DGT tells all as stated as follows in their paper TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS & PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT
Rydberg State Hydrogen (RSH) atoms are short lived, even though their size is relatively big, and they form special bonds with each other. Usually acting in pairs or even in huge lattice-like structures. RSHs need to “travel” towards the NAE without any phase change or total disassociation into protons and electrons, following the magnetic fields created from the plasma current. We use several layers of “agents”, coated around a Si-Al ceramic surface surrounding the nickel foam, to help RSH atoms to survive this journey. Some of these agents are ZnO, MgO and ZrO2. We define all such structure of Ni and its surrounding environment as the NAE of the reactions in the Hyperion SS316 lab reactors. For a period of around 10-13 sec, each RSH proton is very close to its electron. (this is not true) Our understanding is that the RSH nuclei is disguised as a neutron. As a result, Coulomb forces between such nuclei are almost zero during this short time window. (posters note--This is not true) Heating the NAE to above the Debye temperature (179 oC for Ni) results in Ni crystal vacancies, created during the NAE preparation phase, changing their atomic separations and shapes. (posters note--heating stimulates dipole energy) As a result it is known that: • Nano-charges are created and travel in waves with a speed of 5 km/s between the Ni crystal vacancies • Huge electrostatic and magnetic forces are created within the nano-NAE vacancies [7],[8] (this is what produces LENR) • Massive interactions occur between the RSH atoms and the NAE [8], [9]. (these nano-particles form the NAE) On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Ed, > > Cude is- in the best sense of the wording a paid killer. It is possible he > pays but this does not change much. > > I was always open to discuss about those two critical problems. also with > low success rate (BTW Mizzou has said they have 20% success rate with > their Pd-D electrochemical system in 2012. We HAVE to discuss,For example > my recent "Active sites and NAE" paper on my blog had almost no feedback. > IMHO, the first step is to consider irreproducibility intolerable.. > > Peter > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Peter, the response to Cude is for educational purposes, which you of all >> people should understand and support. Many readers of Vortex share Cude's >> views. We need to educate them. Cude is their spokesman. The other people >> might learn by having some of the challenges answered. Nevertheless, a >> debate with Cude is not useful because his response will not be productive. >> Hopefully, other people will ask useful questions that can be answered, as >> a few people have done. >> >> As for concentrating on problems of reproducibility and upscalability, I >> have tried to address these issues but with little support. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On May 7, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: >> >> I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism >> based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude. >> He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary >> problems as a sign that. CF does not exist >> Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and >> upscalability >> and if these cannot be solved in the Pd-D system then we have to solve >> them in other systems.With Joshua we can build only parallel monologues not >> a dialogue >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Edmund Storms [email protected] >>> via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> >>> eskimo.com >>> 7:48 AM (2 hours ago) >>> to vortex-l >>> >>> Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many >>> mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists. >>> >>> ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue >>> this? If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many >>> positive results arriving by virtue of mistakes. >>> >>> I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive >>> result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy >>> afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results, >>> right? So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3. >>> So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1 >>> in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10 >>> chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be >>> fired; but that's just me. >>> >>> Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the >>> chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication >>> would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000 >>> >>> Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The >>> mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of >>> 10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand >>> Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than impossible. I tell >>> you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with >>> the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the >>> universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible. >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com >>> *<https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jing-tang He >>> • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters >>> • Frontiers of Physics in China >>> Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8 >>> This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense >>> matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, >>> self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications. >>> >>> >>> Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the >>> Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect. >>> * >>> http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22) >>> *<http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
