Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Jed Rothwell has put countless hours and his own funds over 25 years to
> memorialize the efforts of dozens of scientists and thousands of papers. None
> of these experiments going back to 1989 – representing 25 years of blood,
> sweat and tears - has demonstrated that neutrons are a relevant factor in
> LENR and none of them has shown that gamma radiation is a relevant factor.
>

I appreciate the shout out.

This is an important point. The literature on cold fusion includes many
marginal papers and many mistakes. HOWEVER, as Jones says, if there were
large numbers of neutrons and gamma radiation, this would have been
observed and reported many times. The literature is not *that* wrong.

What's more, it is easy to determine this. Just go to LENR-CANR.org, and at
the top of the page where it says "This Google™ Custom Search finds files
at LENR-CANR only" and enter the search term "neutron." You will find many
papers describing the neutrons that have been detected, from Pd, Ti and
other metals. You can see the levels are low and the emissions are
sporadic. Ed Storms thinks these neutrons are the product of fractofusion
or some other conventional reaction. Okay perhaps the neutrons are a
"relevant factor" in some sense, but since the reaction often occurs
without them, clearly they do not play an essential role.

There really is no excuse for not knowing this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

You seem to be describing a kind of nuclear "band," where there are so many
nuclear levels from participating nuclei that they merge into a band
analogous to a band in a semiconductor, and the energy levels lose their
distinctness and become continuous.

How do the nuclei communicate with one another at a sufficiently fast rate
to make such bands possible?  The nuclear volume is very small, nuclei are
spaced very far apart, and nuclear interactions occur in an extremely short
amount of time, such that a virtual photon will not get very far before a
strong interaction takes place (e.g., fragmenting of a compound nucleus).
Consider that even in a closely packed lattice the nuclei are separated by
enormous distances.

Eric



On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

In this regard when spin states are considered by the coherent
> system—including the various states of electrons in a coherent system—the
> degrees of freedom are enormous compared to a two particle system of a
> neutron and a nucleus with its finite number of different states and
> coupling mechanisms offered by the electric and magnetic fields.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
> the insurmountable problems.


I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this field
-- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the dawn of
the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude, and
people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).

The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
opinion.

We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Axil Axil]

It seems to me that the reading and analysis of the Lugano report that was
done by Lunden and Lidgren was at best superficial. The information about
the fuel and ash is very deep and needs to be mulled over for a
considerable amount of time. The smallest experimental detail can make or
break a theory.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
>> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
>> the insurmountable problems.
>
>
> I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this
> field -- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the
> dawn of the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude,
> and people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
> stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
> understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
> they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
> certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).
>
> The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
> conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
> opinion.
>
> We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
> as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such 
as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to fragments 
of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

 

Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a 
publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad. 

 

Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by promoting a 
spoof? Can you rule this out?

 

The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is awesome. The 
only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Axil Axil]

In the Lugano test, each nickel atom comprising the 100 micro nickel
particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from multiple lithium 7 atoms
to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all
billion atoms of the that particle in one operation. This is what this
latest neutron theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.

All these neutron theories such as this one and L are unitary theories
where neutrons are moved one neutron at a time. This one neutron transfer
method cannot leave a pure isotope in large amounts(a billion atoms).


Furthermore, consider how neutrons would move from lithium 7 coverng the
surface of the nickel particle, to the atoms deep inside the 100 micron
nickel particle. Being ultra low energy, each low energy neutron is highly
reactive and will combine with the first nickel atom that it encounters.
This implies that the nickel atoms on the surface of the particle would
have more neutrons added to the nickel nucleus. We would expect to see at
least Ni64 or even zinc near the surface of the particle. This atoms near
the surface would all be heavier than the atoms at the center of the
particle. But the nickel is pure with Ni62 at the surface and at the center.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by
> this paper and the paper itself is poor.
>
> I agree. It is so poor that it reflects badly on the LENR community that
> it is being praised.
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Ø
>
> Ø   The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to
> Be-8 by giving up an electron
>
> Bob - The cross-section for this reaction is extremely small (few
> millibarn) – so tiny in fact that Li-7 is proposed to use in the coolant
> for the proposed liquid metal reactor.
>
> In contrast, Lithium 6 has a cross section which is 20,000 time higher,
> but decays to tritium which is easily detected – if present. It isn’t.
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) – neutrons are out … as a valid
> explanation for LENR and again, with apologies to those who think it is
> rude to be so blunt – this theory is an embarrassment to the two guys who
> proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable problems. I
> cannot understand why so many (including Rossi) were exuberant about it
> without asking the simplest of questions.
>
> Does this episode indicate that Rossi has almost no clue as to a workable
> theory? … we can only hope that his lack of adequate theory will not cast
> further doubt on his claimed results.
>
> You do not have to have a valid theory to get good results… but it does
> help.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones,
No I did not say it was blunt. BTW I changed my signature:)
No, I said it was a little contradictory to the general complaints, here in
Vortex, saying that there is no room for accepting explanations that does
not jive with the book.
I think the same goes for religious people who throws the bible at you in
every juncture. It is not that the bible does not have merit or that
established academia is clueless.
Your critic I have no problem with. That you base it on what EVERYBODY
knows - was my problem. Really more that I think it is inconsistent than a
problem.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In the Lugano test, each nickel atom comprising the 100 micro nickel
> particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from multiple lithium 7 atoms
> to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all
> billion atoms of the that particle in one operation. This is what this
> latest neutron theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.
>
> All these neutron theories such as this one and L are unitary theories
> where neutrons are moved one neutron at a time. This one neutron transfer
> method cannot leave a pure isotope in large amounts(a billion atoms).
>
>
> Furthermore, consider how neutrons would move from lithium 7 coverng the
> surface of the nickel particle, to the atoms deep inside the 100 micron
> nickel particle. Being ultra low energy, each low energy neutron is highly
> reactive and will combine with the first nickel atom that it encounters.
> This implies that the nickel atoms on the surface of the particle would
> have more neutrons added to the nickel nucleus. We would expect to see at
> least Ni64 or even zinc near the surface of the particle. This atoms near
> the surface would all be heavier than the atoms at the center of the
> particle. But the nickel is pure with Ni62 at the surface and at the center.
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>> Ø   There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by
>> this paper and the paper itself is poor.
>>
>> I agree. It is so poor that it reflects badly on the LENR community that
>> it is being praised.
>>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> Ø   The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to
>> Be-8 by giving up an electron
>>
>> Bob - The cross-section for this reaction is extremely small (few
>> millibarn) – so tiny in fact that Li-7 is proposed to use in the coolant
>> for the proposed liquid metal reactor.
>>
>> In contrast, Lithium 6 has a cross section which is 20,000 time higher,
>> but decays to tritium which is easily detected – if present. It isn’t.
>>
>> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) – neutrons are out … as a
>> valid explanation for LENR and again, with apologies to those who think it
>> is rude to be so blunt – this theory is an embarrassment to the two guys
>> who proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable problems. I
>> cannot understand why so many (including Rossi) were exuberant about it
>> without asking the simplest of questions.
>>
>> Does this episode indicate that Rossi has almost no clue as to a workable
>> theory? … we can only hope that his lack of adequate theory will not cast
>> further doubt on his claimed results.
>>
>> You do not have to have a valid theory to get good results… but it does
>> help.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones
Do you have ghosts at home?
How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off it.
Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an April 1
joke.
Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 'the
book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.
Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
*6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, absolutely
remarkable:*
*https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing
*
makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts
> such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
>
>
> Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a
> publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad.
>
>
>
> Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?
>
>
>
> The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is awesome.
> The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[AlanG]

Regarding Geneste's paper, the 'strange radiation' tracks described were 
replicated by Keith Fredericks and reported at ICCF18:

http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
His analysis suggested they might be superluminal tachyons.

On 10/16/2015 12:38 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

Jones
Do you have ghosts at home?
How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off 
it. Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an 
April 1 joke.

Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 
'the book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.

Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
*6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from 
experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, 
absolutely remarkable:*

*https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing*
makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com 
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene > wrote:


*From:*Eric Walker

ØWe should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to
attempts such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we
should be open to fragments of insight that might be hidden in
such attempts.

Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at
a publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is
that bad.

Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field
by promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?

The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is
awesome. The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Axil Axil]

These tracks are produced by analog black holes call "dark mode surface
plasmon polaritons" (dark mode SPP). it is well know that these polariton
solitons produce monopole magnetic fields. Being a black hole, the inside
of the soliton contains negative energy due to the fact that loads of power
are being projected as anapole magnetism. This power projection segregates
the vacuum into positive and negative energy, Things that travel in
negative vacuum go faster than light in a neutral vacuum as found in the
EMthruster experiments.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:38 PM, AlanG  wrote:

> Regarding Geneste's paper, the 'strange radiation' tracks described were
> replicated by Keith Fredericks and reported at ICCF18:
>
> 
> http://www.ecoinventions.ca/iccf-18-keith-fredericks-possibility-of-tachyon/
> His analysis suggested they might be superluminal tachyons.
>
>
> On 10/16/2015 12:38 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>
> Jones
> Do you have ghosts at home?
> How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
> If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off it.
> Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an April 1
> joke.
> Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
> The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 'the
> book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.
> Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
> *6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
> experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, absolutely
> remarkable:*
> *
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing
> *
> makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
> YCDBSOYA
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts
>> such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
>> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a
>> publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
>> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?
>>
>>
>>
>> The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is
>> awesome. The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Bob Higgins]

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value
of new papers.  We should be fair, honest, and not defamatory.  We should
not impugn the integrity of the authors.  I tried to be fair and explicit
in what I said.  I would love for the authors to respond on Vortex - lets
get at the truth.

Bob Higgins

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an
>> embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize
>> the insurmountable problems.
>
>
> I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this
> field -- it feels a little like what it might have been like during the
> dawn of the scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude,
> and people should be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a
> stigma.  As the authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this
> understanding will either modify the approach they take, or at least
> they'll know which concerns to address up front, knowing there will be
> certain types of complaint (e.g., free neutrons, gammas, etc.).
>
> The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing
> conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my
> opinion.
>
> We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such
> as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Axil Axil]

I see some of my favorite words in that * Geneste *paper. You might have
had this * Geneste *information available to you right here on vortex.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Jones
> Do you have ghosts at home?
> How can this be to shame either Mats or Rossi.
> If it is a 1 of April joke then you have certainly taken the edge off it.
> Besides the people involved would not risk their careers for an April 1
> joke.
> Nobody can say you did not see through it if it is one.
> The problem is if there are certain aspects that are correct because 'the
> book' was off and a small detail is to be correcting the book.
> Reading Peter's blog today and the following:
> *6) This is Jean-Francois Geneste's second theory paper:" LENR- from
> experiment to theory" presented a few hours ago at Toulouse, absolutely
> remarkable:*
> *https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BUGc3Um92SF9xSUozbGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view?usp=sharing
> *
> makes me believe there are more to discover than is discovered.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
> YCDBSOYA
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts
>> such as the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to
>> fragments of insight that might be hidden in such attempts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe so … but... there are limits to gullibility. This attempt at a
>> publishable scientific paper could actually be a spoof – it is that bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
>> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?
>>
>>
>>
>> The silliness of a few of these errors (college level physics) is
>> awesome. The only thing missing is a date of “April 1”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value
> of new papers.
>

I agree.  I wasn't criticizing your very apt points.  I was just commenting
on the decision of the authors to propose the idea.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:45:39 -0700:
Hi,

My comment here below referred specifically to the Lundin - Lidgren paper, and
was meant to explain why I put little faith in it. In short I see the absence of
gammas in real life as strong evidence that the process they describe is not
what actually happens.

>Robin and Eric--
>
>You are correct based on data associated with two particle (nuclei and 
>neutron) absorption reactions.  I agree that there will be prompt gammas 
>associated with most if not all neutron absorption reactions, since there is 
>no coupling to transfer energy from the new isotope to an assemblage of 
>other particles--a  coherent system.
>
>However, it may be that a coherent system of Ni may absorb a neutron and 
>distribute the excess energy to many particles, including electrons, of 
>system.This has been my assumption for some time that the energy 
>coupling in the LENR reactions is via spin energy sharing within the 
>coherent system.   The no-gamma experience has never made sense with the 
>transmutations and other ash seen in LENR.  I would assume you would 
>consider that the transmutations did not occur without gammas.
>
>We differ in that I believe they have occurred without gammas.   It's too 
>easy to measure gammas for so many experimenters to have missed them.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: Bob Cook
>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:23 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>
>In reply to Mixent:
>
>I disagree with your comment that every reaction is going to produce an
>energetic gamma immediately.  Most of the Ni isotopes that absorb a neutron
>are stable or decay by a beta ray.  I noted the radioactive Ni isotopes that
>have a gamma in their decay mode.
>
>Li-7 goes to Li-8 and hence to Be-8 without any gamma.  It ends up expelling
>a beta and two alphas I believe.  O-16 with a neutron goes to stable O-17
>and it goes to O-18 which is also stable.
>
>Bob Cook
>
>-Original Message- 
>From: mix...@bigpond.com
>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:36 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
>break-through
>
>In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>
>It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which
>isotope it
>creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma immediately.
>ALL
>the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas,
>and
>most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
>1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the
>process.
>2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.
>
>
>>RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--
>>
>>It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a 
>>neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily 
>>absorbed by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other 
>>isotopes of Ni.  Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is 
>>sufficiently exposed to thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal 
>>neutron flux in a Ni nano particle, based on the estimated production of 
>>spalled neutrons would be a desirable side calculation.
>>
>>The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in 
>>order to prevent outside activation—see the 3rd paragraph on page 4.
>>
>>There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still remain 
>>stable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Jones Beene
>>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>>
>>From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
>>
>>Ø
>>
>>Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation about 
>>resonance which might tie in with the Swede’s paper...
>>
>>
>>Mark, No problem with the resonance. It’s the neutrons that are the 
>>problem.
>>
>>What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is 
>>that neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there 
>>is no induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory 
>>is almost an embarrassment.
>>
>>
>>
>>Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest energy 
>>(ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything they come 
>>in contact with. The good new

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Bob Cook]

Robin and Eric--

You are correct based on data associated with two particle (nuclei and 
neutron) absorption reactions.  I agree that there will be prompt gammas 
associated with most if not all neutron absorption reactions, since there is 
no coupling to transfer energy from the new isotope to an assemblage of 
other particles--a  coherent system.


However, it may be that a coherent system of Ni may absorb a neutron and 
distribute the excess energy to many particles, including electrons, of 
system.This has been my assumption for some time that the energy 
coupling in the LENR reactions is via spin energy sharing within the 
coherent system.   The no-gamma experience has never made sense with the 
transmutations and other ash seen in LENR.  I would assume you would 
consider that the transmutations did not occur without gammas.


We differ in that I believe they have occurred without gammas.   It's too 
easy to measure gammas for so many experimenters to have missed them.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: Bob Cook

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

In reply to Mixent:

I disagree with your comment that every reaction is going to produce an
energetic gamma immediately.  Most of the Ni isotopes that absorb a neutron
are stable or decay by a beta ray.  I noted the radioactive Ni isotopes that
have a gamma in their decay mode.

Li-7 goes to Li-8 and hence to Be-8 without any gamma.  It ends up expelling
a beta and two alphas I believe.  O-16 with a neutron goes to stable O-17
and it goes to O-18 which is also stable.

Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
break-through

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which
isotope it
creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma immediately.
ALL
the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas,
and
most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the
process.
2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.



RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--

It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a 
neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily 
absorbed by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other 
isotopes of Ni.  Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is 
sufficiently exposed to thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal 
neutron flux in a Ni nano particle, based on the estimated production of 
spalled neutrons would be a desirable side calculation.


The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in 
order to prevent outside activation—see the 3rd paragraph on page 4.


There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still remain 
stable.






From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

From: MarkI-ZeroPoint

Ø

Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation about 
resonance which might tie in with the Swede’s paper...



Mark, No problem with the resonance. It’s the neutrons that are the 
problem.


What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is 
that neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there 
is no induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory 
is almost an embarrassment.




Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest energy 
(ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything they come 
in contact with. The good news would be – this activation should serve as 
instant proof of LENR when it happens, but the bad news is that it never 
happens.


Most of the mass of the Hot Cat is the element aluminum – in the form of 
alumina ceramic. Neutron activation of aluminum occurs by numerous neutron 
capture reactions and the cross-section is substantial for thermal neutrons 
(few barns) and gets higher with colder neutrons. Such reactions as 27Al + 
n = 28Al, 27Al(n,a) 24Na, 27Al(n,2n)26Al and 27Al(n,p)27Mg show up at once.



Even if by some miracle, only one neutron out of a million diffuses to the 
tube wall - these insidious little bastards would activate the alumina into 
a radioactive health hazard within minutes of excess heat showing up. The 
excited states following activation will undergo beta decay over protracted 
time periods and emit gammas as the nuclei de-excite to their respective 
ground states. Radioactivity would continue for months

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO FAST NEUTRONS IN THE  SUGGESTED REACTIONS.
>

The discussion below concerns gammas rather than neutrons.  There would be
a gamma photon with every nickel neutron capture, which is the main
proposed reaction.  (And a gamma photon with every other neutron capture.)
 I also think neutrons would be a problem, but they're not discussed below.

Eric



> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:41 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I believe the authors know what they are about.
>>
>
> The authors approach the energy balance problem in two steps, and the
> first step is extremely endothermic.  It's pretty difficult to separate a
> neutron from 7Li or d and requires on the order of ~ MeV.  Only after this
> first step is the energy debt paid back in a second step involving the
> exothermic neutron capture reaction (which would be accompanied by
> deexcitation gammas).  I think the Bank of Heisenberg would send their
> repossession men before the second step could occur in quantity.
>
> The authors say this about the energy balance:
>
>
> Nickel embodies the internal power/heat source via neutron capture, while
> spallation is a cooling factor for lithium and deuterium. Nickel is
> therefore the main attractor of matter within the reactor confinement.
>
>
> In other words, losing that neutron is understood to be "cooling."
>
> Also, to expand upon Jones's point, consider that to produce 1 W of heat
> at ~ 10 MeV per neutron capture, you will need ~ 6.242e+11 captures per
> second.  If your apparatus was able to stop all but 0.1 percent of the
> deexcitation gammas, you'd still get 62420 gammas per second leaking
> through the containment.  Now scale that 1 W up to 1 kW or 10 kW for useful
> power, and that 62420 gammas becomes 62.4 million gammas per second
> escaping through the containment.  You will now need walls that can stop
> 0.001 percent or more gammas to hide the signal in the background.
> Even if you could accomplish this, after running your reactor for a while,
> the apparatus would be extremely radioactive.
>
> The authors do not appear to be aware that these implications of their
> explanation are difficulties that need to be addressed, either in general
> or in the context of what is known about LENR.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Teslaalset]

Mats blog also indicates following remarks:

*Lundin and Lidgren have made a brief successful experiment and they have
verified the model through calculations against results from well-known
LENR experiments such as the Lugano report with Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat
.
Earlier 2015 they also filed a patent application describing the process.*

*“We did an experiment on our own but we stopped it. We realised that we
were sitting on a neutron source and that’s not something you should do in
your basement,” *

So, it seems they performed some tests on their model, confirming neutron
spallation and realizing a potential neutron challenge.

Also:
*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with all
necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body since
the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Alain Sepeda]

gamma have to be emited in most case, or else energy is transfered as
momentum, who finish as indirect gamma or impacts.

anyway the implicit that may not be true is that this happen in one shot.

the key idea of ed Storms is that the emission of excess energy is not done
in one shot, but by the slow decay of an entangled group of atoms behaving
like a big structured quantum object, able to emit small photons, because
of a rich population of energy level...

I feel that this idea cannot be avoided, but the question is how.
Ponderomotive force if it can connect the EM field with the nucleus may
allow an entangled hydroton (or a WL coherent patch, or anything similar)
may allow the creation of the energy level, around keV...

Is it ? I don't know, and I'm not optimistic... anyway it happens, so
something must do the job.

now, I propose a theory soup...

Ed storms conclude that LENr is acaused by a NAE, which is a quantum
object, insulated from chemistry context, which can emit middle enrgy
photons (keV) from the potential energy of light nucleus.

Widom/Srivastava propose that SPP, evanescent waves, allow huge EM field to
exists at the surface of metals (field that are incredible out of surface),
and that hydrogen nucleus may get entangled in groups and same with
electrons.

Ponderometive force came here to propose that very strong and ihomogeneous
EM field may give energy to nucleons.

connect all and you get another theory :

SPP, evanescent waves, creates huge fields with huge gradients, which
allows protons to get entangled, electron to get entangled.

this gradient of EM field allows transitions associated with nucleus
exchanges and moves.

a NAE apears in that context, where nucleus, and electrons are insulated,
in huge EM fields, and nucleus are entangled with tha EM field, and behave
like a big quantum object.

since it is insulated and entangled, that object can transitions between no
so physical states, in not so physical ways, who however are not far in
energy level... small photons are emited, absorbed.

at one moment the energy level match a very physical state, where two
nucleus have been swapped, or fusioned. the NAE can suffer decoherence...

It is probably too simple, and I may have forgotten many details (spin
conservation, effect of potential barrier on tunneling)...
tell me where I forget a key detail...

2015-10-16 6:36 GMT+02:00 :

> In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which
> isotope it
> creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma
> immediately. ALL
> the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas,
> and
> most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
> 1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the
> process.
> 2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.
>
>
> >RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--
> >
> >It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a
> neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily
> absorbed by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other
> isotopes of Ni.  Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is
> sufficiently exposed to thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal
> neutron flux in a Ni nano particle, based on the estimated production of
> spalled neutrons would be a desirable side calculation.
> >
> >The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in
> order to prevent outside activation—see the 3rd paragraph on page 4.
> >
> >There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still
> remain stable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Jones Beene
> >Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
> >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
> >
> >From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
> >
> >Ø
> >
> >Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation
> about resonance which might tie in with the Swede’s paper...
> >
> >
> >Mark, No problem with the resonance. It’s the neutrons that are the
> problem.
> >
> >What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is
> that neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there
> is no induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory
> is almost an embarrassment.
> >
> >
> >
> >Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest
> energy (ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything
> they come in contact with. The good news would be – this activation should
> serve as instant proof of LENR when it happens, but the bad news is that it
> never happens.
> >
> >Most of the mass of the Hot Cat is the element aluminum – in the form of
> alumina ceramic. Neutron activation of aluminum occurs by numerous 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones,
You might be right they understand nothing - nada.
But as you said first thing first.
To be categoric about others believe might backfire. There might be a shred
of truth in their ideas, why not just find out if that is so and add that
to the previous knowledge.

A couple of comments. Those guys are part of the European Aerospace
establishment as you call it. Kiruna (North of the polar circle was set up
in the 60is as a station for studying Northern Light.
Your suspicion that they snub at all other data acquired over the years
does not have any foundation either.

I do agree that if you do not think it is possible they have anything, then
wait and see what they produce. Get a schedule and check the outcome. Then
one can make statements with accuracy.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
YCDBSOYA

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Ø  If the authors are embarrassed as has been suggested they should be, I
> doubt they will come to Vortex-L for consultation.
>
>
>
> First things first. The real problem is that there is a fabulous Library
> of LENR experiments, readily available to consult, and free to explore.
> They should go there first and study it.
>
>
>
> Jed Rothwell has put countless hours and his own funds over 25 years to
> memorialize the efforts of dozens of scientists and thousands of papers. None
> of these experiments going back to 1989 – representing 25 years of blood,
> sweat and tears - has demonstrated that neutrons are a relevant factor in
> LENR and none of them has shown that gamma radiation is a relevant factor.
> One other theory which focused on the neutron modality – that of Widom and
> Larsen, has gotten lots of exposure with no experimental backing – and the
> Swedes failed to acknowledge it, indicating they were unaware of prior work.
>
>
>
> The real problem, therefore, is ignorance (and/or arrogance) to think that
> this body of work which we all have benefited from - has no meaning.
> Newcomers to the field, possibly desiring to make a positive impression on
> the European Aerospace establishment  went to a fair amount of effort, but
> with no supporting data – to build a theory which has as its very
> foundation a dependency on neutrons. Take the neutrons away – they have
> nothing at all.
>
>
>
> They are essentially thumbing their nose on the everything that has
> transpired since 1989, so yes… they should be embarrassed, and yes, they
> should have done their homework first. Instead, they burden us with yet
> another useless document that is dead on arrival, full of errors and very
> similar to W-L but without attribution of their contribution.
>
>
>
> Of course – all of this criticism can change with supporting experiments
> showing neutrons, which they say they are prepared to do - but until this
> work is actually done, it makes no sense for us on vortex to keep up this
> bickering and recrimination, in defense of their deep ignorance about the
> field.
>
>
>
> Face it – they are snubbing and ignoring 25 years of LENR history – and it
> becomes imperative that they must provide their own data, not more idle
> speculation. (we get enough of that here without their help). J
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Craig Haynie]

What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction?
Then why was it considered so important?

Craig


On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <hoyt-stea...@cox.net>
wrote:

> Add some BORAX to the water,  I hear that's even better.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:11 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> >*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with
> >all necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body
> >since the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*
>
> In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a
> good
> neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

The first thing that should be critiqued is their empirical process and data, 
and then their hypothesis as to the physics… NOT the other way around! Coming 
down on them due to the hypothesis could cause the LENR community to dismiss 
valid data, which could provide some new insights…

-mark iverson

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 

I think it is appropriate for forums such as Vortex-L to debate the value of 
new papers.  We should be fair, honest, and not defamatory.  We should not 
impugn the integrity of the authors.  I tried to be fair and explicit in what I 
said.  I would love for the authors to respond on Vortex - lets get at the 
truth.

 

Bob Higgins 

 

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

 

In short (at the risk of being repetitive) ... this theory is an embarrassment 
to the two guys who proposed it since they did not recognize the insurmountable 
problems.

 

I don't know.  I think it's kind of an interesting time to watch this field -- 
it feels a little like what it might have been like during the dawn of the 
scientific method.  We need to encourage a learning attitude, and people should 
be allowed to make mistakes in public without incurring a stigma.  As the 
authors become better acquainted with nuclear physics, this understanding will 
either modify the approach they take, or at least they'll know which concerns 
to address up front, knowing there will be certain types of complaint (e.g., 
free neutrons, gammas, etc.).

 

The super-harsh critics who watch this kind of attempt and draw scathing 
conclusions about people looking into LENR are not a big concern, in my opinion.

 

We should be encouraging and not take too critical an eye to attempts such as 
the one by Lunden and Lidgren.  In addition, we should be open to fragments of 
insight that might be hidden in such attempts.

 

Eric

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Maybe the intent is to shame Mats – or Rossi, or the whole field by
> promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out?


Maybe.  That possibility brings to mind this incident, where a fake article
written by a physics professor was published in a journal of postmodern
cultural studies:

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

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

 

Ø  If the authors are embarrassed as has been suggested they should be, I doubt 
they will come to Vortex-L for consultation.  

 

First things first. The real problem is that there is a fabulous Library of 
LENR experiments, readily available to consult, and free to explore. They 
should go there first and study it.

 

Jed Rothwell has put countless hours and his own funds over 25 years to 
memorialize the efforts of dozens of scientists and thousands of papers. None 
of these experiments going back to 1989 – representing 25 years of blood, sweat 
and tears - has demonstrated that neutrons are a relevant factor in LENR and 
none of them has shown that gamma radiation is a relevant factor. One other 
theory which focused on the neutron modality – that of Widom and Larsen, has 
gotten lots of exposure with no experimental backing – and the Swedes failed to 
acknowledge it, indicating they were unaware of prior work.

 

The real problem, therefore, is ignorance (and/or arrogance) to think that this 
body of work which we all have benefited from - has no meaning. Newcomers to 
the field, possibly desiring to make a positive impression on the European 
Aerospace establishment  went to a fair amount of effort, but with no 
supporting data – to build a theory which has as its very foundation a 
dependency on neutrons. Take the neutrons away – they have nothing at all.

 

They are essentially thumbing their nose on the everything that has transpired 
since 1989, so yes… they should be embarrassed, and yes, they should have done 
their homework first. Instead, they burden us with yet another useless document 
that is dead on arrival, full of errors and very similar to W-L but without 
attribution of their contribution.

 

Of course – all of this criticism can change with supporting experiments 
showing neutrons, which they say they are prepared to do - but until this work 
is actually done, it makes no sense for us on vortex to keep up this bickering 
and recrimination, in defense of their deep ignorance about the field. 

 

Face it – they are snubbing and ignoring 25 years of LENR history – and it 
becomes imperative that they must provide their own data, not more idle 
speculation. (we get enough of that here without their help). J

 

Jones

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[mixent]

In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

>*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with all
>necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body since
>the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*

In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a good
neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

Add some BORAX to the water,  I hear that's even better.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
break-through

In reply to  Teslaalset's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:50:19 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

>*The scientists are now preparing for a well-planned experiment with 
>all necessary safety measures, ideally with a transparent reactor body 
>since the effect according to the scientists releases a lot of light.*

In that case I would suggest they use water as a shield. It is cheap, a good
neutron shield, and sufficiently transparent.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[mixent]

In reply to  Craig Haynie's message of Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:56:56 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>What am I missing here? Is hydrogen not really necessary for this reaction?
>Then why was it considered so important?
>
>Craig
.. another reason why their explanation is probably invalid, or they are
inventing a new process rather than explaining the existing ones.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[torulf.greek]

Sokal article is clerly an danger in this field. 

On Fri, 16 Oct
2015 16:59:32 -0500, Eric Walker  wrote:  

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:07
PM, Jones Beene  wrote: 

 Maybe the intent is to shame Mats - or Rossi,
or the whole field by promoting a spoof? Can you rule this out? 
Maybe.
That possibility brings to mind this incident, where a fake article
written by a physics professor was published in a journal of postmodern
cultural studies:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair [2]


Eric 
  

Links:
--
[1] mailto:jone...@pacbell.net
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Bob Higgins]

There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by this paper
and the paper itself is poor.  Here are some other complaints that you
Vorts may or may not have already noted (not in any particular order).  [I
would be happy to hear how I might have gotten these wrong.]

   - The first complaint is with the Alfven model they used.  We all know
   that physics is the attachment of APPROXIMATE mathematical models to
   natural physical processes to help understand what is happening and what
   opportunities might exist to exploit natural behaviors.  Physics models are
   ALWAYS incomplete.  Also, there are NO SINGULARITIES in nature.  The fact
   that the authors present an Alfven model that shows a singularity, without
   discussing the fact that there is no real singularity is evidence that the
   model is poor.  In fact, a resonance may occur there, but its residue will
   be finite due to other couplings that are not modeled.  The finite residue
   means finite Q of the resonance.  With the poor model they have, they have
   no idea of the Q of the resonance.  Also, nature inconveniently creates
   high Q along with an inability to closely couple to the resonance (I could
   explain, but it is a long explanation), which is why the Q is high in the
   first place.


   - The process described doesn't seem to imply any unique coupling
   between the deuterium and the Ni or the Li and the Ni so as to enable the
   spallation of a neutron.  It appears that you could create a container of
   hot deuterium and you would get this spallation.  What are the unique
   conditions that allow this to happen only in very rare occasions?  This
   looks like something that might begin to happen before hot fusion in
   deuterium.  If it happens, it is not LENR.


   - The authors take a sudden miraculous leap in the paper.  They describe
   the ponderomotive forces and then suddenly introduce the spallation
   neutrons as "thermal neutrons".  Thermal neutrons have a narrow range of
   kinetic energy around 0.025 eV.  How can a spallation process, by whatever
   means, break MeV level nuclear bonds and result in neutrons broken free
   that have 10 million times less energy?  I didn't read anywhere in the
   paper a justification for this magic form of spallation.  Even the
   description of the ponderomotive forces used in the spallation suggests
   nothing but brute force.  If I understand it (and I am not a theoretical
   nuclear phycist), there should be MeV neutrons from the spallation.  These
   MeV neutrons would pass readily through the apparatus and would be detected
   by conventional moderated neutron detectors that have been used in
   evaluation of LENR radiations - AND - these neutrons are NOT seen in
   amounts commensurate with the excess heat.


   - The authors talk about application of 10's of "watts" to "kw" of
   electromagnetic energy to the ponderomotive excitation.  What "watts" are
   they referring to?  To really make a difference, it would have to be a high
   power single spectral line transmitter at the Alfven resonance, suggested
   to be in the THz range.  Such transmitters do NOT exist today.  Further,
   they mention the use of square wave drive (at 50Hz) for a hotCat heater as
   having produced fields whose harmonics could make a difference.  I can tell
   you, even a million watt 50Hz drive for the heater will produce no
   measurable energy at THz in its harmonics.  This is pure fantasy.  So where
   were they suggesting that drive for the Alfven wave would come?  It could
   come from the portion of the heated blackbody spectrum of the heated
   reactor materials - the portion of the spectrum that happens to overlap the
   Alfven resonance frequency.  However, the energy in the Alfven resonance
   ovelap will be small - AND - the higher the Q of the Alfven resonance, the
   narrower the portion of the blackbody band that will apply to excitation.
   They talked about kilowatts of drive, but this blackbody radiation is only
   going to supply microwatts by comparison.  Also, if the discussion is about
   the blackbody spectrum drive of the Aflven resonance by simple heating as
   was done in the hotCat, then you need to be talking about temperature
   rather than watts.


   - As has been mentioned, if the result were abundant thermal neutrons,
   then these would get into everything.  The whole of the reactor apparatus
   would be activated, giving off many different gammas.  Many of the isomers
   may decay via beta emission and the high velocity beta particle would
   create substantial Bremsstrahlung radiation when these are thermalized in
   the reactor materials - which also is not detected.


   - It is interesting how well their simulations of the hotCat agree with
   the Lugano results that we have long analyzed to be flawed - this is pretty
   cheesy.  The actual Lugano reactor temperatures were 200˚C less than
   reported and COP's probably half of what was 

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   There are many things I find wrong with the theory expounded by this 
paper and the paper itself is poor.  

I agree. It is so poor that it reflects badly on the LENR community that it is 
being praised.

From: Bob Cook 
 
*   
*   The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to Be-8 by 
giving up an electron 

Bob - The cross-section for this reaction is extremely small (few millibarn) – 
so tiny in fact that Li-7 is proposed to use in the coolant for the proposed 
liquid metal reactor. 

In contrast, Lithium 6 has a cross section which is 20,000 time higher, but 
decays to tritium which is easily detected – if present. It isn’t.

In short (at the risk of being repetitive) – neutrons are out … as a valid 
explanation for LENR and again, with apologies to those who think it is rude to 
be so blunt – this theory is an embarrassment to the two guys who proposed it 
since they did not recognize the insurmountable problems. I cannot understand 
why so many (including Rossi) were exuberant about it without asking the 
simplest of questions. 

Does this episode indicate that Rossi has almost no clue as to a workable 
theory? … we can only hope that his lack of adequate theory will not cast 
further doubt on his claimed results. 

You do not have to have a valid theory to get good results… but it does help.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[David Roberson]

Bob, I understand that the process you are describing is one of them that they 
assume is occurring.  But, you know there must be other elements such as 
aluminum within range of those low energy neutrons.  If even a tiny fraction of 
the slow neutrons end up being absorbed by one of these undesirables then they 
would become radioactive.

Is my understanding incorrect according to your knowledge of what happens 
within reactors?  I will listen carefully to what you have to say since I 
realize that you have a great deal of expertise with reactor operation.

Is there any chance that most of the gamma rays released by the undesirable 
neutron activated elements could escape detection?  It does not take a great 
deal of gamma ray energy to penetrate the systems that we are speaking of.  
What is your opinion?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 8:02 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through




Dave--
 
The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to Be-8 by giving 
up an electron and which in turn decays to 2 alphas with no radiation.  (The 
the loose neutrons are slow and react quickly with the Li and Ni.  There is not 
much else around.  A good Be outer shield could reflect any fast neutrons back 
to the reaction zone.  The Li, and H would act as a good moderator to achieve 
slow neutrons.  The Ni and Li-7 get rid of the excess neutrons with a good deal 
of heat generated.  
 
Bob 

 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 
The concepts they discuss are interesting, but I find it extremely difficult to 
believe that neutrons are released freely at low energy.  Why would this not 
lead to dangerous radiation release as some become captured by other active 
elements that must be present due to contamination of the system?

If they can prove that the released neutrons are immediately captured during a 
portion of that same process by nickel or some other active receptor then at 
least the dangerous radiation problem might be mitigated.  Otherwise, free 
neutrons should be off the table in my humble opinion.

Dave

 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 11:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through




It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work Mats.
 
The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow 
neutron transmutation stimulated by a an electric field gradient (maybe across 
a surface) at a certain resonance.  Lots  of parameters that can be engineered. 
  Seems to fit Rossi’s conditions well.
 
Bob Cook

 

From: Mats Lewan 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:50 AM
To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 
Essentially no new physics but a little-known physical effect describing 
matter’s interaction with electromagnetic fields — ponderomotive Miller forces 
— would explain energy release and isotopic changes in LENR. This is what 
Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish scientists, claim, 
describing their theory in a paper called Nuclear Spallation and Neutron 
Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing (full length paper here) that 
will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the 11th International Workshop on 
Anomalies in 
Hydrogen Loaded Metals, hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.


Read more here:
 
http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/



Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com
 
 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Kevin O'Malley]

Even if this isn't the right explanation, it is the one that patent
applicants should use.  I've been saying all along that guys like Rossi and
P should have called it a super-resonating chemical reaction and just
keep experimenting until they have production units.

  This might even explain how Heat After Death occurs, because resonances
die down once their initial sustaining input is removed.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> The paper seems to have all bases covered except the experience of
> “life-after-death.”  It was not clear how the resonant conditions are
> maintained by the conditions created by the mechanism proposed.   It seems
> that there must be some “ringing” of the lattice of Ni or some sound
> reflection that keeps the reaction going.  This is suggested by the idea
> the authors present that calculation of sonic resonances may be an easy way
> to determine the appropriate resonances to start the reaction.  It would
> seem that nano particles of Ni may not resonate for a very long time.
> However, the size may also keep the reaction from getting out of hand.
> Thus the small size of the Ni powder is important to prevent run-away
> reactions.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Bob Cook 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:14 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work
> Mats.
>
> The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow
> neutron transmutation stimulated by a an electric field gradient (maybe
> across a surface) at a certain resonance.  Lots  of parameters that can be
> engineered.   Seems to fit Rossi’s conditions well.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Mats Lewan 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:50 AM
> *To:* mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>
> Essentially no new physics but a little-known physical effect describing
> matter’s interaction with electromagnetic fields — *ponderomotive Miller
> forces* — would explain energy release and isotopic changes in LENR. This
> is what Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish scientists,
> claim, describing their theory in a paper called *Nuclear Spallation and
> Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing* (full length paper
> here
> )
> that will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the 11th International
> Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals
> , hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.
>
> Read more here:
>
>
> http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/
>
>
> Mats
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:26:22 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

It doesn't matter which element/isotope absorbs the neutron, or which isotope it
creates. Every reaction is going to produce an energetic gamma immediately. ALL
the excess energy from this process is going to be in the form of gammas, and
most of them are going to escape the device, accomplishing two things:-
1) There will be very little left to provide heating to continue the process.
2) The researchers will soon die of a severe radiation overdose.


>RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-throughJones--
>
>It was my conclusion reading the paper that the energy required to free a 
>neutron from Li-7 produced a thermal neutron which could be readily absorbed 
>by Ni-58.  Note the paper does not address the use of other isotopes of Ni.  
>Natural Ni would pose a radioactive hazard if it is sufficiently exposed to 
>thermal neutrons.  An assessment of the thermal neutron flux in a Ni nano 
>particle, based on the estimated production of spalled neutrons would be a 
>desirable side calculation.
>
>The paper makes note of the control of neutrons embodied within the Ni in 
>order to prevent outside activation—see the 3rd paragraph on page 4.
>
>There are a number of isotopes that can capture a neutron and still remain 
>stable.   
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Jones Beene 
>Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:48 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
>Subject: RE: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>
>From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>
>Ø  
>
>Ø  I posted a ref from physorg ... It involves a new observation about 
>resonance which might tie in with the Swede’s paper...
>
>
>Mark, No problem with the resonance. It’s the neutrons that are the problem.
>
>What the Swedes should know, but apparently do not fully appreciate, is that 
>neutrons simply cannot be involved as a modality in LENR, since there is no 
>induced radioactivity. It is as simple as that. In fact, their theory is 
>almost an embarrassment.
>
>
>
>Neutrons are insidious and difficult to contain. Even at the lowest energy 
>(ultra-cold), neutrons will eventually activate almost everything they come in 
>contact with. The good news would be – this activation should serve as instant 
>proof of LENR when it happens, but the bad news is that it never happens.
>
>Most of the mass of the Hot Cat is the element aluminum – in the form of 
>alumina ceramic. Neutron activation of aluminum occurs by numerous neutron 
>capture reactions and the cross-section is substantial for thermal neutrons 
>(few barns) and gets higher with colder neutrons. Such reactions as 27Al + n = 
>28Al, 27Al(n,a) 24Na, 27Al(n,2n)26Al and 27Al(n,p)27Mg show up at once.
>
>
>Even if by some miracle, only one neutron out of a million diffuses to the 
>tube wall - these insidious little bastards would activate the alumina into a 
>radioactive health hazard within minutes of excess heat showing up. The 
>excited states following activation will undergo beta decay over protracted 
>time periods and emit gammas as the nuclei de-excite to their respective 
>ground states. Radioactivity would continue for months. 
>
>Since this does not happen, we can be almost certain that neutrons are not 
>involved in the Hot Cat operation.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

Ni-64 + neutron = Ni-65 which is radioactive with a 2 hour half life and 
producing   a 1.4  and a 1.1 mev gamma.  Ni-62 + neutron = Ni-63 which is 
radioactive with t 100 half life.  It decays to a stable Cu-63 with no gamma.  
The Ni-63 poses a radioactive hazard because of its long life and its Beta 
decay mode.  It would need to be handled as a hazardous waste.  However Ni-64 
constitutes only about 1% of natural Ni and may not pose an activation hazard 
given its low concentration.  


Bob

From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Dave--

I too think that Al-27 + Thermal-N might be a problem.  It gives Al-28 which 
decays in minutes with a 1.7 mev gamma.  That should be observed, if it is 
above the cosmic background level.  However, no gammas there were reported 
above background.  There was a report that the Ni coated the Alumina in the 
reactor.  This may have provided a shield to provide a low flux of thermal 
neutrons to the Al nuclei to keep the activation low.

I think a simple calculation could provide an answer to this question.  It 
would involve a 3-d neutron diffusion model with the appropriate densities and 
cross sections for the various nuclei present, and the neutron source term from 
the spallation mechanism.  (That is given in the paper integrated over the 
Lugano test period.  The question of what thickness is necessary for Ni to keep 
neutrons away from the Al can probably be done by hand. 

The O isotopes should provide no problem since the two above O-16 are stable.  
The same idea applies to C-12 and C-13  both of which have a very low cross 
section for thermal neutrons.

Fast neutrons would be another problem and would take more material to 
thermalize them than is present in the small diameter of the reactor tube.  
They do not predict fast neutrons in the spallation reaction or any of the 
other nuclear  reactions discussed.  

I believe the authors know what they are about.  

Bob



From: David Roberson 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

Bob, I understand that the process you are describing is one of them that they 
assume is occurring.  But, you know there must be other elements such as 
aluminum within range of those low energy neutrons.  If even a tiny fraction of 
the slow neutrons end up being absorbed by one of these undesirables then they 
would become radioactive.

Is my understanding incorrect according to your knowledge of what happens 
within reactors?  I will listen carefully to what you have to say since I 
realize that you have a great deal of expertise with reactor operation.

Is there any chance that most of the gamma rays released by the undesirable 
neutron activated elements could escape detection?  It does not take a great 
deal of gamma ray energy to penetrate the systems that we are speaking of.  
What is your opinion?

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 8:02 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through


Dave--

The Li-7 would  pick up a neutron to reach Li-8 which decays to Be-8 by giving 
up an electron and which in turn decays to 2 alphas with no radiation.  (The 
the loose neutrons are slow and react quickly with the Li and Ni.  There is not 
much else around.  A good Be outer shield could reflect any fast neutrons back 
to the reaction zone.  The Li, and H would act as a good moderator to achieve 
slow neutrons.  The Ni and Li-7 get rid of the excess neutrons with a good deal 
of heat generated.  

Bob 

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

The concepts they discuss are interesting, but I find it extremely difficult to 
believe that neutrons are released freely at low energy.  Why would this not 
lead to dangerous radiation release as some become captured by other active 
elements that must be present due to contamination of the system?

If they can prove that the released neutrons are immediately captured during a 
portion of that same process by nickel or some other active receptor then at 
least the dangerous radiation problem might be mitigated.  Otherwise, free 
neutrons should be off the table in my humble opinion.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 11:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through


It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work Mats.

The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow 
neutron transmutation stimulated by a an

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Only after this first step is the energy debt paid back in a second step
> involving the exothermic neutron capture reaction (which would be
> accompanied by deexcitation gammas).
>

Note that there's two sources of gammas.  There's the gamma that is
released during the reaction (Robin's point) and the gammas that follow
afterwards (the deexcitation gammas).

n + 59Ni => gamma + 60Ni + 11388 keV
n + 61Ni => gamma + 62Ni + 10596 keV
n + 58Ni => gamma + 59Ni + 8999 keV
n + 60Ni => gamma + 61Ni + 7820 keV
n + 62Ni => gamma + 63Ni + 6838 keV
n + 64Ni => gamma + 65Ni + 6098 keV

Those gammas will carry nearly the full energy and there will be very
little recoil in the nickel nucleus.  So that's a strong flux of ~ 10 MeV
gammas.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

I believe the authors know what they are about.
>

The authors approach the energy balance problem in two steps, and the first
step is extremely endothermic.  It's pretty difficult to separate a neutron
from 7Li or d and requires on the order of ~ MeV.  Only after this first
step is the energy debt paid back in a second step involving the exothermic
neutron capture reaction (which would be accompanied by deexcitation
gammas).  I think the Bank of Heisenberg would send their repossession men
before the second step could occur in quantity.

The authors say this about the energy balance:

Nickel embodies the internal power/heat source via neutron capture, while
spallation is a cooling factor for lithium and deuterium. Nickel is
therefore the main attractor of matter within the reactor confinement.


In other words, losing that neutron is understood to be "cooling."

Also, to expand upon Jones's point, consider that to produce 1 W of heat at
~ 10 MeV per neutron capture, you will need ~ 6.242e+11 captures per
second.  If your apparatus was able to stop all but 0.1 percent of the
deexcitation gammas, you'd still get 62420 gammas per second leaking
through the containment.  Now scale that 1 W up to 1 kW or 10 kW for useful
power, and that 62420 gammas becomes 62.4 million gammas per second
escaping through the containment.  You will now need walls that can
stop 0.001 percent or more gammas to hide the signal in the
background.  Even if you could accomplish this, after running your reactor
for a while, the apparatus would be extremely radioactive.

The authors do not appear to be aware that these implications of their
explanation are difficulties that need to be addressed, either in general
or in the context of what is known about LENR.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[Axil Axil]

What any reasonable theory of LENR must explain is how the positive
feedback loop between the site of atomic transformation is occurring and
the site of LENR causation. What transfers the reaction energy(binding
energy?) to and fro. Then there is all the miracles of LENR to be
explained. In looking at this theory, I will be interested in these points.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> The paper seems to have all bases covered except the experience of
> “life-after-death.”  It was not clear how the resonant conditions are
> maintained by the conditions created by the mechanism proposed.   It seems
> that there must be some “ringing” of the lattice of Ni or some sound
> reflection that keeps the reaction going.  This is suggested by the idea
> the authors present that calculation of sonic resonances may be an easy way
> to determine the appropriate resonances to start the reaction.  It would
> seem that nano particles of Ni may not resonate for a very long time.
> However, the size may also keep the reaction from getting out of hand.
> Thus the small size of the Ni powder is important to prevent run-away
> reactions.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Bob Cook 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:14 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation
> break-through
>
> It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work
> Mats.
>
> The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow
> neutron transmutation stimulated by a an electric field gradient (maybe
> across a surface) at a certain resonance.  Lots  of parameters that can be
> engineered.   Seems to fit Rossi’s conditions well.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Mats Lewan 
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:50 AM
> *To:* mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through
>
> Essentially no new physics but a little-known physical effect describing
> matter’s interaction with electromagnetic fields — *ponderomotive Miller
> forces* — would explain energy release and isotopic changes in LENR. This
> is what Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish scientists,
> claim, describing their theory in a paper called *Nuclear Spallation and
> Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing* (full length paper
> here
> )
> that will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the 11th International
> Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals
> , hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.
>
> Read more here:
>
>
> http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/
>
>
> Mats
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[David Roberson]

Bob,

The life after death phenomena appears to be a consequence of the core power 
being able to supply the energy and hence temperature required to keep the 
reaction going.   This is a form of positive feedback.  Rossi refers to this 
form of operation as SSM(self sustaining mode) and I have modeled the effect 
using thermal feedback components.  A balance must be carefully maintained by 
adjusting the water flow rate and/or drive power timing if the period is to be 
very long.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 12:14 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through




The paper seems to have all bases covered except the experience of 
“life-after-death.”  It was not clear how the resonant conditions are 
maintained by the conditions created by the mechanism proposed.   It seems that 
there must be some “ringing” of the lattice of Ni or some sound reflection that 
keeps the reaction going.  This is suggested by the idea the authors present 
that calculation of sonic resonances may be an easy way to determine the 
appropriate resonances to start the reaction.  It would seem that nano 
particles of Ni may not resonate for a very long time.  However, the size may 
also keep the reaction from getting out of hand.  Thus the small size of the Ni 
powder is important to prevent run-away reactions.  
 
Bob Cook

 

From: Bob Cook 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 

It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work Mats.
 
The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow 
neutron transmutation stimulated by a an electric field gradient (maybe across 
a surface) at a certain resonance.  Lots  of parameters that can be engineered. 
  Seems to fit Rossi’s conditions well.
 
Bob Cook

 

From: Mats Lewan 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:50 AM
To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 
Essentially no new physics but a little-known physical effect describing 
matter’s interaction with electromagnetic fields — ponderomotive Miller forces 
— would explain energy release and isotopic changes in LENR. This is what 
Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish scientists, claim, 
describing their theory in a paper called Nuclear Spallation and Neutron 
Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing (full length paper here) that 
will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the 11th International Workshop on 
Anomalies in 
Hydrogen Loaded Metals, hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.


Read more here:
 
http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/



Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com
 
 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Bob/FrankZ,

I remember seeing a phrase which stated acoustic resonance or something 
similar, but cannot find it.  You mention sonic resonances…

Wouldn’t it be a real kicker if this agrees with Frank Z’s ‘frequency of sound 
in the nucleus’???

 

Frank, care to comment???

 

-mark

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 

The paper seems to have all bases covered except the experience of 
“life-after-death.”  It was not clear how the resonant conditions are 
maintained by the conditions created by the mechanism proposed.   It seems that 
there must be some “ringing” of the lattice of Ni or some sound reflection that 
keeps the reaction going.  This is suggested by the idea the authors present 
that calculation of sonic resonances may be an easy way to determine the 
appropriate resonances to start the reaction.  It would seem that nano 
particles of Ni may not resonate for a very long time.  However, the size may 
also keep the reaction from getting out of hand.  Thus the small size of the Ni 
powder is important to prevent run-away reactions.  

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Bob Cook   

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:14 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 

It looks to me like Mats scooped all the other news outlets.  Good work Mats.

 

The paper is quite good and understandable.  Neutron spallation and slow 
neutron transmutation stimulated by a an electric field gradient (maybe across 
a surface) at a certain resonance.  Lots  of parameters that can be engineered. 
  Seems to fit Rossi’s conditions well.

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Mats Lewan   

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:50 AM

To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: [Vo]:Swedish scientists claim LENR explanation break-through

 

Essentially no new physics but a little-known physical effect describing 
matter’s interaction with electromagnetic fields — ponderomotive Miller forces 
— would explain energy release and isotopic changes in LENR. This is what 
Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish scientists, claim, 
describing their theory in a paper called Nuclear Spallation and Neutron 
Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing ( 
 full 
length paper here) that will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the  
 11th International Workshop on Anomalies in 

Hydrogen Loaded Metals, hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.

 

Read more here:

 

http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/



Mats

www.animpossibleinvention.com