Ken Shoulders ; The Man Who Made Black Holes

    Quote from Director

    I also expect that in most LENR experiments where any excess heat is being produced strange radiation can be detected coming from the reactor. I wonder what signature these would make when striking an antenna?


    I think that continuous random emission of penetrating particles that at least to some extent ionize the matter they pass through will produce a broadband electrical disturbance. Under normal circumstances this might not be easily distinguishable from direct RF noise.



    Quote from DnG

    If you get the reaction to a electromagnetic wave, you can see it on a weather radar.


    True. Local authorities might try getting your equipment confiscated and fine you for illegal broadcasting if your activity disrupts local ones enough.

    My number one question right now is which came first, the strange radiation or the EVO?


    Is strange radiation a grouping of EVOs into a larger structure? Or, is strange radiation something else? Does strange radiation form when EVOs destroy themselves?

    My view is that "strange radiation" is an umbrella term for the not easily characterized macroscopic emissions or effects arising when ion-embedding EVOs are destroyed or in the process of getting destroyed, and that more than one type (or stage) might have been called with this name.


    As long one or more such EVOs are kept still in place, no large effect happens and thus no strange radiation is normally observed. In systems like those with energetic spark discharges in light water (water explosion experiments), formation processes might essentially be in equilibrium with destruction processes, which means that they will not be easily distinguished from each other and that there would be limited or no possibility of accumulation.

    Quote from can

    My view is that "strange radiation" is an umbrella term for the not easily characterized macroscopic emissions or effects arising when ion-embedding EVOs are destroyed or in the process of getting destroyed, and that more than one type (or stage) might have been called with this name.


    As long one or more such EVOs are kept still in place, no large effect happens and thus no strange radiation is normally observed. In systems like those with energetic spark discharges in light water (water explosion experiments), formation processes might essentially be in equilibrium with destruction processes, which means that they will not be easily distinguished from each other and that there would be limited or no possibility of accumulation.


    Here is a [ictue of wht an EVO is and some experimental insights to boot.


    https://translate.google.com/t…6SHOWALL_1%3D1&edit-text=


    Features of the periodic discharge in the fluid flow and the specifics of its impact on the electrode material

    Russian EVO

    Electron clusters or EVO's may substitute for 'heavy electrons' or muons in forming ultra dense deuterium or hydrogen in the few microseconds preceding fusion. Strange radiation emitted from the reactor is probably a mix of beta, gamma, alpha, proton and neutron fusion products.

    Quote from Director

    My number one question right now is which came first, the strange radiation or the EVO?


    Is strange radiation a grouping of EVOs into a larger structure? Or, is strange radiation something else? Does strange radiation form when EVOs destroy themselves?

    not keeping anything back, I just don't know, Sorry .

    Quote from Dr Richard

    Electron clusters or EVO's may substitute for 'heavy electrons' or muons in forming ultra dense deuterium or hydrogen in the few microseconds preceding fusion. Strange radiation emitted from the reactor is probably a mix of beta, gamma, alpha, proton and neutron fusion products.


    Ultra-dense hydrogen might indeed be what Ken Shoulders would have considered hydrogen atoms-embedded EVOs, or more generally speaking hydrogen atoms with a special electron configuration. However, muons are not involved with their formation as they have a rather short lifetime, while both EVOs and ultra-dense hydrogen are supposed to be indefinitely stable as long as they are left undisturbed; they might be part of what is sometimes called "strange radiation", on the other hand.

    Quote from can

    My view is that "strange radiation" is an umbrella term for the not easily characterized macroscopic emissions or effects arising when ion-embedding EVOs are destroyed or in the process of getting destroyed, and that more than one type (or stage) might have been called with this name.


    As long one or more such EVOs are kept still in place, no large effect happens and thus no strange radiation is normally observed. In systems like those with energetic spark discharges in light water (water explosion experiments), formation processes might essentially be in equilibrium with destruction processes, which means that they will not be easily distinguished from each other and that there would be limited or no possibility of accumulation.


    Here is a [ictue of wht an EVO is and some experimental insights to boot.


    https://translate.google.com/t…6SHOWALL_1%3D1&edit-text=


    Features of the periodic discharge in the fluid flow and the specifics of its impact on the electrode material

    Russian EVO

    In the context of the reviewing process I mentioned earlier, I collected some information on the electrolytic cell associated with the "Neal-Gleeson process" that was sometimes mentioned by Hal Fox relatively to Charge clusters / EVOs. Posting here too (from my notes) as this could be interesting or informative for others as well.


    * * *


    Between the mid 1990s and the early 2000s, Stan Gleeson (occasionally spelled Gleason) worked with the currently disbanded Cincinnati Group (a "religiously-inspired group of researchers" according to a source) on a high-pressure electrolytic cell for nuclear waste remediation, using light water and Zr or Ti electrodes. From the abandoned 2003 patent application the design seems simple enough to be adapted for atmospheric (open) operation with less hazardous elements.


    Operating characteristics were such that spark discharges occurred, as well as extensive electrode erosion. AC was typically used by the group, but DC could be as well. To be clear, this cell has been cited by Hal Fox and others in the context of Charge Clusters / EVOs as the "Neal-Gleeson process", with Neal being a co-author from the original Cincinnati group.


    "Old guard" cold fusion researchers do not seem to think that the cell worked as claimed: according to Jed Rothwell, who thinks that the initial measurements were crude, Michael McKubre suspected that cell seals were not good enough and thus that the inventors were breathing radioactive particles and that radioactivity was lost that way. Peter Gluck has written that in testing at ITIM (in Cluj, Romania) on a cell that was donated to him by Stan Gleeson it was shown that the radioactivity was transferred to the precipitate formed during operation and therefore that no global reduction in radioactivity was occurring.


    Inventor deaths

    Stan Gleeson died at age 48 in year 2000, together with the other inventor from the Cincinnati group Donald Holloman (also known as Don) in 2004 due to radiation-induced complications. Peter Gluck mentioned that they died of leukemia and that in their later period of activity they worked on experiments with Americium.


    Patent application

    US20030201167A1 - Pressurized electro-hydraulic processing means


    Patent application number: 10/128,292, 60/052,077 (provisional, not available)


    Abstract

    Quote

    A pressurized electrochemical bulk-process method & apparatus, adapted to real-time tracking and adjustment of electro-hydraulic parameters, comprising a high-pressure reaction chamber of the type of a horizontal cylindrical electrolytic cell, whose zirconium walls constitute one electrode in contact with an electrolytic solvent containing the target material to be processed. The other electrode is a thin vertical zirconium disk partially submerged in the electrolyte, which fills less than half of the chamber. Because the electrolyte's resistance is not constant, the current cannot be controlled merely by adjusting the voltage in the 60-cycle AC current; instead, the current amperage must be monitored in real time and the voltage either lowered in response to sharp amperage increases in order to keep the cell's temperature (and hence its pressure) below the safety limits at which the disk-shaped Teflon end-gaskets sealing the cylinder's ends will rupture, or else increased, during normal operation, to compensate for decreases in current caused by various reactions occurring in the electrolyte.


    Summary

    • Zirconium electrodes
      • Titanium also suggested in the patent description
      • Cylinder walls as one electrode
      • Counterelectrode as a vertical disk (washer) partially immersed in the electrolyte
    • 60 Hz AC current used (typically)
      • 40-200V, 0-10A
    • Operating temperature 15-150 °C
    • Electrolyte resistance not constant
    • Sharp current increases possible (i.e. spark discharges)
    • Control through current (amperage), not voltage


    Apparatus diagrams

    From presumably the provisional patent application (not accessible), as pictured on Infinite-Energy on issue #13-#14. The diagram on the actual (abandoned) patent application is better crafted and clearer.



    From OPERATING THE LENT-1 TRANSMUTATION REACTOR: A PRELIMINARY REPORT by Hal Fox and Shang-Xian Jin:



    Comments

    • Both electrodes are defined oxidizing.
      • My interpretation of this is that the authors mean that they can form stable oxides, and zirconium is one such metal.
    • When DC is used, I believe that the outer electrode, being larger, would more likely be the anode as it would get proportionally damaged less over time.
    • The "inert" electrolytes used may include include sodium silicate, sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3), or in alternative: lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and acetic acid (C2H4O2).
    • To me it seems that coupled with temperature they would made for a harsh corrosive environment that would promote the formation of suspended particles that would promote the occurrence of spark discharges when a current is passed through the electrodes.
      • This appears to be supported by anecdotal evidence and personal experience on somewhat similar experiments, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the patent application.


    Various links where the Cincinnati Group cell is mentioned

    Quote from LeBob

    Maybe it's not all D-D fusion. If you have a condensed Hydrogen construct with similar behavior to a micro black hole, some energetic dense hydrogen charged plasmoid torus... More like matter evaporation in a spinning black holes accretion disk. Much better than fusion, complete releasing and recondensing of the atomic structure. The transmutation is always to stable elements. Maybe..

    Why did Ken Shoulders name the EVO an exotic vacuum object...because that is exactly what it is.


    The LHC found that the Higgs field (aka vacuum) is set on the finest of points.


    Calculations show that if the mass of the Higgs boson were just a few times heavier and everything else stayed the same, protons could no longer assemble into atoms, and there would be no complex structures—no stars or living beings. So, what if our universe really is as accidentally fine-tuned as a pencil balanced on its tip, singled out as our cosmic address from an inconceivably vast array of bubble universes inside an eternally frothing “multiverse” sea simply because life requires such an outrageous accident to exist?


    The Higgs field is set exactly on its tipping point, just like if water was set at its triple point


    triple_1.png


    bottle.png


    groph.png


    If the strength of the Higgs field is increased or decreased by the slightest amount then there would be a change of state that would occur in the vacuum. For example, if water is moved off its triple point in the slightest way, it would begin to transform into a vapor, or a liquid, or ice.


    In like manner to what happens in a change in state of water, If the strength of the vacuum changes in the slightest, then atoms would not exist, neither would electrons or protons; all matter would resolve down to pure energy.


    There are processes that exist in nature in electromagnetic and particle interactions and in chemistry that create a tightly confined bubble of the Higgs field whose strength is different from that finely tuned value that keeps our universe from falling apart. This is what an EVO is, a rouge perturbative bubble of the vacuum.


    The EVO can begin its existence as an nanoscopic object, but its effect on matter is still potent. As it grows in size into the macroscopic, its vacuum state may change, but its effect on matter remains the same, when the EVO reaches a macroscopic size, its effects on matter remain constant throughout its lifecycle. What matters is that the vacuum state confined inside the EVO is different than the value of the vacuum throughout the rest of the universe.


    Whatever matter that this bubble of the vacuum contacts will dissociate and dissolve into energy. When the true Higgs field is restored, then matter will assemble into its usual state of protons, electrons, and atoms just like this formation of matter happened soon after the big bang occured when the Higgs field assumed its current strength.


    This is how and why transmutation occurs in LENR...matter to energy and then back to matter.


    Inside that EVO with its own vacuum state, there exists another universe where life and matter cannot survive. Does space-time even exist inside the EVO? Where does matter go when it comes in contact with the EVO? Can energy leak out of the EVO? Who will run the experiments to answer these questions?

    Quote from RobertBryant

    I could not see the mobile NAE moving..

    Maybe modern SEMs can do videos,, but not the ones I knew.


    The track shows an EVO hopping along and where it touches the surface it disintegrates matter.


    Keith Fredericks, a presenter at ICCF22, has studied these tracks over many years. He has preserved many tracks found by many LENR experiments. Check out these track as found on his site http://restframe.com/mm/authors/keith-fredericks/


    TBH this is the best i've seen this interpretation or theory described since i've been following this, but i'm wondering if the same affect can be achieved with a condensed matter arrangement. I agree with the matter to energy thing the disruption of a fine balance. ATM I'm not even sure if the universe is expanding or the redshift background is actually the result of what we call dark matter, that isn't actually dark just dim. In my mind it's condensed exotic matter based energy in a steady state/yoyo universe approach or the standard dark energy expanding universe model, ohh yea in which EVOs change the fundamental values of the vacuum.. That just sounds almost metaphysical. I'm not even sure if these two approaches are at odds or I am just looking at it wrong. Open to the amazing possibilities, Thanks!

    Quote from axil

    The track shows an EVO hopping along and where it touches the surface it disintegrates matter.

    When you refer to mobile NAE, is that, in your opinion the same thing as a EVO hopping along? I suspect they are usually different. An EVO doesn't need any hydrogen to form, just some way to roll the air into a ball of capacitance where as NAE have been characterized as a dense cluster of hydrogen.


    The common characteristic of an EVO and NAE is transmutation, the transmutation mechanism may be the same for both but, I am not ready to offer an explanation of transmutation by an EVO because of its uncertain composition.


    NAE produces a fuel and is a catalyst per my posts. The energy of the fuel is in the form of a w-waves which are a superpostioning of a weak state on the atoms that will receive that energy and as a giant nuclear dipole resonance. The fuel preserves the energy of fusion/fission. The rest of the transmutation story, is in a previous post and is as follows:

    The w-waves then tend to deposit in nucleon rich elements exposed to the catalyst, Hence, w-wave concentrate mostly to the metals in the electrode surface. That lowers the coulomb barrier (by dipole shielding) of those w-activated elements which leads to fusion. However, the fusion products are mostly non-stable isotopes due their high atomic weight, so they fission. Fission leaves a pattern of isotopes which is characteristic of the parent unstable isotope. In ICCF-7 Miley provides data which can confirm what I just wrote. See "Product Characteristics and Energetic in Thin-Film Electrolysis Experiments." He states: "the proton-metallic lattice form a complex intermediate nucleus that subsequently fissions producing the observed product array."

    I find only confusion in the effort to combine LENR with the EVO of Shoulders, the hydrino of Miles, the Muon of Holmild, and the Hydroton of Storms. These concepts are each so incompletely understood and so different, trying to talk about them in the same discussion is rather pointless.


    As for the Hydroton idea, I believe and the behavior shows that this chemical structure is only stable in a gap having a very narrow range of values. It forms by a normal chemical process involving release of Gibbs energy and it remains stable as long as the Gibbs energy required to cause decomposition is not available. However, once formed, it allows an unusual kind of nuclear interaction to take place that results in fusion of the hydrogen isotopes in the Hydroton and transmutation with nuclei present in the gap structure. Once form, it does not move because this would require too much chemical energy, which is not available.


    If you want to understand how the Hydroton forms and remains chemically stable, you only need to apply the well known laws of thermodynamics. Nothing about how the Hydroton forms or remains chemically stable is unusual. Except for its ability to support nuclear reactions, it acts like an ordinary chemical structure. Even if the condition is called "the proton-metallic lattice form a complex intermediate nucleus" (Miley), chemical rules and behavior are involved and must be acknowledged.


    If you want to apply your imagination, I suggest you focus on how a chemical structure can cause a nuclear reaction and how the energy can be dissipated as heat without producing radiation detectable outside of the apparatus. Nevertheless, the radiation is detectable when measured inside the apparatus without the intervening mass. Rather than generating word salad, I suggest any effort to create a theory acknowledge what is known in chemistry because this is not just a physics problem.


    The EVO is the NAE that can be produced in a microcavity. The EVO is a spinor condensate.


    An EVO (monopole) can be formed from only one type of spinor. The spinor can come from an electron (a Dirac spinor) or a spinor from a Weyl fermion. But EVOs (dipole) can be formed from 2 spinors from the left and right handed electron state. These spinors can come from an electron or a neutrino. But electrons are a lot easier to work with than neutrinos are. A spinor is made up of the weak hypercharge property and the isospin property of the fermion. The Higgs field is a weak hypercharge condensate.


    For more background see


    https://www.quantumdiaries.org…ality-mass-and-the-higgs/


    This is a diagram of dipole spinor currents in a polariton condensate becoming a monopole.


    1-physicistsob.jpg


    This is a pictures of freshly produced EVOs showing a spinor ring current. It is a polariton petal condensate that can form in a microcavity.


    48d65a7803c8e478b676e382f90e9d4ddef7d65da5a70319b3d687d704a8dc13.jpg



    This picture shows a fully developed EVO which has become a supersolid. A lattice of spinors can become so dense that a supersolid forms. This EVO has come from fuel from the ECCO reactor, and has produced a track on a surface that matches the outline of the spinor hexagonal lattice as shown in the picture. This may be a monopole with the spinor flux tube taking the form of the hexagonal lattice.


    f319759a8c6cd7f20278c45cbeaaacc22c927e7f24e4d1c89ddfedc9458a3436.gif

    • Official Post

    Dear Mr. Storms, I agree that these different ideas can’t be assumed to be the same but, as a person looking from a wider perspective, I (among many) see points of encounter between those concepts, that you say are not related, which tells us that they can be the expressions of a same underlying phenomena.


    Nuclear reactions of transmutation have been observed in solid samples of ferrite and stainless steel completely in absense of hydrogen loading, and also in liquid mercury without hydrogen loading (at least not voluntarily induced). This has been achieved by inducing cavitation on those samples, so one could deduce that the Action of the NAE does not require the formation of the hydroton. The team of Cardone et al, the performers of plenty of cavitation experiments with nuclear effects, have concluded that what creates the NAE in these cases is the transitory collapse of nanometer sized bubbles formed by the ultrasound. They have also learnt that there are controllable parameters that need to be pushed beyond a threshold to cause the nuclear effect. They derived an extension of Einstein’s relativity which they call Deformed Space Time to explain how the cavitation causes the nuclear effects that are completely outside of what conventional theories could expect or predict. All of this is just to say that the NAEs could be more than a lattice condition as you suggest and that the hydroton is not the only way to obtain LENR.


    I think this paper by Albertini and Rogante summarize the cavitation induced NAE very well. http://www.claudiopace.it/wp-c…tini-final-version_02.pdf

    It is the ego that causes us to avoid comparison and shun compromise between theories and experimental procedures to find truth. I say try as much as possible that has been backed by the research and math of others even if parts of our pet theory may be disproven. Physics and chemistry are both important in this field as well as nano tech and electromagnetic processes. The general forming picture seems to be, as a newcomer looking and observing for the past couple years, that novel hydrogen (HH, hh or DD, dd) based exotic matter structures enable energetic chemical/nuclear reactions, transmutation with little radiation and mostly stable products. I may be wrong but to intuit that these supposedly "competing" ideologies are describing the same thing or slight variations of the same process is on the good side of crazy.


    One thing I will say, this is not some pseudoscience scalar wave overunity energy thing, those ideas are holding us back from understanding the strange but real nuclear/chemical/quantum processes. The active agent is real, cause there are exotic objects that are not organised the same as standard matter. Whether it is a Hydroton, exotic matter cluster condensate whatever, if it's real it works within math and the fundamental laws of physics! A beautiful denser substance that can pass through matter as well as affect it stronger than anything we control presently. The most awesome thing is you can create a black hole like effect with the right situation, releasing copious amounts of energy and plowing through stable elements powerfully. Maybe this is actually instrumental in powering the stars, the planets, comprises most dark matter and what we now call black holes. I Admire Shoulders for his black hole analogy, clarifying that there may be more than just chemical and expected 'easy' fission/fusion pathways going on, something a lot more explosive yet safer. I guess it is changing the fundamental foundations of stable matter and causing matter to disintegrate. Holmid, Mills and Wyttenbach makes a lot of sense to me as well. Bob Greeners work with the transmutation charts and stuff is encouraging At the moment to!


    Are they really that different though??? Who's to say that the Hydroton does not exist at the same time as Mills like hydrogen chemical power releases? Again we can label things and put up fences but it's like trying to trademark a fundamental (O + HH = H2O + e) reaction. This is a new class of complex matter energy interactions that are going on all over the place and present all over the universe. Just like there are many different chemical reactions and understood brute force isotopic nuclear reactions involving unstable elements and high energy inputs, there will be varieties of approaches that may all work at varying levels. Like burning wood or a fuel cell just quite a few orders of a magnitude more cosmic in application and energy density.

    @LeBob


    With the advent of the Higgs field and the verification of how fermions acquire mass, it is apparent that fermions can be dismantled into their constituent quantum properties. These properties can be accumulated into a Bose condensate. The EVO is a Dirac spinor, actually two, that have been extracted from electrons.


    In more detail, the electron is made up of 4 spinors, two make and electron and 2 make a positron. an EVO (monopole) can be formed from only one type of spinor. But EVOs (dipole) can be formed from 2 spinors from the left(north magnetic pole) and right handed(south magnetic pole) electrons. A spinor is made up of the weak hypercharge property and the isospin property of the fermion. The Higgs field is a weak hypercharge condensate.


    The weak hypercharge property causes the fermion to flip its handedness. This flipping is what adds energy to the fermion and that energy addition produces mass. The Higgs field is what does the flipping.


    For more background see


    https://www.quantumdiaries.org…ality-mass-and-the-higgs/


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_spinor

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.