas magnet drops in temperature by
several degrees below ambient, even though it is operating as the core of
50-watt transformer!

Go figure.


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread Bob Higgins

After reading the Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II by Dr.s
Maly and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers.  I did not find
a copy of ... I, or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra
indicated were submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of Electron
Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels I, could you please share a copy with
me?]. When I researched the ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in
their listing the ... I and ... II papers, but none of the others. So,
I did some additional research to find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and
asked him about the latter 3 papers.  Here was his interesting response:

The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the
editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time.

 However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use
a 1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There
were attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv
paper: 1304.0833v3.

 Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical
quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong.

 Regards, Jerry


Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) -
I think it is a fascinating fit to this thread.  If someone else already
cited this, I apologize for the duplication.

Bob Higgins

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread Bob Higgins

Ferrites encompass a large body of magnetic materials.  Does this photo
(slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably.  The long thin hat pin
is magnetized  and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet from
flipping and is thus able to levitate.  I don't see anything mysterious
here.  It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized.

However, if a permanent magnet is used as a transformer core, I am not sure
what the result would be.  It would certainly be nonlinear.  In a passive
device reciprocity is not guaranteed if a DC magnetic field is present.

Bob Higgins

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


 Something similar wrt a non-stationary magnetic field happens with another
 anomalous device – which is called the Manelas/Sweet device, mentioned here
 before. There may be a non-obvious connection to LENR. A visual image of
 levitation of a hat pin, above the magnet of this device, is seen in
 slide-6, here:

 http://e-catsite.com/manelas-device/



 I have one of these conditioned billets. The field strength on the surface
 is not high, typical for a ferrite and it alternates in polarity across the
 surface, and is fluid - in the sense of self-moving in certain areas where
 the poles change. There is a focal point of highest field strength
 purposely located above the center region, which is significantly away
 (removed) from the surface.



 This magnet was the impetus which has pushed Ahern towards a theory of
 “nanomagnetism” which is seen in both LENR and in exotic electronic devices.

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is
 due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas
 that are battling for supremacy.  The fact that such a large net field is
 seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly
 enormous local fields as suggested by Axil.


A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong
enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~
140 MeV per muon worth).  My working assumption is that they are not.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large
 number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as
 we close in on those individual sources.


If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6
Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as
a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a
vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf

 The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge
theory.

What we are after is negitive mesons.

Just like positron and electon pairs, the production of mesons from the
vacume is produced by a magnetic field somewhere under 10^^16 tesla.


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:18 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 An interesting case to speculate upon would be that the observed field is
 due to the combination of a very large multitude of individual active areas
 that are battling for supremacy.  The fact that such a large net field is
 seen would indicate that each of the smaller elements might have truly
 enormous local fields as suggested by Axil.


 A relevant question here is whether the enormous local fields are strong
 enough to summon forth muons from the internal structure of the nucleons (~
 140 MeV per muon worth).  My working assumption is that they are not.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

If you put your name on a paper and present it at a conference before your
piers making such are extraordinary claim, would you not verify the data?


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com
 wrote:

 I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large
 number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as
 we close in on those individual sources.


 If we accept at face value Kim's repeating of DGT's claim of 0.6 - 1.6
 Tesla (in this regard I suspect he's simply taking DGT's data on faith, as
 a good-natured theorist), I would also assume that it is the result of a
 vector sum of a large number of small magnetic moments.

 Eric

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread hohlr...@gmail.com

And what would cause a change in these?  Two things, increased alignment and/or 
am increase in spin momentum.  Where might a greater spin momentum originate?  
Spin transfer?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--
Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 11:01 PM

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

I would also assume that it is the result of a vector sum of a large number of 
small magnetic moments.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

Bob,

 

Thanks for following up on this. 

 

Unfortunately for elucidating the basis of LENR, if Va’vra is correct, then 511 
keV is not going to solve any open questions. In fact, this spectrum has been 
specifically looked for and not seen.

 

Jones

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

After reading the Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II by Dr.s Maly 
and Va'vra, I was intrigued to find the other papers.  I did not find a copy of 
... I, or any of the III, IV, and V versions that Dr. Va'vra indicated were 
submitted [note: if any of you have a copy of Electron Transitions on Deep 
Dirac Levels I, could you please share a copy with me?]. When I researched the 
ANS publication Fusion Technology, I found in their listing the ... I and 
... II papers, but none of the others. So, I did some additional research to 
find Dr. Va'vra. I found his email and asked him about the latter 3 papers.  
Here was his interesting response:

 

The papers III,IV and V do exist, but they were not published. I think the 
editor of the Fusion Technology had enough at that time.

 

 However, there is a problem with all these types of calculations. They use a 
1920-1930 quantum mechanics. The correct treatment must use QED. There were 
attempts to do that, and I mention that in my more recent ArXiv paper: 
1304.0833v3.

 

 Mills used fractional quantum numbers. That is a no no for the classical 
quantum mechanics. So, I consider his method wrong.

 

 Regards, Jerry

 

Dr. Va'vra has a 2013 ArXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0833v3.pdf) - I 
think it is a fascinating fit to this thread.  If someone else already cited 
this, I apologize for the duplication.

 

Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably.  The long 
thin hat pin is magnetized  and the plastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet 
from flipping and is thus able to levitate.  I don't see anything mysterious 
here.  It is just showing that the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized.

 

Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With 
a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since the 
opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this ferrite, the 
pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic field lines, 
which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You can flip the pin 
over and it stays levitated where it is.

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread David Roberson

How does the pin move if not confined by the tube?  Does it move from the 
center region and stick to another spot?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 22, 2014 12:29 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--



 

From:Bob Higgins 
 
Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferritemagnet? - probably.  The long 
thin hat pin is magnetized  and theplastic tube keeps the long hat pin magnet 
from flipping and is thus able tolevitate.  I don't see anything mysterious 
here.  It is just showingthat the ferrite slab is permanently magnetized.
 
Not exactly. The pin is ironand will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. With a 
normal ferrite, the pin willtouch the surface, not levitate since the opposite 
field is induced. With the typeof conditioning in this ferrite, the pin seeks 
equilibrium in the highestconcentration of magnetic field lines, which is in 
the space above the billet,not touching it. You can flip the pin over and it 
stays levitated where it is.

RE: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--

2014-08-21 Thread Bob

How is the ferrite conditioned?  Is it magnetized?  Have you reproduced 
this effect?  What happens to the hat pin when there is no tube?


Soft iron needles easily become magnetized.  What is seen in the photo 
could easily be reproduced with a ferrite magnet slab and an 
[inadvertently] magnetized pin.  Of course, what you described with the 
levitation happening when the pin is inverted 180 degrees doesn't make 
sense with that simple explanation - I am asking if you personally verified 
that the ferrite slab was not permanently magnetized and that flipping the 
pin still caused it to levitate.


Bob

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On August 21, 2014 10:29:27 PM Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:




From: Bob Higgins



Does this photo (slide 6) show a slab of ferrite magnet? - probably.  The 
long thin hat pin is magnetized  and the plastic tube keeps the long hat 
pin magnet from flipping and is thus able to levitate.  I don't see 
anything mysterious here.  It is just showing that the ferrite slab is 
permanently magnetized.




Not exactly. The pin is iron and will be attracted as a soft ferromagnet. 
With a normal ferrite, the pin will touch the surface, not levitate since 
the opposite field is induced. With the type of conditioning in this 
ferrite, the pin seeks equilibrium in the highest concentration of magnetic 
field lines, which is in the space above the billet, not touching it. You 
can flip the pin over and it stays levitated where it is.

Re: [Vo]:LENR - dark mater - DDL connection--