I agree with the idea of adding a dimension to Holmlid’s laser setup—may be 
expensive however, since lasers with the appropriate frequency may be necessary 
to get good coupling.  Given known quadrupole magnetic moments in various data 
sources for the stable (and unstable} Ni nucleons, picking design parameters 
for the lasers may be easy.

The objective should be to stimulate a target Ni nucleus to a meta stable 
energy spin state, which then is allowed to decay—given the lattice 
coupling---to a new lower potential energy spin state.

This scheme of transmutation of radioactive waste was proposed as an 
alternative in the DOE’s nuclear waste management EIS of the mid 1970’s—1976 as 
I recall.  It was one of several different options considered at that time.   
However, it was dismissed because the necessary technology was not available to 
accomplish the desired stimulation the radioactive waste.  This situation has 
changed with subsequent development of lasers of most any frequency desired.

Two lasers, if in resonance, may provide magnetic quadrupole coupling necessary 
to unlock the potential energy of Ni nucleons of a coherent lattice, just as in 
the Letts-Cravens Pd system.

Conserving linear momentum is not an issue, since the system is not stimulated 
with high linear momentum particles, as is the case in simple two-body nuclear 
interactions.  Thus ionizing radiation is absent, as is the case with LENR.  
Only angular momentum (and total energy) are conserved in an LENR process IMHO.

Bob Cook
From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 7:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi dog & pony show with full audio

I should have mentioned that another wrinkle on superwaves could employ light 
waves - the so-called Letts-Cravens effect where laser irradiation of two 
lasers impinge on a loaded lattice.

AFAIK – Holmlid has always used only one laser.

Perhaps he should superwave it ?

Another wrinkle would be RF + laser. Or 2xRF + laser? Or 2xRF + 2xlaser?

Why superwaves?

A known mechanism for wave amplification in rigid structures is called  “energy 
localization” which can be a feature of nanoscale packing of hydrogen in a 
lattice. When stimulated with two waveforms at different frequencies, a 
paradigm shift can be engineered on the vibrational modes of bound particles 
(protons in a lattice). Nuclear reactions can happen in rare cases, but even 
without them thermal gain is possible at the nanoscale in blatant violation to 
the Laws or Thermodynamics. This is essentially proved but scaling up to useful 
levels is not proved.

In the Schrödinger equation you can find the term for quantum kinetic energy as 
the second derivative of the wave function for place. The closer the particle 
is confined, the greater the curvature of its wave function and the greater is 
its quantum kinetic energy (the energy localization). It can be a power law 
increase, see:

In simpler terms, Quantum kinetic energy is the kinetic energy with which bound 
protons move through the lattice - and this energy can be nonlinear wrt input. 
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that the closer the particle is 
confined, the smaller its freedom of movement Δx and thus - the more violent it 
wriggles back and forth, and the greater is his  Δp . Intersecting waveforms 
can provide the increased confinement and the resultant gain is the theory 
behind the “superwave”.

RE: GRANTED US patent which cites the Dardik superwave patent


It is no coincidence that Energetics, Violante, McKubre,  Chauvin, Rossi, 
Brillouin, Kimmel group, etc, all employed similar interfering and 
self-amplifying RF waveforms as input power.

Even if Rossi’s recent effort was a null result, the Euro Patent from Dardik 
(El-Boher et al)  provides a known mechanism for wave power amplification 
-“energy localization” which is a feature of nanoscale packing of hydrogen in a 
lattice. Generally the COP is limited to a low range using this mechanism but 
it can be gainful without nuclear reactions. It is also difficult to scale up. 


Reply via email to