Ken Shoulders ; The Man Who Made Black Holes

  • 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.



    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.

  • 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.

  • 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 .

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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