I've heard Rossi and some others happy about some signal around 511Kev (e+
anihilation)... to be confirmed.
note that DGT claim gamme in 30-500keV... compatible with 511keV divided
(is it possible? )
however if much energy is cared by e+, and annihilation, should not there
be much more gamma
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:10:32 -0800:
Hi Jones,
Note, that as Harry said, I was referring to p-e-p, not pp. The pp reaction does
indeed produce a positron, however the p-e-p reaction is an electron capture
reaction, and the only particles produced are a deuteron
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:
Just a naive question... if no gamma nor neutrons is produced at noticeable
quantity, does it mean that most energy is transmitted by some charged
particles, that don't annihilate ?
This is not a naive question. It's
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 2 Feb 2014 09:39:57 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no
gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory
proposes can be valid because gammas are expected.
Actually
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are no
gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your theory
proposes can be valid because gammas are expected.
Actually not only would I not expect
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
The most elegant answer begins with the obvious assertion that there are
no
gammas ab initio, which means that no reaction of the kind which your
theory
proposes
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large
difference between what you are proposing and what they claim.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil
: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large
difference between what you are proposing and what they claim.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large
difference between what you are proposing and what they claim.
Dave
-Original Message
Of interest - in this regard is that the magnetic field used in the
Letts/Cravens effect is fairly weak. Did not Dennis mention to vortex that it
needs to be weak and the effect goes away if it is too strong?
Here is a paper mentioning 700 Gauss – across the cathode face, from a
It is interesting that the magnets are shown in that application.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 3:28 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Of interest
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus
they have shown?
Because both Ken Sholders and proton-21 produced cold fusion and
monopole fields using sparks.
Yes Axil, but the spark is applied to the material. DGT does
On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:55 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Edmund Storms
stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Why do you say this, Eric? Do you have evidence I do not know
about? Can you give a reason why the statements are not correct?
I have seen what you and the others
Axil, you have offered an idea for a mechanism that might allow coupling
between a locally large magnetic field and nearby fusion events. I remain
skeptical of this type of effect but I want to understand how it operates
according to your concept.
I have a few questions for you to review
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Axil, you have offered an idea for a mechanism that might allow coupling
between a locally large magnetic field and nearby fusion events. I remain
skeptical of this type of effect but I want to understand how it
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Axil, you have offered an idea for a mechanism that might allow coupling
between a locally large
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept,
but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate.
It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report.
At the time of
from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but
there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate.
It is valuable to review again what DGT said
The data come from many places. First, the library LENR experimental data
accumulated over the last 25 years in Jed's collection, Next, other data
that should be added to Jed's collection, then there is the experimentation
done that is directly applicable to LENR which is most recently done but
I almost took that as an honorable mention...
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:29 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil, you speak with the authority of one who knows -- perhaps even more
so than ChemE.
Does your authoritative knowledge shed light on an economical
demonstration of that
On Feb 2, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have
been around since the beginning of cold fusion.
It is true that some people in this thread have been
Axil, you completely ignore what is observed and how the behavior is
produced. Rather than suggest complex, obscure, and novel ideas, why
not learn what is actually seen?
Ed Stporms
On Feb 2, 2014, at 10:24 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Radioisotopes are not produced in LENR when the nucleus is
From: Eric Walker
Jed Rothwell wrote:
These discussions about suppressing gamma rays and neutrons have been around
since the beginning of cold fusion.
It is true that some people in this thread have been arguing about the
suppression of MeV-range gammas. Like you say, this sounds
Ed,
Point me to something that illustrates your viewpoint.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Axil, you completely ignore what is observed and how the behavior is
produced. Rather than suggest complex, obscure, and novel ideas, why not
learn what is
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does
Piantelliin a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system is very cold only. Rossi says that
his early
From: Axil Axil
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
enough.
That is absurd.
There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the
evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when
loaded into
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
enough.
That is absurd.
There is not the least bit of evidence for that proposition. In fact, the
evidence points to perhaps a dozen energetic reactions of hydrogen when
As you expected, I disagree strongly with this conclusion, Jones. All
of the behavior flows from a single process. The fusion reaction of
all isotopes of hydrogen provides the heat energy and fuels the
transmutation reactions, of which there are two consequences depending
on the isotope of
If you are interested in black hole research, I have just read how to do it
with polaritons. You can produce worm holes, white holes, and black holes,
even alternate universes,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.3013v2.pdf
Black Holes and Wormholes in spinor polariton condensates
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Axil Axil wrote:
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look
deep enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so
does Piantelli in a nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold
systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
That is really the crux of the Nickel hydrogen analysis. Rossi/Forcardi
originally proposed a reaction in which substantial gammas should have been
witnessed at 10 kW of thermal release. The original lead shielding (in the
On 2/3/14, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
Let us discuss this reference:...
No, let us discuss an experiment of YOUR design, the results of which
would differentiate YOUR theory from competing theories.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Theory is
I think this will be relevant for Storms theory and radiation.
The
reactions H+e+H or D+e+D in hydrons will take long time for a nuclear
reaction.
The energy is released as a sequence of many photons.
And
the reaction is greatly dependent on the environment.
There may be
some events in
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Date: February 3, 2014 9:28:49 AM MST
To: torulf.gr...@bredband.net torulf.gr...@bredband.net
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Good point Torulf. I believe
I don't feel that we have anything like enough evidence to say
definitively whether there is one, or more than one, underlying
mechanism. It seems likely that at least some of the different sets of
experimental results will have a common underlying mechanism, and it is
well worth trying to
From: Jed Rothwell
AA: The cold fusion reaction must be the
same for all systems if we look deep enough.
JB: That is absurd. There is not the least bit of evidence
for that proposition. In fact, the evidence points to perhaps a
First off, the production of only stable isotopes via fusion, points to no
transfer of any angular momentum or kinetic energy by the cold fusion
reaction. This points to photofusion.
The report that only even numbers of protons and neutrons in the nucleus
before fusion resulting in a zero nuclear
I agree with QED.
We humans live in a weakly ionizing quantum vacuum, which varies in
concentration in our atmosphere, creating low pressure disturbances and is
conductive. Based upon observation, it is ionizing oxygen in our
atmosphere and forming water vapor as well as weakly ionizing the
Nigel, far more information is available than most people realize. My
present book has 750 citations to essential information. How many
people do you think have read these papers? My data base contains 4700
papers, which is more than available on LENR.org
I'm trying to apply the fewest
this post changed my mind about fission as a source of light nuclear ash.
You might get fission to lighter elements, if you initially add enough
energy in
the form of excess mass to more than make up for the energy deficit.
Yes that means Hydrogen fusion with the Ni. However there is only one
I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled into it
when I became aware of some experimental results that did not fit into
the conventional picture. Once I dipped my toe into the water I quickly
came to realise how much information was available, some of which did
seem to
The assay of Rossi reaction ash says that 10% was iron. This reaction looks
like a good bet to be the main one in Rossi's reactor
1H+1H+62Ni = 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV this one produces iron
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
this post changed my
This list is on the right tract but very incomplete. Transmutation has
two consequences. With the hydrogen nuclei is added and the resulting
nuclei remains in tact, aka Iwamura. Or the final nucleus fissions,
aka Miley et al. The consequence produce a collection of elements that
must
IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
important nuclear spin is in the LENR reaction.
Then, you might ask yourself why spin is so important, then you might draw
a connection between spin and magnetic effects and influences.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:23 PM,
One more point, in a nuclear reaction spin is conserved between the input
and output products, except if the reaction is electromagnetic in nature.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, it would be productive in your reaction analysis to consider how
On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
I had not intended to get involved with this field, but stumbled
into it when I became aware of some experimental results that did
not fit into the conventional picture. Once I dipped my toe into
the water I quickly came to realise how much
One more important point, the contents of the topological defects(cracks,
pits, holes, bumps) are superconducting. In other works, the cracks are
superconducting. This is called topological superconductivity. There is
only one environment where this superconductivity can happen at high
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely
based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.
First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any
At the risk of overstepping the bounds of my understanding, it sounds like
you have begun to respond to my question about the experimental design
required to differentiate your theory from others. What you are saying, if
I understand your response to that question, is that you predict nuclear
: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look deep
enough. LeClair reports gamma radiation in cavitation and so does Piantelliin a
nickel bar system. Both these systems are cold systems,
Piantelli reports gammas when his system
decided this issue and not
us.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems if we look
deep
A.V. Simakin has done the experiments you are after. They show how
Photofission works.
This nuclear reaction does not need a lattice to work. The NAE is a space
between the gold nanoparticles.
Without the nanoparticles, laser light of the same intensity does not
produce the reaction.
I believe
From: Jed Rothwell
JR: There may be no evidence for this, but it seems likely
based on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles.
First off - LENR is no miracle. We are at the stage of adequate proof. The
past irregularity in the Lab, of finding any LENR reaction at
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals.
The simplest assumption is to explore only a single process.
This is the default assumption for most
One more point,
I remember studying an experiment were transmutation was offset from the
primary reaction site (NAE) by some very long distance but the
transmutation at the remote site was weaker than at the crater(NAE) in the
lattice.
This indicated to me that an EMF causation was at play
Consider various physical effects in metals that have been discovered over
the centuries, such as magnetism, conducting electricity, the
thermoelectric effect (and its opposite manifestation the Peltier effect),
the photovoltaic effect, hydrogen embrittlement, piezoelectricity, and
Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I am
after. Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting particular
nuclear products that must be discriminated from those that would arise
from other processes and I see no indication that they performed the
required
...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature reveals. The
simplest assumption is to explore only a single process
@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do this,
assumptions have to be made, which are tested against what nature
reveals. The simplest
From: Jed Rothwell
Consider various physical effects in metals that have been discovered over
the centuries, such as magnetism, conducting electricity, the thermoelectric
effect (and its opposite manifestation the Peltier effect), the photovoltaic
effect, hydrogen embrittlement,
...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 5:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not put
on blinders if we make measurements that suggest that some
process. Nature decided this issue and not us.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Axil, unless Simakin et al share your theory, it is not the experiment I
am after.
Simakin does understand that nanoplasmonics can cause nuclear reactions.
Even if they do share your theory, you are predicting
My point is measurement is central to experiment. If you aren't measuring
phenomena you seek to explain with similar signal to noise ratios, you need
a different experiment.
Look, its simple: If you have the keys to the LENR/Cold Fusio kingdom then
you should be able to design a device that
.)
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
I agree with your approach Ed. I just wanted to point out that we must not
put on blinders if we make measurements
process. Nature decided this issue and
not us.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The cold fusion reaction must be the same for all systems
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has several
distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and HTSC,
which is different from SC.
Point taken. I guess there are different modes. A lot of underlying
similarity
From: Jed Rothwell
Conduction of electricity disproves your point since it has
several distinct forms - including ionic conductivity, superconductivity and
HTSC, which is different from SC.
Point taken. I guess there are different modes. A lot of
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave, we are trying to find out what nature has decided. To do
: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave--
Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was demonstrated.
I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved with
the event. Pd has a large magnetic susceptibility and a large electronic heat
The device will look a lot like the recent NI/H reactors. The vender of the
Ni/H reactor who takes polariton production of magnetic solutions most to
heart will dominate the marketplace.
The reaction products of both the DGT reaction and the Rossi reaction match
my latest predictions---heavy
: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave--
Muon induced cold fusion was known before the P-F effect was
demonstrated.
I always assumed the magnetic field in the P-F effect was somehow involved
with the event. Pd has a large magnetic
a straight forward description
of them?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
David,
A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce
?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
David,
A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce a magnetic field, it
can thermalize gamma
a straight forward description
of them?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
David,
A half soliton of polaritons can not only produce
: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This
pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all polaritons
Ed: the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply WRONG.
Jones: Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that he is
no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and has doubts
about any theory. In fact, we know that Ni - Cu cannot be the prime
reaction
, 2014 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
The spin of the polariton produces the magnetic field in the same way that an
iron magnet produces a magnetic field; that is, through spin alignment except
that the half soliton has only one pole.
Think of the soliton as a very
-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
A polariton is a photon and an electron locked together in a pair. This
pair orbits around a cavity on its edge. The spin of all
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Ed: the Rossi claim for transmutation producing energy is simply
WRONG.
Jones: Note that of late, Rossi’s own comments (to JoNP) show that
he is no longer pushing the transmutation of nickel to copper, and
has doubts about any theory. In
Why would you believe DGT could create such a field in the apparatus they
have shown?
Because both Ken Sholders and proton-21 produced cold fusion and monopole
fields using sparks.
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On Feb 3, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Eric
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Why do you say this, Eric? Do you have evidence I do not know about? Can
you give a reason why the statements are not correct?
I have seen what you and the others have seen. Rossi has been consistent
in much, although
Dear Readers,
My blog muse is very silent these days; we have told almost all about the
LENR problem while the great fine surprises of LENR solutions are coming
fast but not so fast as we wish.
Therefore it was my pleasure to publish this message from my friend Stoyan:
Sargoytchev mentions the Demron technology for high energy gamma reduction.
The Demron specification says that it reduces the 662 keV gamma from 137Cs
by only 1% (not an attenuation factor of .01, an attenuation factor of
0.99; I.E. almost no attenuation) which would be expected. High energy
It is about low energy gamma radiation, I think.
Only experiment will show if this radiation is really present- (all the
time ?) when the HotCat works as Stoyan says or not.
Peter
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:
Sargoytchev mentions the Demron
From: Bob Higgins
The Demron specification says that it reduces the 662 keV
gamma from 137Cs by only 1% (not an attenuation factor of .01, an
attenuation factor of 0.99; I.E. almost no attenuation) which would be
expected.
Yes, this material is
Bob and Jones,
The LENR reaction is KNOWN to produce radiation. However, this
radiation has too low an energy for most to get out of the device. The
main radiation is photon, which is the only way LENR can dissipate the
energy, and this is hidden in the apparatus. Proposing novel and
Ed,
Sorry to completely disagree that proposing a novel way to explain the lack
of gammas is unnecessary. Surely, you knew this response was coming.
Au contraire, a new point of view is the very essence of a better
understanding of LENR. That proper understanding must be novel, almost by
Reference:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0306126v2.pdf
Frequency up- and down-conversions in two-mode cavity quantum
electrodynamics
When light is packed into of nano-cavity, it becomes squeezed by the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
In this situation, the location of photons are localized
Yes Jones, expected the response.
However, you might consider that I probably know more about this
subject than any one in this discussion group. So, considering what I
propose might be worth your time. I'm not propping or protecting. I'm
simply looking at what is happening and applying
Ed,
There is no doubt that you know more details about the LENR field than
anyone on this board, and probably anyone on the planet. In fact, I am often
amazed at your recall for arcane details that go back 20+ years. Staggering
in a way.
But ... having said that - you have so much information to
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't believe the HotCat has a super-shield for high energy gamma -
there is no evidence for this at all; only imagination. I believe the
HotCat only produces very low energy gammas that easily get thermalized in
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Anything can be explained if novel assumptions are made. I'm trying to
explain without making assumptions that conflict with what is known.
In the hydroton in an NiH system, I believe you want to derive deuterium
I thought that Rossi had confirmed gammas upon initiation of the
reaction but that they were transient.
On Feb 2, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Ed,
There is no doubt that you know more details about the LENR field than
anyone on this board, and probably anyone on the planet. In fact, I
am often
amazed at your recall for arcane details that go back 20+ years.
Staggering
in a way.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
1) The operative reaction does not produce gammas ab initio, nor even
bremsstrahlung (and therefore cannot be related to a known nuclear
reaction)
This sounds reasonable, although I would not make into a
Ed,
If you escaped from a black hole you wouldn't have much energy left
either...:)
On Sunday, February 2, 2014, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Ed,
There is no doubt that you know more details about the LENR field than
anyone
Chem,
Why propose something that cannot be tested and is not known to exist
in a chemical structure?
Ed Storms
On Feb 2, 2014, at 12:41 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Ed,
If you escaped from a black hole you wouldn't have much energy left
either...:)
On Sunday, February 2, 2014, Edmund
From: Eric Walker
How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a violation of
CoE?
You have heard the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied”?
OK how about this: Energy release delayed is energy balance denied.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
*From:* Eric Walker
How is dividing a 5 MeV quantum among a number of recipients a violation
of CoE?
You have heard the phrase justice delayed is justice denied?
OK how about this: Energy release delayed is
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
