Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```
Hi Robin,

I usually use projections to 3D space to compare the radius. But in
calculations you have to be aware of the diverse factors given by the
torus metric and SO(4) metric.

So the correct question is: Which radius must be used for what
calculation. Comparing is just a curiosity!

Some basic topology knowledge is a prerequisite for understanding the
new model. It's not much what you must know but it will completely
change the way you think about physics and symmetry.

If you look at a fudged higher order QED Hamiltonian for an
energy-density then you must know much more that said above.

SO(4) physics is "simple.." but you must master the short gap.

J.W.

On 18.09.2020 00:55, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 23:22:05 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If you are talking about a torus, then it would help if you make a distinction

Things are tricky:

A torus diameter is 4R ! But the torus radius is only R! So its a matter
of perspective.

No, it's a matter of stating exactly what you mean, and leaving nothing to the
imagination. ;) (Because one person will
often imagine something completely different to someone else, given the same
"shorthand" description.)

I assume you are assuming a torus with a central hole that is zero in size. In
which case the major radius is twice the

If you look at the same distance circle radius "torus 2 radii" then the
4D radius - seen in 3D -  is longer!

Does this mean "the 4D radius is longer than the 3D radius", or the "3D radius is longer
than the 4D radius", or "the
circumference of ... is longer than that of " or "some distance is longer than
some other distance"?

As you can see, I don't like ambiguity. ;)
[snip]

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 23:22:05 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If you are talking about a torus, then it would help if you make a distinction

>Things are tricky:
>
>A torus diameter is 4R ! But the torus radius is only R! So its a matter
>of perspective.

No, it's a matter of stating exactly what you mean, and leaving nothing to the
imagination. ;) (Because one person will
often imagine something completely different to someone else, given the same
"shorthand" description.)

I assume you are assuming a torus with a central hole that is zero in size. In
which case the major radius is twice the

>
>If you look at the same distance circle radius "torus 2 radii" then the
>4D radius - seen in 3D -  is longer!

is longer than the 4D radius", or "the
circumference of ... is longer than that of " or "some distance is longer
than some other distance"?

As you can see, I don't like ambiguity. ;)
[snip]

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```
Things are tricky:

A torus diameter is 4R ! But the torus radius is only R! So its a matter
of perspective.

If you look at the same distance circle radius "torus 2 radii" then the
4D radius - seen in 3D -  is longer!

J.W.

On 17.09.2020 23:15, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:04:39 +0200:
Hi,

You can look up SO(4) in Wikipedia

The group measure is 2^1/2. This is the length of the unit radius of the
Clifford torus (formed by the tangent space). To get the standard norm
(=1) you have to divide by 2^1/2!

Thank you, this now makes sense.
Since 2^1/2 = 1.414... then the 4D radius is larger than the 3D radius, however
previously you wrote:-

"R_4D = 1/2 R_p *(2^1/2 )" , which would make the 4D radius less than the 3D
radius?? (Assuming that R_p is the 3D
radius.) IOW where does the factor of "1/2" come from?

Or more simple. The radius for the standard circle is 1, but the
Clifford torus has two radii, thus its length is (1+1)^1/2

(Pythagoras :- length of the hypotenuse. 4th dimension perpendicular to other
3.)

J.W.

[snip]

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:04:39 +0200:
Hi,

>You can look up SO(4) in Wikipedia
>
>The group measure is 2^1/2. This is the length of the unit radius of the
>Clifford torus (formed by the tangent space). To get the standard norm
>(=1) you have to divide by 2^1/2!

Thank you, this now makes sense.
Since 2^1/2 = 1.414... then the 4D radius is larger than the 3D radius, however
previously you wrote:-

"R_4D = 1/2 R_p *(2^1/2 )" , which would make the 4D radius less than the 3D
radius?? (Assuming that R_p is the 3D
radius.) IOW where does the factor of "1/2" come from?

>
>Or more simple. The radius for the standard circle is 1, but the
>Clifford torus has two radii, thus its length is (1+1)^1/2

(Pythagoras :- length of the hypotenuse. 4th dimension perpendicular to other
3.)
>
>J.W.
[snip]

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```
You can look up SO(4) in Wikipedia

The group measure is 2^1/2. This is the length of the unit radius of the
Clifford torus (formed by the tangent space). To get the standard norm
(=1) you have to divide by 2^1/2!

Or more simple. The radius for the standard circle is 1, but the
Clifford torus has two radii, thus its length is (1+1)^1/2

J.W.

On 17.09.2020 21:51, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:54:01 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

understand. It would perhaps help if you didn't use
shorthand. IOW please be very clear and precise, and don't leave any steps out.
I realize that it will take longer for
you to write, but it's better than losing your audience altogether.

Quite correct: 1/2 is missing.

The SO(4) radius is 1/2 of the measured one but gets enlarged by the metric.

So for the proton R_4D = 1/2 R_p *(2^1/2 ). This is the real radius from
the center of action/rotation!

If I read this correctly, the 4th dimensional radius is 0.707 x the 3
dimensional radius. I find this difficult to

What does "enlarged by the metric" mean?

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:54:01 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

understand. It would perhaps help if you didn't use
shorthand. IOW please be very clear and precise, and don't leave any steps out.
I realize that it will take longer for
you to write, but it's better than losing your audience altogether.

>Quite correct: 1/2 is missing.
>
>The SO(4) radius is 1/2 of the measured one but gets enlarged by the metric.
>
>So for the proton R_4D = 1/2 R_p *(2^1/2 ). This is the real radius from
>the center of action/rotation!

If I read this correctly, the 4th dimensional radius is 0.707 x the 3
dimensional radius. I find this difficult to

What does "enlarged by the metric" mean?

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```
Quite correct: 1/2 is missing.

The SO(4) radius is 1/2 of the measured one but gets enlarged by the metric.

So for the proton R_4D = 1/2 R_p *(2^1/2 ). This is the real radius from
the center of action/rotation!

J.W.

On 16.09.2020 22:35, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:35:46 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
protons,

To fully understand physics you must model all particles as EM mass -
the exact opposite of what standard model does.

An electron always attaches as magnetic flux at the proper resonant
point. The error already started with Bohr and his invention of an orbit
model that now is fully debunked. The so called Bohr level has nothing
to do with an electron orbiting a proton. It simply is the resonance
point of the electrons magnetic mass, when it attaches an other magnetic
mass. You can get the resonance point very easily... : E-Bohr = m_e *
?^2 = 27.211386..eV (This is the mass defect if its part of an other EM
mass... but you need to divide by 2=(2^1/2 )^1/2 due to a metric change
- 4D orbit = larger radius in classic view)m_e * in electron Volts!

How does 2=(2^1/2 )^1/2 ?

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:35:46 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
>protons,
>
>
>To fully understand physics you must model all particles as EM mass -
>the exact opposite of what standard model does.
>
>An electron always attaches as magnetic flux at the proper resonant
>point. The error already started with Bohr and his invention of an orbit
>model that now is fully debunked. The so called Bohr level has nothing
>to do with an electron orbiting a proton. It simply is the resonance
>point of the electrons magnetic mass, when it attaches an other magnetic
>mass. You can get the resonance point very easily... : E-Bohr = m_e *
>?^2 = 27.211386..eV (This is the mass defect if its part of an other EM
>mass... but you need to divide by 2=(2^1/2 )^1/2 due to a metric change
>- 4D orbit = larger radius in classic view)m_e * in electron Volts!

How does 2=(2^1/2 )^1/2 ?

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
protons,

To fully understand physics you must model all particles as EM mass -
the exact opposite of what standard model does.

An electron always attaches as magnetic flux at the proper resonant
point. The error already started with Bohr and his invention of an orbit
model that now is fully debunked. The so called Bohr level has nothing
to do with an electron orbiting a proton. It simply is the resonance
point of the electrons magnetic mass, when it attaches an other magnetic
mass. You can get the resonance point very easily... : E-Bohr = m_e *
α^2 = 27.211386..eV (This is the mass defect if its part of an other EM
mass... but you need to divide by 2=(2^1/2 )^1/2 due to a metric change
- 4D orbit = larger radius in classic view)m_e * in electron Volts!

There is absolute no need for a Bohr radius and a force equation as this

So electrons do not shrink. These either attach an other EM mass or
enter a nucleus and release their mass except the small chunk needed for
the magnetic bond.

I strongly urge people not to do experiments with fission material
except they use professional shielded reactors. LENR only sounds like
low energy

J.W.

On 16.09.2020 04:31, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:51:24 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]

If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
protons, making an enhanced electron capture
process possible. A possibility which you may recall I first posted here in the
uploaded" on 3 Dec. 2008. (previously suggested in private correspondence to
Mike Carrell on 14 Nov. 2002).

However it surprises me that the whole bound molecule tunnels rather than a
single proton/atom.
I find it even further surprising that this happens with something as large as
n=1/4, and that two EC reactions occur. I
would have thought one would at least occasionally see that only one or no EC
reactions occurred.
Depending on the target nucleus, there should be some combinations where
capture of one or more protons would lead to a
more stable nucleus than capture of two neutrons? Odd numbered nuclei might be
an interesting starting point. E.g. Al27,
since capture of a proton here yields the very stable Silicon. Also desirable
since Al27 is so common in the Earth's
crust. If two neutrons are captured, then a good starting point would be light
isotopes of even numbered nuclei. E.g.
O16 + H*-H* -> O18 + 10.6 MeV. Both start and final isotopes are stable, and O16
is plentiful. H2O => O18? :)

Perhaps the electron shrinks during the capture process, providing better
shielding to the proton(s)? If so, I wonder if
there is a threshold shrinkage level where this collapse begins?

Think about the implications of dense hydrogen in the role of binding and
reacting with another (larger) nucleus as if were two neutrons. This is
completely new physics.

Such a discovery would open an entirely new world of overlooked nuclear
reactions which were never given much hope before. It could make nuclear
fission the top energy source once again, in the grand scheme of things and rid
us of the false expectation that nuclear fusion has a real future. It is simply
too expensive.

However we cannot gauge probabilities yet, and all of this is speculative. It
would be essential to know the cross-section of various element (for absorption
of H*-H*)  so as to determine the commercially valuable products and isotopes.
It might be possible to get more in value from new isotopes than from the
excess heat of hydrogen densification... or it all could be used together so
that fission energy becomes far more attractive than before.

Here is one kind of potential reaction that you may not have thought about.
Thorium based.
If the H*-H* acts like two neutrons with thorium as a target, one might expect
to convert 232Th into 234Th which has a short half-life and goes to 234Pa and
then to 234U. Now 234U is interesting in a surprising way if it can be made
cheaply, even though it is NOT fissile. Well, technically. it is not fissile -
but it can be viewed as virtually fissile.

The hidden value of 234U would be because it has a long half life plus a known
and very large cross section for neutrons. Thus in a reactor it would almost
immediately become 235 U which is probably the best of all uranium isotopes.
Thus a breeder reactor becomes very feasible possibly with natural U.

In short although this is a naive possibility given that we have so little data
to look at - the H*-H* having similar reactivity to 2n - that would be
extremely important in framing a revival of fission, and who knows what else?

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:51:24 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]

If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
protons, making an enhanced electron capture
process possible. A possibility which you may recall I first posted here in the
uploaded" on 3 Dec. 2008. (previously suggested in private correspondence to
Mike Carrell on 14 Nov. 2002).

However it surprises me that the whole bound molecule tunnels rather than a
single proton/atom.
I find it even further surprising that this happens with something as large as
n=1/4, and that two EC reactions occur. I
would have thought one would at least occasionally see that only one or no EC
reactions occurred.
Depending on the target nucleus, there should be some combinations where
capture of one or more protons would lead to a
more stable nucleus than capture of two neutrons? Odd numbered nuclei might be
an interesting starting point. E.g. Al27,
since capture of a proton here yields the very stable Silicon. Also desirable
since Al27 is so common in the Earth's
crust. If two neutrons are captured, then a good starting point would be light
isotopes of even numbered nuclei. E.g.
O16 + H*-H* -> O18 + 10.6 MeV. Both start and final isotopes are stable, and
O16 is plentiful. H2O => O18? :)

Perhaps the electron shrinks during the capture process, providing better
shielding to the proton(s)? If so, I wonder if
there is a threshold shrinkage level where this collapse begins?

>Think about the implications of dense hydrogen in the role of binding and
>reacting with another (larger) nucleus as if were two neutrons. This is
>completely new physics.
>
>Such a discovery would open an entirely new world of overlooked nuclear
>reactions which were never given much hope before. It could make nuclear
>fission the top energy source once again, in the grand scheme of things and
>rid us of the false expectation that nuclear fusion has a real future. It is
>simply too expensive.
>
>However we cannot gauge probabilities yet, and all of this is speculative. It
>would be essential to know the cross-section of various element (for
>absorption of H*-H*)  so as to determine the commercially valuable products
>and isotopes. It might be possible to get more in value from new isotopes than
>from the excess heat of hydrogen densification... or it all could be used
>together so that fission energy becomes far more attractive than before.
>
>Here is one kind of potential reaction that you may not have thought about.
>Thorium based.
>If the H*-H* acts like two neutrons with thorium as a target, one might expect
>to convert 232Th into 234Th which has a short half-life and goes to 234Pa and
>then to 234U. Now 234U is interesting in a surprising way if it can be made
>cheaply, even though it is NOT fissile. Well, technically. it is not fissile -
>but it can be viewed as virtually fissile.
>
>The hidden value of 234U would be because it has a long half life plus a known
>and very large cross section for neutrons. Thus in a reactor it would almost
>immediately become 235 U which is probably the best of all uranium isotopes.
>Thus a breeder reactor becomes very feasible possibly with natural U.
>
>In short although this is a naive possibility given that we have so little
>data to look at - the H*-H* having similar reactivity to 2n - that would be
>extremely important in framing a revival of fission, and who knows what else?

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```Think about the implications of dense hydrogen in the role of binding and
reacting with another (larger) nucleus as if were two neutrons. This is
completely new physics.

Such a discovery would open an entirely new world of overlooked nuclear
reactions which were never given much hope before. It could make nuclear
fission the top energy source once again, in the grand scheme of things and rid
us of the false expectation that nuclear fusion has a real future. It is simply
too expensive.

However we cannot gauge probabilities yet, and all of this is speculative. It
would be essential to know the cross-section of various element (for absorption
of H*-H*)  so as to determine the commercially valuable products and isotopes.
It might be possible to get more in value from new isotopes than from the
excess heat of hydrogen densification... or it all could be used together so
that fission energy becomes far more attractive than before.

Here is one kind of potential reaction that you may not have thought about.
Thorium based.
If the H*-H* acts like two neutrons with thorium as a target, one might expect
to convert 232Th into 234Th which has a short half-life and goes to 234Pa and
then to 234U. Now 234U is interesting in a surprising way if it can be made
cheaply, even though it is NOT fissile. Well, technically. it is not fissile -
but it can be viewed as virtually fissile.

The hidden value of 234U would be because it has a long half life plus a known
and very large cross section for neutrons. Thus in a reactor it would almost
immediately become 235 U which is probably the best of all uranium isotopes.
Thus a breeder reactor becomes very feasible possibly with natural U.

In short although this is a naive possibility given that we have so little data
to look at - the H*-H* having similar reactivity to 2n - that would be
extremely important in framing a revival of fission, and who knows what else?

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

``` Well, you could be getting inferior advice. It makes little sense to worry
about IH or anyone else when a trip to Stockholm (for the big prize) is waiting
for positive results showing  H*-H* absorption... No one is going to get rich
on this anyway, other than patent attorneys and Wall Street. There is too much
IP already issued to waste time with more.

Rgds,
Jones

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:

We do currently not publish the spectra as there are to many patent trolls like
IH just waiting for it...

But I have tons of files with interesting details. Anybody serious that is
willing to support us either by labor or some significant financial support

Further I consult other experimenters on how to enhance their reactions.

J.W.

Jones Beene wrote:

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in
respect to the intermediate products we see.

Are any of these experiments published ?

Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in importance,
since AFAIK this does not happen in standard physics. For one thing, two normal
neutrons never bond.

+41 79 246 36 06
```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```We do currently not publish the spectra as there are to many patent
trolls like IH just waiting for it...

But I have tons of files with interesting details. Anybody serious that
is willing to support us either by labor or some significant financial

Further I consult other experimenters on how to enhance their reactions.

J.W.

On 16.09.2020 01:01, Jones Beene wrote:

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:

> What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons.
This in respect to the intermediate products we see.

Are any of these experiments published ?

Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in
importance, since AFAIK this does not happen in standard physics. For
one thing, two normal neutrons never bond.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

``` Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in
> respect to the intermediate products we see.

Are any of these experiments published ?

Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in importance,
since AFAIK this does not happen in standard physics. For one thing, two normal
neutrons never bond.

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This
in respect to the intermediate products we see.

On the other side D*-D* reacts like two protons!

J.W.

On 14.09.2020 15:12, JonesBeene wrote:

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:

… Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* is a weak nuclear bond
between two protons. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4) physics
and is in full agreement with Randall Mills measurement of so
called 1/4 Hydrinos

Jürg

The H*H* which you describe above would seem to be neutral in net
charge, weakly bound and very dense, correct?

Will the dense hydrogen of your model interact with the nucleus of a
host metal matrix as if it were two neutrons?

Is this species diamagnetic?

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```

RE: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```

Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
… Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* is a weak nuclear bond between two
protons. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4) physics and is in full agreement
with Randall Mills measurement of so called 1/4 Hydrinos
Jürg

The H*H* which you describe above would seem to be neutral in net charge,
weakly bound and very dense, correct?

Will the dense hydrogen of your model interact with the nucleus of a  host
metal matrix as if it were two neutrons?

Is this species diamagnetic?

```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```One of the major issues interfering with the commercializing the LENR
reaction is the erosion of the structure of the reactor caused by the
active agent. Let's call that active agent the EVO, a particle unique to
the LENR reaction..

This video shows this EVO erosion caused by the exposure of a brass key to
a stream of EVOs. You will notice that the erosion is formed by the
production of countless micro craters that have been generated by countless
EVOs. This cratering is a common occurrence in the LENR reaction. When
radiated by enough EVOs any material will fall to dust.

https://youtu.be/5jKnkCJawe8

Looking at that key is sobering.

I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that the new strategic weapon that Trump
let slip out to Woodward is a LENR disintegration beam, something like
Tesla had in mind, a beam of EVOs that can melt an engine or a missile or a
satellite at 250 miles out, a particle that cannot be shielded.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/trump-secret-new-weapon-412539

“I have built a nuclear, a weapon, I have built a weapon system that
nobody's ever had in this country before,” Trump said in an interview with
journalist Bob Woodward for his book published this week.

“We have stuff that you haven't even seen or heard about. We have stuff
that Putin and Xi have never heard about before," Trump said, referring to
Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China. "There's
nobody. What we have is incredible."

https://www.teslasociety.com/deathray.htm#:~:text=Tesla%20claimed%20of%20having%20invented,which%20would%20make%20war%20unthinkable.https://www.teslasociety.com/deathray.htm#:~:text=Tesla%20claimed%20of%20having%20invented,which%20would%20make%20war%20unthinkable
.

Tesla claimed of having invented a “death ray” capable of destroying 10,000
enemy airplanes at a distance of 250 miles (400 kilometers). On July 23,
1934 Time Magazine wrote an article about Tesla's Ray: “Last week Dr. Tesla
announced a combination of four inventions which would make war unthinkable.

It cannot be ruled out that the U.S. is developing a new nuclear weapon in
complete secrecy. This seems unlikely, however, for two reasons — the cost
would be too much for the classified, nonpublic portion of the budget, and
too many people would be involved in the project for it to stay secret for
long.

LENR hardware is dirt cheap that a small number of workers could develop.

If the totality of the science and the defense industrial complex believes
that LENR is a fraud, then the secret of what the LENR reaction can do can
be easily kept.

One day, agents of the US government took all of John Hutchison's equipment
and never returned it.

Here is what that equipment could do to a block of steel.

https://youtu.be/vzPKEG5mCzQ

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:16 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The Widom Larsen model is not even a model just and idea and form the
> standpoint of physics its nonsensical.
>
> Nobody no where ever has seen neutrons in LENR...
>
> Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* (how we call it) is a weak
> nuclear bond between two protons. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4)
> physics and is in full agreement with Randall Mills measurement of so
> called 1/4 Hydrinos (that by no way fit what Mills measured..)
>
> Widom Larsen were clever sales man that almost all they sold have "stolen"
> somewhere.
>
> So do not overestimate what two old man, after thousands of bottles wine,
> did piss out of their brains.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 12.09.2020 16:12, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> For those who have not connected the dots (in the last few days) and have
> too much time on their hands, the silly season of election year politics is
> now focusing on a "secret" new weapon.
>
> Not sure if any pundit has mentioned that over two years ago Lewis Larsen
> et al was suggesting exactly the same secret new "cold fusion" augmented
> weapon, which had been developed in a black project by the Pentagon and was
> copied by Russia. Not many took Larsen seriously. Here is some background.
>
>
> https://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-russia-announces-nuclear-fissionpowered-cruise-missile-perhaps-lenr-powered-in-future-march-3-2018
>
> Lewis Larsen died on October 25, 2019 at the age of 72.
>
> Along with Allan Widom, Larsen developed the theory of "ultra low
> momentum" neutrons, which is similar and possibly superior to the better
> know theories of Randell Mills and Leif Holmlid and others. There is plenty
> of indication that his "virtual neutron" is approximately the same species
> as ultra-dense hydrogen etc.
>
> Put on your tin hats.
>
> This is ripe fruit for the growing number of conspiracy theorists on
> social media. The story may not rise to become an "October surprise" -
> especially once it is learned that it is not exactly new and not exactly
> secret, but nevertheless... Lewis Larsen must be smiling from the other
> side.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 ```

Re: [Vo]:The so-called "secret new weapon"

```The Widom Larsen model is not even a model just and idea and form the
standpoint of physics its nonsensical.

Nobody no where ever has seen neutrons in LENR...

Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* (how we call it) is a weak
nuclear bond between two protons. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4)
physics and is in full agreement with Randall Mills measurement of so
called 1/4 Hydrinos (that by no way fit what Mills measured..)

Widom Larsen were clever sales man that almost all they sold have
"stolen" somewhere.

So do not overestimate what two old man, after thousands of bottles
wine, did piss out of their brains.

J.W.

On 12.09.2020 16:12, Jones Beene wrote:
For those who have not connected the dots (in the last few days) and
have too much time on their hands, the silly season of election year
politics is now focusing on a "secret" new weapon.

Not sure if any pundit has mentioned that over two years ago Lewis
Larsen et al was suggesting exactly the same secret new "cold fusion"
augmented weapon, which had been developed in a black project by the
Pentagon and was copied by Russia. Not many took Larsen seriously.
Here is some background.

https://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-russia-announces-nuclear-fissionpowered-cruise-missile-perhaps-lenr-powered-in-future-march-3-2018

Lewis Larsen died on October 25, 2019 at the age of 72.

Along with Allan Widom, Larsen developed the theory of "ultra low
momentum" neutrons, which is similar and possibly superior to the
better know theories of Randell Mills and Leif Holmlid and others.
There is plenty of indication that his "virtual neutron" is
approximately the same species as ultra-dense hydrogen etc.

This is ripe fruit for the growing number of conspiracy theorists on
social media. The story may not rise to become an "October surprise" -
especially once it is learned that it is not exactly new and not
exactly secret, but nevertheless... Lewis Larsen must be smiling from
the other side.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

```