Posts by Wyttenbach

    Yes, Rossi has very loyal friends. Let us see if they take the stand for him.

    This is easily understood: AR is a human opposite to IH, that is a soulless investment construct. Nevertheless many people here do not hesitate to invest their loyalty ...

    5.) The McKubre figure illustrates a biased point of view. Enough similar results at D/Pd<0.85 exist to again indicate loading level is of secondary importance.

    Kirk always likes to stay in a safe haven. So don't fight him with old stuff!

    Recently (couldn't find the ref...) Storms? told that only one initial Pd loading around 1:1 is needed. As soon as the reaction is running, it goes on even with loads below 50%! Today loadings above 1:1 are possible and in mixed systems they already talk of factors 2-3.

    But Kirk is absolutely right if he says Pdxy D-D fusion is a surface effect.

    Please do longer discuss old style Pd-D-D fusion experiments. These may be interesting as demos or as a theory test-bed. Nobody intends to burn down (transmute) Palladium any more, if there are cheaper material around. Mixed fuels containing PdZrOCuNiAlLi work even with hydrogen. See newest Asti papers.

    Iwamure Asti : IwamuraYanomaloushea.pdf

    Or Hagelstein :

    A broad discussion : V.F. Zelensky

    Or if you do not buy that; LENR seems stuck in neutral, little advanced since FPs, and maybe the way to get it moving again is some good old fashioned gossip.

    Shane D. : If I extrapolate my talks, then we are close to a solution of most theortic LENR problems. But most researchers fall quiet, when they feel beeing close to the target...

    Of course nobody will discuss (the deeper math/reasons of) his findings on this forum. Luckily for us, some researcher still publish key result, without knowing the implications for the theory veryfication process...

    When were they so happy with Rossi's reactor? A long time before the test. The dummy reactor? That showed that a Rossi test could be 100% wrong. The Swedes however and Penon etc were all saying tests were OK. The Ferrara tests, after that, were pretty convincing. In retrospect (and I at the time) it is easy to see Rossi is a flake. IH bet that he must have something, rather like you KeV they read Mats book (or equivalent) and in spite of reservations felt it was too good a chance to miss.

    Genadi, on his thread posted, some nice Russian Rossi repros, that were recently made. Ni LENR seems to work very, very well...

    The Ni-H LiAlH4 repros.

    • Turbo pump capable of 10"6 Torr vacuum pressure

    Reaction Chamber (Denton TX)

    • 38 cm deep by 40 cm diameter cylindrical reaction chamber with eleven 2.75 inch

    diameter radial ports, four 2.75 inch diameter bottom ports, and one 8 inch diameter horizontal port used for turbo pump assembly

    • Two roughing pumps in combination with a turbo pump capable of vacuum pressures between 2* 10"6 Torr and 760 Torr

    This is more than most people can afford. Lipinskis worked at Military labs and at well equipped Universities. They have done 1000+ experimental runs. Their work is ongoing, may be as a part of the military next strategic reactor campaign, which also includes the boron reactor (100mio+ kick-off investment..).

    They actually work on a plasma based Li-H fusion reactor. But this is much more demanding that the lithium disk experiments.

    I remember looking at this. the patent is honest, and makes clear that he has no clear experimental evidence for his suppositions. The results which he claims support this are very indirect, and could be due to many different things. The results quoted in the rest of the patent are (he says) what he would expect to happen according to his weird theory, not what he has gathered.

    THHuxleynew : It is obvious that you in reality only "over-looked" at it, not even grasped that there are two Lipinski's doing the work together. May be by reading the first ten lines it's difficult to judge the scientific content of this breakthrough patent-paper.

    The claims that Lipinski(s) make, are in fact very direct as they measure the 4He production as a LENR fusion output of 7Li+H.

    Of course you are right, that the theory presented in the patent is not proven by their work, that instead directly refutes their theory...

    But this is a mirror image of the US schizophrenic research environment. You are only allow to publish military relevant facts if, an expert, – like you did –, because of obvious “nonsense”, stops further reading and sets the signature...

    "Mimicking cuprates: large orbital polarization in a metallic square-planar nickelate"

    nterestingly I have recently been informally approached about the possibility of doing some related work by a European superconductivity group, though I'm far from sure that it will happen.

    Some "strange things" must happen dring the build up of the material as they use a LENR active mixture of H2 & Ar, which, under certain conditions, can be used to build up strong fields. Further on during my latest investigations I found that Pr has an extreme low energetic lower nuclear µPr level (base level > 4 is very large) and can participate in a short time high field build up.

    Even more interesting is 142Pr which can switch the nuclear field within a (nuclear) range of 4 keV. Thus I would recommend to add traces of 141Pr to any Ni LENR as a catalyst to support/build up the needed fields.

    Does it even look like one? I suspect actual nuclear protonic orbitals may be considered NO Larger than 1/1837th of any outer electronic orbital.

    Longview : Try once to calculate the spin-spin interaction force of a shrunken Hydrogen and a Fe nucleus. (Fe charge radius 3.7384 fm u iron at nucleus ???)

    The field of a femto Hydrogen is much stronger becaus the electron speed is close to max (c) and the field density increases with 1/r2.

    Usually such potentials turn out to be in the MeV region, but we are in a deep dark hole of physics, because there is no known exact theory that works.

    If you go to R.Mills theory, then you will also notice that at least for Deuterium there is no strong force that is holding p+n together... A lot of work to do.

    You seem to disagree, and believe the Li isotopic profile demonstrates that somehow. So, please explain, with logic or evidence, why you think that the Uppsala ash analysis cannot be reasonably explained as the result of Rossi tampering versus transmutation.

    I sincerely and earnestly am interested in challenges to this conclusion, as it helps me and others on this forum learn.

    sigmoidal : As an inventor of fake facts it's up to you to proove, where we can buy 99% 62Ni (20% molar content) mixed with 80% molar content of 6,7Li with an unnatural isotope ratio.

    You have to explain us how somebody could generate such a mixture and how such a mixture can survive 1300C - just to be stable in one grain...

    What I learnt of you: The fake facts that Brian once invented must hold for ever... and that pure means 16% content like for orange juice.

    PS: Before you start the next desperate move, keep in mind that the table you consulted does not show all isotopes.., masses 23, 69 were also found in high percentages.. thus my figures given 20/80% are in reality much lower...

    Moved from this thread. Eric

    I'm sorry that you share some of Axil's deficiencies. It's very hard to have a 'conversation' with you for the same reasons: 1) you rarely contribute anything useful and 2) you have a hard time learning from others.

    sigmoidal : Thus how would you rate your contribution??

    100% pure 62Ni bought at XY by AR -- but you have simply forgotten to look at the huge amount of 6Li/7Li inside the same particle.....

    My rating would be underground or simply desperate.

    Or can you show us a source that sells pure 62Ni with 80 molar content of Li in an unnatural composition?

    I then went on to state that a reasonable alternate explanation to the Ni62 ash being from LENR reactions was that it was simply tampered with by Rossi.

    sigmoidal : I explained it to you once before and you repeat your FUD again. The Ni62 was found on the surface of a grain. In many LENR experiments you see surface hot spots of transmutations.

    Other physical explanations for accumulation exist too! Like fractionation under magnet fields. For me your's & PGM's similar claim is just an indication of desperation. Did you ever see a fool playing a year long magic trick??

    Thus, don't be foolish, because after we once know the real story, may be the wrong claims will point at you.

    Regarding Ni62, the alternate explanation is that Rossi purchased Ni62 and swapped tampered with the sample.

    sigmoidal : Can you point us to a proof of your conjecture? E.g. as sales record?

    I believe Rossi bought his E-cat on E-Bay. This damn rippled Alumina Tube looked like the heater in my washing machine...

    Since our lab near London is getting ever busier, I am repeating a post I made appealing for help a year ago. None was forthcoming.

    However, If you move your operation to my "lab" on the west coast of Canada, I might consider switching...

    @What about mentally joining forces and avoiding same mistakes/bad experiements (and not hiding tiny success..).

    Skip are you from Vancouver?

    The polarization of nuclear spin axes with static magnetic field does not affect nuclear beta "decay" rates, but the addition of a perpendicular high frequency alternating field at the Larmor frequency, does. With maximum stimulation, does not occur exactly at 90deg nuclear spin precession, but at some angles a little below and a little above 90deg ....

    Elisha : The idea sounds good, but the reality is at it's ods. I investiagted the Ni orbits the last days and I can only recommend you to think it over. To align a nuclear spin and not the orbitals spins of the electron cloud!, then you must have access to orbits that directly couple with the nuclear spin. Unluckily in Ni the nucleus seems to be very heavy screend from the outer 18 electrons!

    As I said Miles Mathis is just flying above surface, he tells you what he sees, but in reality you need a landing and must do some work (digging).

    The MFMP started out by looking at Celani's stuff, and they found nothing, as I recall.

    At Asti Celani presented his new work (COP 2) with an improved wire coating.

    But you are completely right to think that repros did (mostly) show nothing, because everybody is hiding some details...

    The low Temp. (300C) Mizuno/Takahashi** repro of NiZrOxy H/D seems also to work well, with excess heat of up to 60eV/Ni.

    As said: LENR is in a slow take-off phase and anybody, that believes others will listen to the various "NiH doesn't work mantras", will soon face ignorance.

    Most of people at the conferences have nothing to say anyway: with respect to work of Alan or Bob Greenyer - did they found something interesting if not substantial for cold fusion during their life?

    Zephir_AWT : Klimow (with Dubinko) did a through replication (COP 2-12) of Mills work using a different setup. Talking face to face to people that do cutting edge research is way more interesting than listening to forum noise.

    The mutual orientation of atom orbitals and atom nuclei could also explain the prominent sensitivity of many LENRs to external magnetic field - only in mutualy collinear arrangement/orientation of orbitals is what allows effective shielding of paired electrons.

    The synchronization of the spin axes is the key to the LENR effect. Without this no LENR happens! It' easy to proove in the Lipinski case.

    Longview elaborates this: the magnetic moment of an extra nuclear protonic orbital is surely not a small thing.

    It only looks like a protonic orbital. But it is a H*, a proton plus an electron in a shrunken orbit bound to 56Fe, because the chemistry still shows Iron, with some disturbance in the orbits and not 57Co.

    The replicators have not been able to prove anything in years.

    Rigel : This is awfully wrong. Celani is at COP 2 Parkhomov slightly higher, both with no special tuning because they do fundamental work. The Japanese have fully replicated all the old excess heat claim, that time with sophisticated measurment, that no longer can be spoiled by anybody...

    To sum it IP: NiLi ZrO xy H/D LENR is ready for take-off and there is no longer any room for others to flood forums with "no excess-heat FUD".

    According to the standard model of particle physics, a muon is a fundamental particle: a lepton.

    axil : Indeed it is flying free - independently, but physically it's a resonance of an electron an thus not a fundamental particle.

    ==> Standard model is wrong or needs some fine-tuning. Mills model can explain why there are only three Leptons! Ask once the standard model the same question!

    Why these people don't need any conferences for their effective work and the scientists just do? Because they're not payed for their own money - that's the whole secret of conference

    Zephir_AWT : This is only half (or even less) the truth: In fact half of the people were private/independent researchers and most of the rest could easily find a more enjoyable way to dispense their money.

    May be you attended once different types of conferences...

    The explanation of figure 1.14 and 1.16 is not congruent. 1.14 shows a rotation about the axis (result in fig 1.6 or as density in 1.18), 1.16 shows a rotation of the axes not around the axis, resulting in infinite many circle with same origin. 1.14 will not lead to a total coverage of the sphere while 1.16 will.

    But the Y 0/0 is a convolution of BECVF & OCVF what finally leads to the assumption that 1.16 is the convolution result of the basic BECVF current loop with the final density given in fig.1.19/1.20

    stefan : Now the question is: In which step are you interested? The weigths for the final convolution or for the intermediate BECVF & OCVF steps?

    I can't understand that. The source of the weak force is quark-quark flavour-swapping interactions mediated by virtual intermediate vector bosons. Quark diameter is not known but has been determined experimentally to be less than 0.43E-16m.

    THHuxleynew : From the old Physics viewpoint you can't understand Mills logic. But keep in mind that the standard model failed and that there exist proofs (according to Geneste) that the math is flawed. If you measure a quark radius (what is just a guess because you can't separate most quarks and only measure there excitation fields), then the underlaying math, used to gauge the experiment, also determines the outcome of the measurement. In fact, according to Mills Maxwell calculations, there are no basic "particles" like W,Z, Higgs etc. bosons.

    Particles, in classical understanding, do have a rest mass and can be separated from each other. In basic Maxwell physics most particles are "resonances = basic particle plus captured photon". Mills still assumes that quarks are basic particles. But if you expand his thinking, then even quarks could be viewed as a special feature of the underlaying energy flow. At the very end only the Proton and electron remain as classical standard particles, which of course, depending on the type of measurements can show sub-particles with particle like nature. The rest are photons and resonances.

    F would appear to be a function domain I X S1 (the set of all points on all great circles) and range S2 (the surface of a sphere embedded in R3). I think you need the arrow in the opposite direction so that with F you are mapping a point on S2 to the set of all great circles that go through that point? I don't understand how this constrains G because it will exist (though may be trivial) for all G. I also expect that you actually require the existence of the Euclidean metric on R3 which induces a manifold on the embedded S2 - because you assume differential structure below.

    The simplest approximation for a great circle density can be made as following. Orthogonal great circles have two crossing points. Each point is cut by a infinite number of circles, where the number of circles/point is given by the length x 2 x point-density on a circle -2 (the corssing points count once..). You have to prove, that you only walk once over a point (generating to circles) and that all finite walks lead to a symmetric distribution of the circles. All patterns following geodesics rules are regular. If you take the midpoint of a "spheric quadrant", then divide the quadrant by 2/2 and apply the rule again, you never will meet the same point again and you will cover the whole surface of the sphere.

    The line density will always be identical for all decreasing (total an subs) areas in S2. (Border rule e.g. is north/west. You only need to cover/show it for half the sphere)

    ( If you throw away all n-1 circles/points and look at the nth generation it will be even simpler.)

    The proton charge radius is determined experimentally, as is the range of the weak interaction. The point you brought up had to do with the theoretical QED calculation. Pointing out that the QED calculation is off does not impugn the experimental determination of the charge radius. But I also am not wedded to the exact specifics of the range of the weak interaction, for I am simply referring to a claim made here, by someone much more knowledgeable on the topic than I am.

    Eric Walker : Mills calculates the fundamental vector Boson (Z0) as a resonance of the Muon. The energy calculation is off by 0.02% (GUT-CP 37.46) The follow-up decay to the W is more complex an the result a bit more off, about 0.2%.

    Time will tell if that faith in Holmlids research will hold true

    axil : Stop becoming depressive: I believe Holmlid does great work, albeit many seem to hate hime. Everybody that does CERN Physics on a desktop is a danger for the establishment. I'm sure he/his ideas will have some success.

    Nobody believes in Mills. We believe, that at this very moment parts of his theory deliver better answers than old stuff. Nothing more. Theory(ies) is (are) a way to think about problems and as soon as they can help to understand it, they become mainstream until a new even better one shines up.

    I'm not really familiar with the proton radius problem. There appear to be various studies which look at this question and raise different possibilities, such as this one, which suggests a "mismatch of renormalization scales." (Are they wrong? Because if they're not wrong, it seems there's not really a problem.) But more to the point, how does your question bear upon what has been discussed up to now in this thread?

    Eric Walker : Just logic: If you say (the weak interaction works at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?) the weak force seems to be known more exactly that the dimension of the source of the force. For me just an indication of an other kind of salad.