Nothing is better than field notes from observers of nature and its ecologies. The jewel in this report is a big part of the solution to cold fusion. It answers the question of how is the apparent energy of cold fusion disseminated broadly instead of being locally destructive. That this layer of UDD is able to withstand the laser, for more time than it ought to, is quite sufficient evidence of the energy distribution characteristic of UDD, and of the miracle CF clearly displays. We've known since Martin and Stan showed it to be, nearly 30 years ago, that UDD is formed, they called it high 'fugacity' but it is the same state.
The high fugacity deuterium, HFD/HDD, is very much more flexible to the thin layer of UDD in this work as it can and surely does exist in a variety of bulk atom-ecologies. Clearly in some of those special atom ecosystems we find cold fusion becomes prevalent. By the way such HFD is stable as Martin used to say being 'gamma phase'. In my work when sono-loaded palladium was packed with HFD that HFD remained indefinitely stable as was evidenced in x-ray diffraction studies of said material carried out by premier national lab colleagues on the samples they assisted me in hands on effort to produce on demand for them. Well not all of it was 'stable' as a great deal of it was observed to have transformed into 4He deep inside the bulk metal. In those helium rich ecologies the meta, palladium, indeed was melted and vapourized , but nearby the HFD/HDD remained in the less active sonofusion zones. From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:59 PM To: email@example.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge Dave- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.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? Dave 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: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.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 http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-stu dying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/ 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 ignore. 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 terrorists. 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.