The Petal Condensate

nul-points, since you ask, I'll quote the points H-G made that I think are interesting, if you'd like to address them (or perhaps not):

"several pictures of microscopic tracks on various surfaces have been shown in some threads on this forum. For lack of other explanation they have been ascribed to 'strange radiation'. ... Certainly a single Strange Radiation Particle cannot generate tracks like these. It would take a beam of such particles. This beam must be deflected and perhaps also modulated to create the repetitive patterns that distinguish those tracks."

"Finely focused particle beams do not materialize spontaneously, they have to be engineered using a particle already known to science."

Is there anything there you agree with? Is there anything you disagree with? These are statements H-G made, and they can be considered and addressed on their merits.

https://www.universetoday.com/…ing-cosmic-rays-in-space/

there are more videos on this with deeper understandings if you look for them.

what would you call the rection of hematite with low voltage matter reaction `

lotsa reading .

I know you guy read this stuff.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-…overed-particles.html#jCp

Quote from Eric Walker

nul-points, since you ask, I'll quote the points H-G made that I think are interesting, if you'd like to address them (or perhaps not):

"several pictures of microscopic tracks...."

"Finely focused particle beams ...

Is there anything there you agree with? Is there anything you disagree with? These are statements H-G made, and they can be considered and addressed on their merits.

Display More

i think it's necessary to go slightly further back in time to get a representative overview of the 'interesting points' offered from that source, Eric

you don't have to go back very far, to find that Axil was being pressed to provide information about a reference he made to GeV energy levels n LENR

Axil replied earnestly, at some length, posting his sources - i offered another source to augment Axil's reply

Did this result in a round of informed discussion from the questioner? If you're interested an example of 'the merits' of his contributions, why not scroll back a little and see how interested he really was after his questions had been answered?

You suggest some good questions in your list above - many of them are answered in the papers being noted, it's obvious that some people who visit this site are not at all interested in reading, thinking, discussing and comparing information about the evidence for LENR - instead they visit for their own sad entertainment, scoring self-satisfying points off honest & diligent 'home-students' like Axil, whose moral stature puts them to shame

i hope i've answered your question

[sr]

Quote from Seiber Troutman

I know you guy read this stuff.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-…overed-particles.html#jCp

nice link, thanks Seiber

...but be careful talking about "physics beyond our current understanding, including undiscovered particles."... windows get broken - you know what i mean?!? LOL

Quote from nul-points

i think it's necessary to go slightly further back in time to get a representative overview of the 'interesting points' offered from that source, Eric

We're not, to my knowledge, attempting to arrive at an overall assessment of H-G's character or contribution (nor should we). I mentioned the matter of some substantive points he raised, some of which I just mentioned.

Quote from nul-points

Did this result in a round of informed discussion from the questioner? If you're interested an example of 'the merits' of his contributions, why not scroll back a little and see how interested he really was after his questions had been answered?

You appear to be seeking to make a case against H-G. In doing so, you are overlooking some substantive discussion I just referred to and are getting into matters of character (ad hominem). If his questions have been addressed elsewhere, please refresh our memory as to what the answers were or bring additional information you may be aware of to bear on the discussion. When papers are mentioned, it's good to extract the relevant concepts and weave them into the discussion, relating them to earlier things that have been said.

When we focus instead on H-G's alleged unworthiness, we allow the discussion to be detained in tangents about people's personalities rather than considering facts and science. Although some people will try to score points, as you say, intelligent readers will not be distracted by weak arguments, which can always be politely rebutted. And the points H-G made above that I referred to were not weak ones.

If anyone willing to attempt building the design above be warned, it seems any conventional wiring will be obliterated within the mix of clay hematite mix. the use of mercury within a void seems to be the only alternative other to make a skeleton connect the dot exterior attachment which I believe defeats the holding charge within the salt voids in the clay body.

Alan Smith

Here's another cosmic thunderbird (links to arxiv.org), with energies in the PeV range.

((Submitted on 27 May 2016 (v1), last revised 18 Jun 2018 (this version, v2)))

"The IceCube neutrino discovery was punctuated by three showers with Eν ~
1-2 PeV. Interest is intense in possible fluxes at higher energies, though a
marked deficit of Eν ~ 6 PeV Glashow resonance events implies a spectrum
that is soft and/or cutoff below ~few PeV. However, IceCube recently reported a
through-going track event depositing 2.6 ± 0.3 PeV. A muon depositing so
much energy can imply Eνμ≳ 10 PeV. We show that extending the
soft E−2.6ν spectral fit from TeV-PeV data is unlikely to yield such an
event. Alternatively, a tau can deposit this much energy, though requiring
Eντ ~10x higher. We find that either scenario hints at a new flux,
with the hierarchy of νμ and ντ energies suggesting a window
into astrophysical neutrinos at Eν ~ 100 PeV if a tau. We address
implications, including for ultrahigh-energy cosmic-ray and neutrino origins."