MOTTO
DAILY NOTES
The evil spirit of destruction is still alive and ...popular.
September 11, 2001 is a sad day in the history of mankind; it has revealed that the very Meme of Destruction is alive and powerful and it is an attractor for amazingly many souls driven by hatred and envy who know no mercy, no reason, no limits.
My continent, Europe was treated by genetic engineering, acquiring plenty of genes of suicide and now is busy massively importing terror, trouble and terminators of civilization..
Prof. Vladimir Vysotskii is constant in his opinion about the role of Andrea Rossi
in the history of LENR
One of the faithful, constant, very loquacious IH supporters has obviously disliked
the fact that a great LENR scientist and fighter for LENR in his country, Prof. Vladimir Vysotskii has expressed honestly and openly his support for Andrea Rossi- considered by him the man who has liberated the Djinn of LENR from his bottle. Applying the standard procedure, the IH supporter (see comments on my blog, most recent issues) he has put in doubt the source for Vysotskii's statement- as if I have invented it. Then, despite the fact that my blog is easily he searchable and it
can be seen that two similar statements were made on May 16 and Aug 12, the attacker ignored the newer message and stated that due to the "very convincing"
proofs of IH (the Exhibits) Vladimir Vysotskii probably has changed his mind/opinion
and now is in the camp of the "good boys" This IH supporter/ manipulator is unable to understand or is programmed to not understand, that perfectly honest and smart, normal people can dare! to think differently.
I thought the best solution is to ask Vysotskii directly asking him to tell with full sincerity and openness if he has changed his mind re Rossi
Prof. V.Vysotskii's answer:
I have not changed my opinion in this question. Regarding the features of working of the 1MW plant it is necessary an analysis by experts and the entire LENR community.. I still don't know all the details of this experiments but I know that there are enough highly qualified experts for this.
My opinion about the reliability of the Rossi experiments is based primarily on the result's of the Lugano group and the experiments of Parkhomov (who is a very qualified expert and knowe very well how to perform measurements.)
However the main merit of Rossi is his persistence in advancing developing experiments so he could show by simple means/devices that this direction is very effective and he has shown the skeptics, that there is a very great production of energy.
He succeeded to do what nobody was able after F&P. He take out the wheel of progress in nuclear physics buried in the earth for 40-50 years and started to move it in the right direction. It is obvious that without the isotopic measurements made at Lugano this would have been more difficult.
Peter, rather than be defensive, why not consider what I'm saying? It is obvious that LENR requires and is supported by some unique aspect of the physical-chemical environment. After all, LENR only takes place in certain materials after certain treatments. This required condition can be called unique because it rarely forms, as the rare formation of LENR demonstrates. For LENR to take place, something normally present in a material must change into something rare. You and other people do not focus on this change. Some people, such as Swartz, even totally reject such a condition.
1) LENR in Electric Arc-Plasma? Strike an Underwater Arc and CoP up to 8
DAILY NOTES
The evil spirit of destruction is still alive and ...popular.
September 11, 2001 is a sad day in the history of mankind; it has revealed that the very Meme of Destruction is alive and powerful and it is an attractor for amazingly many souls driven by hatred and envy who know no mercy, no reason, no limits.
My continent, Europe was treated by genetic engineering, acquiring plenty of genes of suicide and now is busy massively importing terror, trouble and terminators of civilization..
Prof. Vladimir Vysotskii is constant in his opinion about the role of Andrea Rossi
in the history of LENR
One of the faithful, constant, very loquacious IH supporters has obviously disliked
the fact that a great LENR scientist and fighter for LENR in his country, Prof. Vladimir Vysotskii has expressed honestly and openly his support for Andrea Rossi- considered by him the man who has liberated the Djinn of LENR from his bottle. Applying the standard procedure, the IH supporter (see comments on my blog, most recent issues) he has put in doubt the source for Vysotskii's statement- as if I have invented it. Then, despite the fact that my blog is easily he searchable and it
can be seen that two similar statements were made on May 16 and Aug 12, the attacker ignored the newer message and stated that due to the "very convincing"
proofs of IH (the Exhibits) Vladimir Vysotskii probably has changed his mind/opinion
and now is in the camp of the "good boys" This IH supporter/ manipulator is unable to understand or is programmed to not understand, that perfectly honest and smart, normal people can dare! to think differently.
I thought the best solution is to ask Vysotskii directly asking him to tell with full sincerity and openness if he has changed his mind re Rossi
Prof. V.Vysotskii's answer:
I have not changed my opinion in this question. Regarding the features of working of the 1MW plant it is necessary an analysis by experts and the entire LENR community.. I still don't know all the details of this experiments but I know that there are enough highly qualified experts for this.
My opinion about the reliability of the Rossi experiments is based primarily on the result's of the Lugano group and the experiments of Parkhomov (who is a very qualified expert and knowe very well how to perform measurements.)
However the main merit of Rossi is his persistence in advancing developing experiments so he could show by simple means/devices that this direction is very effective and he has shown the skeptics, that there is a very great production of energy.
He succeeded to do what nobody was able after F&P. He take out the wheel of progress in nuclear physics buried in the earth for 40-50 years and started to move it in the right direction. It is obvious that without the isotopic measurements made at Lugano this would have been more difficult.
An other aspect is that we cannot ask that he has already solved all the tasks/problems. Besides this, the majority of his results can be explained n the basis of my theoretical evaluations and models (i.a. with high probability the absence of radioactivity and of high intensity gammas and even the possibility of the self-sustaining regime of work which was observed in many researches) For this reason his results do not cause me inner discomfort , I understand them and I am not doing lobby for anybody.
Vladimir
Ed Storms answer for today.
Vladimir
Ed Storms answer for today.
For years, I have emphasized that two different conditions are required for LENR to occur. First, the condition, which I call the NAE, must form. Because this is a chemical process, its formation must obey the rules known to apply to chemical changes. Second, a nuclear process must take place in the NAE. Because this is a nuclear process, it can be described by quantum mechanics. These two process are related and interact with each other. Therefore, both need to be considered by a useful theory. This is not being done.
Instead, only the nuclear part is the focus of present theories. If the chemical part is acknowledged at all in a theory, it is given very little justification or is not described in a way to allow it to be effectively produced. Creation of the NAE is essential to cause the nuclear reaction. Unless the NAE is present, no nuclear process will operate no matter how cleverly described. Therefore, focus on the nuclear process is getting the cart before the horse. Why is this idea so hard for people to understand and accept?
My answer
Re NAE I agree and even pre-agree with Ed.
I regret that Ed has not criticized my Atomic model of LENR science and we still have not discussed if it is about a chemical environment or a material science phus nanometry plus catalysis environment But I still hope we will have time and opportunity for this. LENR - topology is indeed the key and synergy the door.
DAILY NEWSMy answer
Re NAE I agree and even pre-agree with Ed.
I regret that Ed has not criticized my Atomic model of LENR science and we still have not discussed if it is about a chemical environment or a material science phus nanometry plus catalysis environment But I still hope we will have time and opportunity for this. LENR - topology is indeed the key and synergy the door.
1) LENR in Electric Arc-Plasma? Strike an Underwater Arc and CoP up to 8
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3778-LENR-in-Electric-Arc-Plasma-Strike-an-Underwater-Arc-and-CoP-up-to-8/
3) Cold Fusion Videos - updated list
http://www.coldfusionvideos.com/
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
Thanks to Vladimir Vysotskii for informing about this:
Channeling 2016
7th International Conference
Charged & Neutral Particles Channeling Phenomena
https://agenda.infn.it/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=10663
LENR IN CONTEXT-2
The spirit of MFMP:
Open innovation, open science and open to the world
by Adi Gaskell
2) ХЯС = LENR ... - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiRg2YCbXcwneviPANZpKUBgnwY1r6f563) Cold Fusion Videos - updated list
http://www.coldfusionvideos.com/
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
Thanks to Vladimir Vysotskii for informing about this:
Channeling 2016
7th International Conference
Charged & Neutral Particles Channeling Phenomena
https://agenda.infn.it/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=10663
LENR IN CONTEXT-2
The spirit of MFMP:
Open innovation, open science and open to the world
by Adi Gaskell
Visotskii's opinion of A.R> is without merit. It is clear that ARA never allowed for a truely independent test. He had complte control of Lugano and the 1 MW test.
ReplyDeleteThe year long test was a scientific absurdity. The test should have taken less than one week.
Brilliant Light Power and Brillouin is using the same playbook. Never complete a test and ask for lots of money and years of time.
Dear Brian,
DeleteA good exercise in pessimism.
It would be fine if you could slternste your apocalyptic predictions re Rossi's inexistent and impossible technology and your predictios about who will NOT be at the Trial- with some positive information regarding the role of nano-magnetism in LENR, perhaps your own research in this direction. Otherwise you create the impression of depression, despair and disillusions overall.
You are a researcher, a good one not an amateur Doomsday popphet.
Regards,
Peter
the comment, to me, reads like someone who knew what was commonly thought a year ago, and up until the filing of Rossi v. Darden, when it became obvious that Industrial Heat, in spite of likely strong effort, highly motivated (money!), could not confirm Rossi's claims. It got even worse when IH presented Rossi emails as evidence, showing extensive deception. Rossi cannot be trusted, but Vysotskii is unaware of all that, and most scientists are actually trusting people, and here he is trusting the Lugano scientists and Parkhomov, considered confirmation of Rossi claims. Parkhomov is not a confirmation, in fact, and his work, at least until recently, was seriously flawed. Lugano made very clear errors, that are now widely known, but Vysotskii may be unaware of all that. He's busy with his own work, as is proper.
DeletePeter, your question was abusive, asking him to comment on something where he is not up to date. I simply asked you for source, being interested in when he said it, not claiming that he hadn't said it. You have become reactive-paranoid, like Rossi.
Post 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteThe LENR damping field
The fact that both eros and Holmlid do not see gamma radiation, or for that fact, not very much of any other type of ionizing radiation suggests that a LENR radiation damping field is in place within these experiments. This damping field makes figuring out what is going on difficult and otherworldly (aka the twilight zone).
The damping field is yet to be understood or even accepted by most everybody. This damping of ionizing EMF is caused by entanglement of sub atomic particles produced by nuclear reactions that occur under the causation of Bose condensation engendered by the ultras dense (metalized) hydrogen.
Distance from the reaction has no impact on entanglement, so secondary nuclear reactions that occur meters or even kilometers away from the Bose condensate are connected to and controlled by that condensate.
Energy from sub atomic particle decay(mesons, kaons, pions, muons) and secondary LENR catalyzed fissions and fusions are passed back to the condensate where they are stored and reformatted into heat, light, and XUV.
For example, as a speculation, fission and fusion could be going on inside the experimenter’s body, but the gamma radiation that would usually be localized to the site of that nuclear reaction would be sent back many meters to the Bose condensate. This mechanism would work toward mitigating the damage caused by muon catalyzed reactions and decay if not just result in a single and localized point of destruction in a very limited site, say a single cell.
What needs to be discovered is what radiation is mitigated by entanglement and which is not. Does LENR affect the body like a virus that will destroy a large number of cells without DNA damage or is DNA damage produced in LENR secondary radiation?
If Holmlid is producing fusion at the level he states he should be dead now. Something is occurring in LENR that is completely unanticipated. The energy that all those sub atomic particles are carrying is not being wasted, it must somehow be recycled around in the LENR reaction.
When is entanglement broken between the fuel and the muon?
LENR could behave like a hive of bees where the queen sends out workers to bring back food for the colony.
There is another possibility that would be even weirder. If the muon and the Bose condensate were energetically connected, then the muon might use the condensate (BEC) like an energy bank to withdraw energy from the concentrate as needed to keep it from decaying.
Only when the entanglement link is broken would the muon decay. The muon could travel a very long distance before it decayed. No matter how much lead that the muon passed through, the entangled muon still might not decay. In this situation where entanglement is broken, that entanglement would not return its energy of decay to the BEC and the muon would be on its own far from its place of birth.
Is bremsstrahlung (deceleration radiation) escape from entangled connect to the BEC or does bremsstrahlung of the decelerating muon sent back to the BEC?
eros might want to take his muon detector far from where his reactor is and test for muons.
It could be that there is LENR happening far from the fuel sending its energy back to the fuel even if the fuel was assumed to be inactive. As eros has mentioned that the fuel stays crazy for a long time unit it is destroyed by acid. The acid could disrupt quantum entanglement ending the connection between long lived muons and their home base: the "spent" fuel.
Post 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteMaybe LENR likes muons.
It could be possible that LENR wants to produce muons in preference to excess heat. A LENR experiment that shows little excess heat activity could still be producing loads of muons. When the LENR reaction is terminated, the excess heat production ceases but the production of muons could continue apace. It maybe that the fuel remains active but the fuel continues to live in stealth mode with the production of hard to detect muons going on for a long time as eros has observed until the fuel is destroyed.
Holmlid has observed that muons are produced for days and as long as weeks after the fuel has been retired. The fuel looks like it remains muon active.
The BOSENOVA
A test that would show if this line of thinking had any merit goes as follows:
If Bose condensation is producing the LENR shield, then the destruction of that shield could be done through the creation of a large magnetic field near the condensate.
What would happen is that the entangled connection to the muons would be terminated when the magnetic field produced by the electric arc destroyed the BEC. Some fraction of the energy stored in the BEC would be released as x-rays and XUV and the remote muons would be free to decay as they would in the REAL world.
Could the large magnetic fields reported by DGT also be some sort of reaction to the destruction of BEC entanglement and the release of stored BEC energy? DGT mentions seeing microscopic Bosenovas produced in their reactor. Could that be a product of the spark that they used?
From ICCF-18 theory paper from Dr Kim
The brackets { } contain axils additions to increase understanding.
"Nano-explosion (“Bosenova”) and super current
Hydrogen atoms in the ground state, excited states and/or Rydberg states may interact with each other via electric dipole or magnetic dipole interactions and/or other attractive interactions [34] to form pairs of hydrogen atoms in integer-spin states. These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in a {Localized Magnetic Trap} LMT {the LMT is the metalized hydrogen crystal} and form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT. Once the BCS is formed in a LMT, the {theory of Boson cluster state nuclear fusion} BCSNF theory described in the previous section 6 can be applied to describe the BCSNF process involving hydrogen.
The reaction rates for this hydrogen-metal system can be estimated using Eq. (13). For the one-particle exit reaction channel described by Eq. (14), the nano-explosion (“Bosenova”) mechanism is applicable, producing the excess heat as observed in the experiment described in sub-section 3.1. Furthermore, there will be creation of “super current” of protons due to the moving proton charges created from many nano-explosions. A substantial fraction of them is directed upward in reaction cells, thus generating the predicted proton super currents.
7.4. Super current and super magnetic field
These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic field which was observed as described in subsection 3.3. In fact, this mechanism can explain the observed time-correlation between (1) the excess heat generation and (2) the observed generation of super magnetic field of ~1.6 Tesla as described in sub-section 3.3. Therefore this time correlation can be explained by the nano-explosion mechanism as described above. This in turn supports the nano-explosion (“Bosenova”) mechanism for the BCSNF.
The experimental observation of the super magnetic field could serve as a signature of the BCSNF process for future low-energy reaction experiments.
This time correlation may also provide an important possibility that direct partial conversion of excess power generation to electric power may be possible utilizing the super magnetic field."
The take away as follows: BEC energy could be converted from the production of muons to the production of intense magnetic fields and the generation of excess heat through the discharge of a large spark.
thanks, dear Axil
Deletethese will go to your column today
peter
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf
ReplyDeleteNature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2
Edmund Storms and Brian Scanlan KivaLabs, LLC, Santa Fe, NM
The activated nuclei cannot be Al, Si, O, Ni, Fe, or Cr, because these elements are present in the sample and in construction materials, which show no such activation. Only the mica window of GM #1 contains elements not present anywhere else. These elements
are listed in Table 2 based on EDX analysis. Only C and K are present in the detector and nowhere else, both of which have unstable isotopes. A GM detector having a plastic window rather than one made from mica did not show this activation. Consequently, the likely activated nucleus is K40.
TABLE 2
Composition of mica window based on EDX analysis
C - 55 wt. %
O - 16 wt. %
Si - 10 wt. %
Al - 9 wt. %
K- 5 wt. %
Fe - 3 wt. %
Mg, Ti, Na - < 1 wt. %
The radiation being emitted by the sample is proposed to result from a fusion reaction that produces coherent photons. These photons are proposed to react with K40 nuclei in the mica window of the GM to stimulate its decay by beta and gamma emission that is easily detected by the GM. Some of the energetic gamma from this decay can reach GM #2 and cause a slight increase in count, as shown in Fig. 13.
Ed Storms saw muon catalyzed fusion in the window of his GM counter and the effects of that fusion event on energetic gamma recording and transmutation in the mica window of the GM counter.
It is well established that LENR occurs in microorganisms and the guts of chickens. How such low level LENR reactions can produce transmutations without killing the organism is something to think about. It would be interesting to place a muon detector near these extremophile microorganisms who are resistant to nuclear activity to check for any muon emissions as they feed on nuclear waste.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that LENR BEC processes somehow protects these bugs from the effects of high level radioactive wastes?
Axil
DeleteWhy is LENR in chickens and not
other animals?
Sam
Axil calls it "well established" but it is not. There are reports of biological LENR, and the best are from Vysotskii, but even Vysotskii is unconfirmed (except by Vysotskii) work with microorganisms, like bacteria and yeasts. The work is experimental and results appear good, but the standard for acceptance is in independent confirmation and reconfirmation.
DeleteVysotskii's recent paper: http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0608.pdf
"Chickens" would be Kervran. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corentin_Louis_Kervran. The comments there are essentially the biological transmutation of unconfirmed work into bullshit.
(they use weak sources like Skeptical Inquirer, which, as a quasi-political organization, should only be used as a source with attribution. What they say is not fact, often, but opinion. By selecting negative sources and ignoring the other side, Wikipedia articles become biased, this is an example. There is definitely scientific discouse on biological transmuation.
And I don't particularly believe in biological transmutation, I merely don't reject it as impossible. Proteins can do amazing things.And I find Vysotskii interesting.
Biberian supports biological transmutation and was published under peer review last year, with http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0633.pdf
Thanks for the comment from Vysotskii. You are referring to me, and my question was essentially whether or not he was informed about recent revelations about Rossi, so I wanted source so I could date it. You have consistently misrepresented my comments and positions.
ReplyDeleteHis answer shows that he is not informed, he is relying on old impressions and analysis. I will bring him up to speed if he wants it.