I had a similar question as to a measure of the energy produced by the laser 
and the temperature of the material under the D protective coating.

The following questions arise:

  1.  Can H form the same protective coating?
  2.  Does the UDD have spin equal to 1  with its magnetic moment that will not 
respond to the laser input?  I doubt it.
  3.  Could the UDD be an  assemblage of Cooper pairs  with anti-parallel spin  
equal to 0 or a  BEC that reflects the laser photons?
  4.  Are there minute impurities in the UDD that do absorb some of the laser 
energy  and eventually get the UDD composite hot enough to come apart?
  5.  Does the energy of the laser get transformed into potential energy of the 
Cooper pairs suggested above during the long irradiation period?–
  6.  Does increasing the power of the laser beam reduce the time required to 
“blast thru” the protective coat  of UDD?
  7.  How does a change of laser frequency change the results?

Bob Cook

From: Dave Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen 
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the 
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to cut 
the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited by the 
laser was measured?


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

This is good to see.

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and determined 
to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on Holmlid - who is 
drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that is unique in a 
number of ways.

Holmlid’s work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical 
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication. 
Holmlid’s recent patent application is almost a “how-to” since it discloses 
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his 
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate.

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks 
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be 
revived. New game.

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive 
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as 
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But 
Pandora’s box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.

From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>

Holmlid replicator


JonesBeene wrote:

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.
It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R&D. This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something.
Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden.
Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R&D to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come.
So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it.
Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he thought he 
had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best if this null 
assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at least not a 
resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have it both ways – 
cheap energy at no risk of weaponization.
Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in clear 
energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that’s not so bad. You can’t 
weaponize a wind mill (unless your name is Cervantes)…
It bears repeating that a few types of disruptive technology are probably best 
left to rot on the vine… at least so long as there are terrorists out there.

Reply via email to