Posts by axil

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Garnets weather from the outside in. So of course the holes are on the outside.

Natural weathering mechanisms of almandine garnet

Michael Anthony Velbel

http://coweeta.uga.edu/publications/354.pdf

Withering does not produce Tunnels.

Quote

Chemical weathering of garnets can produce surficial etch-pits and erosion patterns with a polygonal appearance, but tunnel structures have not been reported before

Quote

Weathered garnet from oxidized vadose saprolite has thick,

continuous, tenacious layers of gibbsite-goethite weathering products,

which cover unetched garnet surfaces. The absence of etch pits on the

garnet suggests uniform attack by weathering of all parts of the garnet

surface. Micromorphologic evidence suggests that weathering in the inorganic

environment of deep (vadose) saprolites is inhibited by diffusion

(transport) through the protective surface layer.

Display More

Quote from Paradigmnoia

axil ,

If it makes you happy, then believe what you like.

The planes of weakness are not random, whether the sources of attack are, or not.

What is more amazing is that a garnet (and many, many other minerals) will self-assemble under the correct PT-chemical regime to the level of organization that makes a wonderful crystal, at all.

You are living in a fantasy devoid of any fact finding. The tunnels were produced AFTER formation of the garnet and originated on the surface surface of the garnet. I have stated this in past posts on this thread but you persist in ignoring those FACTS in your thinking. This inability to think straight undermines any confidence in your opinions. You are living in a false fact based world. If it makes you happy, then believe what you like. Just be assured that your world is not reality.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Most garnets grow ugly. They have a rough life. They grow, they shrink, they grow again. They get crushed and heal again. They get inclusions of all sorts. The residual fluids released from cooling nephelinitic magmas are nasty, fluorine-rich, and volatile. These fluids can dissolve rocks. Rarely a near-perfect garnet is grown. The rest are messy things, with holes, multiple growth rings, and parts of other minerals contained within. Eventually millions of years of weathering release them, and finally some random person picks some up, and thinks they have must been eaten by some organisms. Heaven help us if the garnet-eaters invade the human cities and the technological marvels the humans have made.

All this chemical and physical weathering activity speaks of random, never to be repeated one of a kind characteristics.

The tunnels that are pictured in this study are in the hundred, each exactly spaced from their identical neighbor in a precise array. It is the exact order in which the tunnels have been formed in a exactly coordinated fashion that is the proof of spooky quantum mechanical based action at a distance.

This quantum mechanically identical coordinated action is seen in LENR in particle movements as shown in these experimentally generated particle tracts.

The identical entangled tracks are analyzed as follows:

Quote from Alan Smith

Over many millions of years even mice can tunnel through a mountain.

The photo C and D under the title "The case against biologic causation"

But in their hundreds, they don't all build , identical length and width tunnels that all turn at the same instant and at the same angle and produce the same hexagonal shaped holes that gradually shrink at the same rate and terminate at the same point. It takes quantum mechanical entanglement to do that at the same instant in time.

Alan, do you have any mouse proofs?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Garnets require pressure to form.

For example:

https://www.researchgate.net/f…-from-the_fig10_310688736

The tunnels were formed after the garnets were formed. The tunnels were excavated starting at the surface of the garnet and penetrated a few 100 microns toward the interior of the Garnet. The garnet is highly ware resistant and generally impervious to weathering so it is highly unlikely the the tunnels were produced by mechanical weathering.

From the reference

Quote

All tunnels in the current investigation are rooted at the grain surfaces, which indicates that they are the result of secondary weathering processes. The mineral grains have been subject to an external agent of chemical, physical or biological nature after their formation. This interpretation is supported by tunnels that originate at relatively fresh surfaces, exposed by chemical or physical weathering. Comparison of the samples from OL and CT further support the interpretation. Since the unweathered garnets in the host rock (OL) are featureless, lacking the characteristic tunnels found in eroded garnets downstream (CT), it is evident that the tunnel structures are formed during the downstream transport in the river system. The river is a low-energy system with calm waters, which suggests that mechanical force is not likely to be responsible for the tunnel production, even if that were possible in a high-energy system. It is more probable that the tunnels have been formed in the river sediments by some other type of weathering process. The samples from KW, BR, NB have been weathered in situ, and thus by chemical rather than mechanical forces.

Quote

Chemical weathering of garnets can produce surficial etch-pits and erosion patterns with a polygonal appearance, but tunnel structures have not been reported before [40]. Chemical weathering of garnets in lateritic environments or saprolites has been shown to produce shallow polygonal etch pits of varying diameter, but no deep galleries. Weathering of almandine usually results in a secondary surface layer of weathering products like goethite, kaolinite or pyrolusite that cover the entire mineral surface [41]. Beneath the surface layers there are usually polygonal etch pits being observed.

Complex tunnel structures, as in the current study, are not likely to be formed exclusively by chemical dissolution but need the involvement of an agent that controls the direction [6].

Quote from Paradigmnoia

There are garnets. Proof enough.

Is that like waving your hands?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

axil ,

Water at high pressure and temperature is sufficient to wear away garnet, and crystal boundaries are the first to go, due to dislocations and other flaws that allow infiltration into the garnet crystal structure.

Garnets can be made, altered away, and re-made multiple times during regional metamorphism, (both prograde and retrograde), increasing the number of flaws in the crystal structure, or concentrating them in growth-loss areas/planes. Garnets formed from a biotite scaffold can have very large numbers of often linear flaws that can be exploited by fluids.

No LENR, hard grinding effect, or organism required at all.

The is no high pressure water source identified in the plog article in the locations that the studied garnets came from. If you think there is, please identify.

Quote

zhttps://phys.org/news/2018-08-tiny-tunnels-garnets-result-microorganisms.html

Tiny tunnels inside garnets appear to be the result of boring microorganisms

Quote

https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0200351

Intricate tunnels in garnets from soils and river sediments in Thailand – Possible endolithic microborings

IMO, the phys.org article has interpreted the ournals.plos.org article incorrectly.The Tiny tunnels inside garnets could not have been produced by neither biologic nor abiologic causes. These tunnels could only have been produced by LENR active EVOs many millions of years ago.

The case against abiologic causation.

Garnets are relatively hard minerals (Hpyrope = 7.5) resistant to abrasion and chemical attack. A corresponding hardness ratio for the current garnets (Hpyrope = 7.5), would require a mineral millstone with a hardness of 9 or above to form ambient inclusion trails (AITs). Possible candidates would be corundum (Hcorondum = 9, including the varieties sapphire and ruby) or diamond (Hdiamaond = 10). Such extremely hard abrasive minerals are absent in the river sediments and extremely rare in the residual soils. Besides, considering the number of tunnels in one single garnet (sometimes more than 100), an excess of such mineral grains would have been needed in these environments to form the garnet tunnels. That is simply not the case in any of the examined localities.

The case against biologic causation

In frame C, there are many hundreds of regularly spaced and totally straight non intersecting tunnels that all look to be formed simultaneously (see also frame D) and happen to turn at the same instant in their formation process.

The tunneling displays a substantial range of appearance and morphological traits, from strictly organized palisades of parallel tunnels to irregularly branching and anastomosing networks. In the most organized variety, straight and strictly parallel tunnels form almost perfect rows (Fig A above); more commonly the tunnels, although parallel, are not lined up but are more irregularly scattered (Fig B). A recurring feature is a parallel, seemingly coordinated, curvature of the distal parts of each tunnel in such palisades (Fig C and D). There may also be two or more sets of palisades within a crystal, where internally parallel tunnels in each set make distinctive angles to co-occurring sets projecting in other directions (Fig E).

Formation of anastomosing(1,2) tunnels by biology would require some type of communication between separated organisms or at least organismal parts such as different hyphae of a fungal mycelium within a substrate. Such communication could be chemically controlled by fungi excreting molecules at the hyphal tip. Another mode of communication in a transparent substrate could be light. Natural bioluminescence is known among fungi to attract invertebrates for spore dispersal or as warning signals to repulse fungivores, but not for communicative purposes Without supporting observations among live species in controlled laboratory experiments fungal communication within a substrate is so far hypothetical.

IMO, bugs cannot work so closely together because they do not have the ability to communicate in such a timely way as to produce such well structured tunnels.

1. To open one structure into another directly or byconnecting channels, said of blood vessels,lymphatics, and hollow viscera; also incorrectly applied to nerves.

2. To unite by means of an anastomosis, or connection between formerly separate structures.

B) Tomographic reconstruction (volumetric rendering) showing the hexagonal cross section of multiple tubular structures. C) An orthoslice of a tomographic reconstruction showing the cross-sectional hexagons or rectangles of the tunnels. D) SEM image of a four-angled polygonal entrance hole. E) SEM image of a six-angled polygonal entrance hole that is filled. F) SEM image of a tubular structure that tapers off further into the mineral. Note how the tunnel have a polygonal shape at the mineral surface but further in gets more circular as it tapers off. G) Microphotograph of a tubular structure that tapers off and also starts with a polygonal shape at the mineral surface but gets more circular as it penetrates further into the mineral and tapers off. H) Microphotograph of tubular structures that tapers off. The branching of the tunnels results in offspring tunnels with less diameter than the originating tunnel.

Chemical erosion by bugs cannot produce regularly sharply defined geometric contours as the bugs eat their way through super hard garnet. All the tunnels change their contorting profile as the tunneling comes to a close.

Also chemical residue of bug remains cannot be offered as proof that the bugs produced the tunnels because the bugs could have populated the tunnels long after they were excavated.

The case for EVO tunnel creation and what we can learn about the nature of the excavating EVOs from characterization of the tunnels.

Entangled EVOs could have excavated the tunnels in a totally coordinated fashion. Many entangled EVOs can move as one excavating particle and produce N identical tunnels that are shaped identically in both their horizontal girth and geometric shape and vertical profiles.

We have seen EVOs excavate tunnels through diamond in the LION fuel, so garnet penetration is no problem.

As the EVOs lose power, the volume of their excavation shrinks to a point until their level of power production is to weak to continue with extending the excavation.

The way that all the tunnels in the garnet devolve to a sharp needle like point simultaneously witness to a shared energy store held between and among all the excavating EVOs.

The hexagonal tunnel shaped profiling is indicative of the structure of the molecule that is supporting the EVO and producing the excavating magnetic flux tube. Such shapes have been seen in the holes bored in the structure of the LION reactors. The flux tube that is doing the boring through the garnet is a monopole that extends straight forward and normal to the hexagonal Rydberg cross section of the EVO.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Can you tell us how you generated the LENR muons and measured their energy?? Did you even try to read the handbook for screening??

The UHD data came from Holmlid. If you have better data on muon interactions, please share.

Quote from JohnyFive

So the process for obtaining excess energy is:

1. Generation of UDH

2. Generating Muons from UDH

3. Muon-calayzed fusion: dµd+

I think that it is important to focus on generation of UDH.

How one can find that he is generating UDH in abundance? How to measure it in the best way?
One thing is to generate small quantity in weeks other is to generate it immediately. We have to stop the Guess work. Everything is measurable, somehow.

Display More

IMO, the process is as follows:

Production of UDH

The activation of UDH though the pumping of energy into UDH using either heat, visible light, ultraviolet light, and/or RF.

The activated UDH will extract energy from matter through its disruption into sub atomic particles starting with mesons.

Almost all of the muons that are the decay products of mesons that are generated through the decay of matter will escape to the far field. For example, one in ten million muons will interact with light matter. This extremely low interaction rate with light matter is why LENR is not harmful for the experimenter. Muon catalyzed fusion can be produced by surrounding the source of muons with a very thick blanket of atomically dense material such as iron or lead. The reaction cross section of muons with matter is based on the atomic density of the matter. For example, the reaction cross section of lead is a million times greater that that of hydrogen. In effect, muons don't interact very much with hydrogen and will pass through any realistic thickness of an envelop of hydrogen without "seeing" that hydrogen,

If the initiation of muon catalyzed fusion is the goal, use a blanket of lead at least a foot thick, but the thicker the better.

see

Total nuclear capture rates for negative muons.

http://lartpc-docdb.fnal.gov/0002/000248/002/Suzuki_etal.pdf

LION produces ultra dense deuterium UDD inside a micro diamond lattice. In the following video, MFMP explains how this UDD behaves.

Quote from JohnyFive

Great.

But first we need to know how to generate and store UDH in abundance. With plenty of UDH it should be easy to do fancy things.

If you are seeing radiation from your capture paper, then you are already producing UDH and it is already activated. But as I posted above in post #40, it is difficult to capture and store it since it is a super fluid.

In LENR fuel, the UDH is not yet activated and it is still sitting inside the lattice and quiescent. That sleeping UHD needs light or heat to become active.

Quote from JohnyFive

Yes, but I want to produce muons. Alright, I am still thinking about how Russ is producing them. Why his fuel is doing so upon heating?

Is he using iron oxide catalyst?

Lets suppose I am producing UDD. Holmlid is using iron oxide to produce UDD in abundance. How can I get muons from it without firing laser?

After I when through my latest musings about how strange radiation comes to be. In his reaction in a response post, LION wet my appetite for his research when he posted as follows:

Quote

Hi Axil,

and it (the quasi-participle that produces the LENR reaction in fueled systems) SPITS out Particles as it goes, the one I saw was BLACK and only visible due to the shiny Nickel around it.

I naturally wanted more info, so I posted as follows:

Can you supply a inclusive narrative that describes this experience?

Then LION was kind enough to reply as follows:

Quote

Indeed, and the elements listed in my post above will provide a video of the phenomenon itself.

I would dearly like to both say and show more but doing so would put events out of sequence that are currently in play.

I will honour your request fully in the near future, be sure to hold me to this promise.

From LION, if you see a tiny black dot moving over your paper, check for particle emissions from that dot.

Quote from JohnyFive

After reading more and more I am convinced we have to focus on Holmlid work. This is what Russ was doing years ago too.

Please study his materials and help to make it work. If Russ don't want to reveal his findings let's make it together.

Maybe his experiment is nothing else than just this, but instead of Laser pulses something else is used. Clearly heat is involved.

The Science that explains the laser pulse that Holmlid uses is the Kerr effect.

See

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

The half soliton (aka black EVO) is the vortex of light that is formed by the kerr effect when a dipole soliton(Bose condensate) is converted into a monopole soliton.

In the monopole Black EVO, the magnetic flux tube is actually a straight beam that projects axially and normal to the direction of spin rotation.

The KERR effect is a well studied subject in physics and even is mentioned in google. In fact, Rossi uses the kerr effect as a stimulus and has mentioned its application in his patent update which states that an electric field of between 50 and 100 KV will activate his reaction. This reaction stimulus was used in the solid reactors that was tested at Dorel. This is the DC Kerr effect.

See near "electrons are accelerated to 100 KV" below

https://www.lenr-forum.com/ima…vbS9DMnF4NlNuLnBuZw%3D%3D

In the QX and SK reactor, Rossi now switched to the ac kerr effect. Holmlid also uses a laser to activate his reaction.

"In the optical or AC Kerr effect, an intense beam of light in a medium can itself provide the modulating electric field, without the need for an external field to be applied."

In the QX, the first step in his cycle is the application of a high voltage arch to both vaporize the plasma and to stimulate the reaction by using the Kerr effect.

See KERR effect for more detail

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

Quote from JohnyFive

UPDATE: No elevated radiation measured over different 2cm thick foam block.

It look like bigger cathode is not the best - it likely require higher current. I recommend to use rather smaller cathode that can be loaded faster. Dimension recommended in recipe is fine.

If experiment from Me365 is with H then it could mean that Deuterium is not needed to generate active LENR agent.. But in order to have D-D fusion deuterium is needed of course.

There is no D-D fusion of deuterium involved in the LENR reaction...no hydrogen fusion is happening what so ever, except maybe from muon catalyzed fusion.

Quote from Roseland67

Axil,

Maybe known, proven, vetted and replicated science vs: that which is notGravity

Gravity is not yet proven, vetted and replicated science vs: that which is notGravity

https://physicsworld.com/a/gra…w-precision-measurements/

Quote

Despite the latest improvement in precision, the reason (or reasons) for the discrepancies between G measurements remains a mystery.

Quote from JohnyFive

I already played a bit with magnets but nothing interesting was found yet.

Now I am testing another kind of foam, thicker and less porous. I still have no idea what the particles are and what kind of radiation it is.

Behavior during measurement is relatively unstable. Counts are not steady, sometimes decreasing, sometimes increasing in bursts.

It is rather localized and activation is occurring mainly where hydrogen is coming out off the cell.

But sometimes a soft bursts are measured also in close vicinity but usually just for a few seconds without a repetition - seems to be dependent on air flow.

This is the fuel that ME356 has produced and was kind enough to show us on the forum. He said that there was radiation coming off that fuel. You can see that the LENR active agent is eating its way out of the fuel containment particles and traveling across the SEM carbon sample tape. Zoom in to see details. As the LAA moves over the surface of the carbon tape, it is transmuting the carbon in the sample tape into metals as it travels along the tape. The white tracks are produced by higher atomic number elements like aluminum and calcium. This is most likely the condition that you are seeing.

Also see

me356: Photos of AURA control unit

And to see the original SEMs:

me356: Photos of AURA control unit

The LAA is a super fluid and very hard to contain. Being a super fluid, It will even flow out of a closed container.

High speed video of the fountain effect in superfluid helium-4. The fountain is produced due to two properties of superfluid, the ability to flow through very small pores and the ability to flow due to temperature gradients (thermomechanical effet).

Quote from JohnyFive

It look like the effect is 100% reproducible.

The cell photographed yesterday is running just for 18 hours with completely everything new and I can get already clearly at least 2x background level.

The paper that is covering the cell can be left without any movement. It is enough to just put the pancake detector within 1 - 10mm vicinity from the paper and the Ludlums survey meter is clicking significantly more. Anywhere else there are no additional clicks. And yes, there are many similar papers with no activity around

I am just wondering what all the scientists were doing for 30 years!!! It is so easy and inexpensive and I am certain it is not artifact.

You do not have to perform any special cleaning nor use an inert atmosphere, etc. Any garage-man with clean hands can do this.

I tried also Anode/Cathode from other batches. And it just works. Still can't believe it, but yes.

I would really like to see face of some skeptic here.

Display More

It might be fun to try to get the "LENR ACTIVE AGENT" (LAA) that is producing the gammas to stick to a magnetic sheet of plastic. This may cause the radiation level to increase as more LAA is trapped by the magnetic field produced by the magnetized plastic sheet.

See

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25-se…278fa3:g:OPYAAOSweW5VIXKu

Quote from IobseRvable

...

..

.

yeah, of course. Some freaks with no clue about fusion under high pressure and high temperature and strong, rotating magnetic fields inside a lab can explain, how the sun works.... keep on dreaming... but be quiet.

But The SAFIRE project is producing He3 from hydrogen together with 20 million watts of power. Those freaks with no clue about fusion are doing very well at this early juncture.

The SAFIRE project is well on the way to show that the Sun is powered by the LENR reaction. All the Solar theories are not proven, vetted and replicated science.