“Investigation of the characteristics of MagnetoToroElectric Emanations with the help of photographic film detectors” (Russian Paper)

The following post has been submitted by Max Nozin

A group of articles have been posted on this Russian website:

The last 2 articles deserve special attention (They are in Russian but Google translate should work fine).
Since one of the authors specializes in radiation detection it is very exciting to see the track patterns they registered on photo emulsion as similar to the EVOs in Bob Greenyer’s experiments:

Title: “Investigation of the characteristics of MagnetoToroElectric Emanations with the help of photographic film detectors”
Authors: A.L. Shishkin, V.A. Baranov, A.V. Vinogradova, V.M. Dubovik, V.Yu. Tatur

Second article is titled “Registration of Higgs boson at home”:
Authors: V.Yu. Tatur  , A.L. Shishkin  , V.A. Baranov  , V.A. Panyushkin
You do not have to question theory behind their ” МТЭИ” objects (Magneto Toroidal Electrical Radiation) . Just replace it with EVO for now.
Cheers,
  • “Registration of Higgs boson at home” is just plain nonsense from quantitative physics perspective, but vacuum fluctuations manifest itself at all scales. At the human observer scale their evidence is CMB spectrum, which gets rather sharp maximum at 282 GHz, i.e. 1.168 x 10−3 eV/photon. The Higgs boson with rest mass 125,09 GeV is just the most energetic peak on the vacuum energy spectrum observable, in this sense the CMB fluctuations, Brownian noise or thermal fluctuations in solids are also sorta “Higgs bosons” from this perspective – but I wouldn’t call them so before any teacher of physics… 🙂

    We know about quite a lot of anomalies in this regard, for example Cryogenic electron emission phenomenon has no known physics explanation.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0231/004a/pic/1041/21tt7.JPG

    The classic rabbit track produced by a monopole magnetic soliton flux tube

    as seen here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_3_gDl1ZRM

    • Bob Greenyer

      Shishkin’s interpretation of their pits is correct.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0231/004a/pic/1041/21tt1.JPG

    The double dot flux tube marks are produced by the dipole flux tube that extends from the falaco soliton as seen here. There are some rabbit tracks here on the left side of the picture that are produced by the monopole soliton(see post below).

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fRP-eXVdxJU/VBs0mP3t6UI/AAAAAAAAADg/YjpKXqpKxjc/s1600/FalacoSolitons.gif

    and in this MFMP video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhitBhess2E

  • Bob Greenyer

    Very Good.

    This important paper is in O Day

    Why?

    • artefact

      Because they see different manifestations of feature formation in different materials?

    • georgehants

      Morning Bob, you should buy one of these, probably about £50 on E-Bay, ha.
      ——-
      Science advances
      A single-atom 3D sub-attonewton force sensor.
      Abstract
      Forces drive all physical interactions. High-sensitivity measurement of
      the effect of forces enables the quantitative investigation of physical
      phenomena. Laser-cooled trapped atomic ions are a well-controlled
      quantum system whose low mass, strong Coulomb interaction, and readily
      detectable fluorescence signal make them a favorable platform for
      precision metrology. We demonstrate a three-dimensional sub-attonewton
      sensitivity force sensor based on a super-resolution imaging of a single
      trapped ion. The force is detected by measuring the ion’s displacement
      in three dimensions with nanometer precision. Observed sensitivities
      were 372 ± 9, 347 ± 18, and 808 ± 51 zN/,
      corresponding to 24×, 87×, and 21× above the quantum limit. We verified
      this technique by measuring a 95-zN light pressure force, an important
      systematic effect in optically based sensors.

  • artefact
  • Bob Greenyer

    This paper is very significant, regardless of where it was posted, and showed some of the aspects predicted by the central concept behind ‘O Day’.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ok, this new paper is much closer and everyone should take it VERY SERIOUSLY.

    • georgehants

      Bob, I think all those with a competent scientific mind are taking everything you say “VERY SERIOUSLY.” as it should always be.
      Those unable to open-mindedly pursue every avenue are not scientists.
      We wait for your explanation and Evidence that confirms your realisation with great anticipation, if it is convincing and confirmable by other competent scientists and I don’t mean the usual 95% who abuse and debunk anything not excepted by their dumb religion, then Wonderful.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well, my realisation, unlike Shishkin’s work, involves no maths and was based on far less visual evidence than has already been shared by now.

        I am sure that Shishkin’s team would be in the best position to do the maths, moreover they do show a wide understanding of the good and the bad in theoretical physics – however, they have, as one could only expect, based their thoughts on the visual evidence they have obtained. The truth will have to incorporate all of this data.

        What I am know though is that these findings will be VERY hard to ignore in the near future.

        • Axil Axil

          With all do respect, Shishkin does not understand in detail what his experiments show.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Agreed. But his work is valuable and insightful

    • Axil Axil

      The theory offered in this new paper is rambling and incoherent. For example, the paper does not explain in detail about how the holes in matter of produced.

      However, the production of EVOs using rotating matter is new.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Quote from Shishkin’s et al

    “In our case, virtual interactions between point objects that propagate with velocities greater than the speed of light are necessary.”

  • sam

    An Explanation of the EmDrive and Cannae Drive Part II

    https://youtu.be/z8WBsNAjj24

  • georgehants

    I say that any preemptive personal skepticism is scientifically illogical and ridiculous, Bob’s realisation on “O” day will show what it shows, it is then up to competent open-minded scientists or others, to take that information and if replicated integrate it into science correctly.
    How that will work out at this point is unknown and no scientist no matter how “qualified” or “expert” can foresee the end result.
    Only time, Experimentation and Research will lead to the conformation or rejection of the observations.
    Skepticism is another unneeded and erroneous joke of science, just like the clown who said, “exceptional claims need exceptional proof.”

    • Bruce__H

      I am just trying to understand your procedure.

      If by “preemptive personal skepticism” you are referring to my question about what would happen if the upcoming LION replications do not show anomalous heat, then i wonder if I can put the scenario to you in a more general context.

      Suppose that someone reports that they have created a hitherto unknown silicon-oxygen configuration that they think might have special properties. If, subsequent to this, a couple of groups try and replicate this finding but are not successful, then what is the procedure? Do you have less confidence in the initial report? The same amount of confidence? More confidence?

      • georgehants

        Bruce, I think I can turn your question around to yourself, you are aware I am sure of the debacle of expert scientists to the P&F etc. claims.
        What do you think science should learn from that?

        • Bruce__H

          I’ll answer then I hope you will answer my questions.

          I think that a lot of very good people tried as hard as they could to get excess heat from P&F type setups. I know some of them. The group I know were very excited at the time and wanted to get on board with what they thought might be round-breaking work. When they couldn’t replicate the findings they eventually put the work aside and concluded that it was unlikely that the primary reports were accurate. I mean … that sometimes happens in science.

          Overall I think that what science should learn is not to build up expectations too much before you have really got control over your system. I worry about Bob Greenyer’s O-day in this regard. Plainly he has people like you anticipating that this will be the greatest discovery of the past 100 years and a boon to all humans. When those sorts of expectations are in place arguments become very emotional and parochial.

          • georgehants

            Bruce, my reply’s are pure scientific logic, indisputable and unarguable, at no point do I say that Bob’s “O” day will be a success and raise “expectations” I state that he should be allowed with no childish abuse, denial, debunking or out of place skepticism to give his report in his own time.
            History is full of great scientific discoveries being treated in such a way and then proving later when competent work is done to be correct.
            I think I have made my points and they are as I state above, logically and scientifically unarguable,
            You of course are free to personally think anything you wish, but if you consider that you or science KNOW there are no genuine UFO’s visiting the Earth, you would be in error,
            Thanks for chat.

      • Axil Axil

        This paper by Shishkin replicates the findings of LION 1 and LION 2 as I have noted in my posts showing the identical tracks produced by both experiments.

  • Axil Axil

    I now understand how the PAPP engine works. The Papp engine used radium and other radioactive elements that were placed inside the electrodes of an arc generator. When the arc discharged, it produced a explosion of photons. Those photons were converted to left handed chirality by the radioactive elements inside the electrodes(called buckets). These photons were organized into EVO whose spin was organized with left handed chirality. Such EVOs are LENR active and have the ability to disrupt the nucleons in the zone of their influence. The energy generated by this decay of matter provides the explosive expansion of the plasma ball that drove the movment of the piston.

    It is now clear that particle chirality can be transferred between particles even of differing formats, ie between electron, neutrons and photons.

    All radioactive decay produces Left handed chiral particles including electrons, alpha, gamma, protons, neutrons, photons, and neutrinos.

    It is now clear that the Papp engine requires radioactive elements to “condition” the chirality of the photons produced by the arc discharge. These photons are linearly polarized “left handed” consistent with the handedness of the photons emitted by radioactive decay of radium and the other radioactive elements used in the buckets that generated the arc discharge.

    This Shishkin study shows that particle chirality can be transferred between particles as photons pass through various chiral elements.

    • sam
      • Bob Greenyer

        This video is referenced in O Day.

        Listen to what he says. Then listen again.

      • Axil Axil

        This video suggests that there is a formation of a LENR active agent both in water and noble gases. IMHO, that agent is ultra dense water and ultra dense noble gases respectively. The EMF based solitons that produce the LENR effect requires matter to form on its surface. These ultra dense crystals are superconductive and provide an ideal no loss environment upon which these solitons can exist. Consistent with other “fuel” based LENR systems, the preprep initialization process suggests that a “Fuel” preparation process is required before the LENR reaction can begin. In all cases of LENR involving fuel preperation, ultra dense matter is implicated.

        The generation of excess electrical current, suggests that there is a reformation of nucleons into electrons through the production of mesons as an intermediate step. Production of excess electrons was also seen in the LION 1 reactor when 36000 joules of excess electrical current was seen to light a 20 watt bulb for 30 minutes.

    • Bob Greenyer

      EVOs are responsible for Papp.

      As I have said many times over the last months.

      All of it.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Bob,
        this coming week, 29 years and some days after the announcement of room temperature fusion, we await a potentially important series of events. Two replication attempts may begin and an explanation of the underlying process may emerge.
        Can you give us any estimate as to the schedule of the replication attempts? I know you do not control these but may have knowledge of the details.
        As far as O day, do you have a sense of when you may be ready to come forward with the summary of the concept?
        Thanks,
        Steve

        • Bob Greenyer

          Alan Smith is still building out his Lab – his discs should be soaked by now.

          Alan Goldwater is still on for a start later this week – need to touch base and confirm and start assisting.

          LION will be conducting some more experiments before preparing cores for handover and official replication. There is no fixed time frame on that. We will be loaning the Optris and Gamma detector for him to acquire more data with handover to occur on 30th.

          I will be publishing another presentation in next few days which will have very significant clues / evidence as to the central concept in ‘O Day’

          I will also break out some other content from ‘O Day’ mostly because these things need time for people to absorb so that they have context come the day and because trying to explain them in ‘O Day’ will mean that presentation becomes WAY TOO LONG.

    • causal observer

      Hey Axil, I’m trying to draw a picture of all this, but I thought I would write it out in “horse and duck” language first.

      What I get is:
      1) there is some kind of quasi-fusion taking place in the metal matrix (per SRI theories);
      2) which upon decay exposes the action of the weak force (plausible, but could use more citation);
      3) which acts on nearby electrons to make them left-chiral (per paper cited here recently);
      4) and to make the electrons bunch up into left-chiral charge clusters (aka EVOs) (see question below);
      5) which then go tearing off through anything in their way (see question below);
      6) following distinctive paths, which produce Bob’s “what do you see?” effects (as with the Russian paper in this post);
      7) releasing light, heat, magnetism, and possibly other forms of energy (assumed)
      8) which add up to the result of excess heat (assumed).

      What did I miss?

      The “gaps” for me are:
      4a) what causes the electrons to form charge clusters? Similar chirality? Being somehow repelled by the right handed chirality of the other stuff?
      5a) how do the left-handed electron charge clusters act in such a destructive way (you may have explained this but I missed it or was not clear on it)

      • Axil Axil

        regarding: “1) there is some kind of quasi-fusion taking place in the metal matrix (per SRI theories);”

        No metal matrix is required. There is no quasi-fusion taking place. The LENR reaction destroys protons and neutrons via the weak force (the Z particle – neutral current) and turns them into mesons.

        EMF that flows in a circle … vortex… separates particles by handedness.

        Left handed quarks change flavor when exposed to left handed magnetism.

        The weak force only affects left handed particles.

        • causal observer

          I took the liberty of quoting your text in an alternate sequence.

          1. ” no metal matrix is required.”…yes, I recall the lasers and deuterated polyethylene.

          2. “Weak force only affects left-handed particles”…yes, I did read that.
          => That’s strange and fundamental and so suggests large potential effects.

          3. “vortex”…intuitive, and explains a lot of the rest. Little tornados shooting off in various directions.
          a. But why should EMF flow in a vortex, in a physically unstructured environment?
          b. What in fact flows, electrons or wave patterns or both?
          c. Does it circle because of an contractive force inside the vortex, or an expansive force outside the vortex, or both?

          4. “separates particles by handedness”…that fills part of a gap
          a. citation?
          b. Does this produce a concentration of left-handed electrons?
          c. Is the concentration of left handed electrons centrally associated with destructive force of the vortex?

          5. “Left handed quarks change flavor when exposed to left handed magnetism.”
          a. citation?
          b. Does this occur when the left-handed electron vortex bumps into a proton or neutron?
          c. What flavor do the left-handed quarks turn into?
          d. How does that change in flavor relate to item 6?
          e. Does changing the flavor of a quark create an Z particle?

          6. “weak force (the Z particle – neutral current)”
          — quick research = “Exchange of a Z boson transfers momentum, spin, and energy”
          a. How is this related to point 5 about chirality?

          7. “turns them into mesons”
          …which decay into electrons, neutrinos and photons.
          => So, safe to assume that the resulting electrons and photons are a somewhat energetic.

          8. From another post, I understood you to say that in the Papp engine, they used radioactive materials as part of the process.
          a. Is it necessary to introduce radioactivity in the LENR process, other than via the action of the weak force after the quark flavor change?
          b. If it is necessary, then what provides that radioactivity, if not some quasi-fusion reaction?

          9. Do you believe there can be various lower energy “cold-fusion” reactions that produce some excess heat but are not the same as what you are calling the LENR reaction; e.g. Brillouin?

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: “in a physically unstructured environment? ”

            Bad assumption

            LENR requires a rough surface.

            When light hits a rough surface, photon/wave/electron rotation occurs. A smooth surface produces a mirror.

            When EMF hits an topological defect, it localizes around that defect. This is termed Anderson localization.

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

          • causal observer

            Thanks, that covers it for me through step 4. I still don’t see 5 and 6. I’ll accept 5a without the citation. However if a phenomena cannot be illustrated, at least partially, its reality must be questioned.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: “a. citation?
            b. Does this produce a concentration of left-handed electrons? Is the concentration of left handed electrons centrally associated with destructive force of the vortex?”

            https://www.seas.harvard.edu/capasso/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/jpbm_cover1-1024×414.png

            see

            https://www.seas.harvard.edu/capasso/2013/04/new-coupler-for-surface-plasmon-generation-is-the-subject-for-science-publication/

            When light hits surface defects, light produces polaritons when it combines with electrons.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWmvZ0IGrsU

            Light passes on its polarization to electrons that entangle with the photons. These polaritons separate into two circuits in a falace soliton

            http://www.ussdiscovery.com/FalacoSystem.gif

            http://www.ussdiscovery.com/oneness15_5.gif

          • causal observer

            Very helpful material. Sold me that there could be such a path.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: ” “Left handed quarks change flavor when exposed to left handed magnetism.”

            As I have already posted, photons (AKA magnetism) can change the Chirality of fermions(aka electrons and quarks)

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

            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/quarks-know-their-left-their-right

            Quarks Know Their Left From Their Right

            according to the standard model, the right- and left-spinning quarks should interact slightly differently with an incoming electron, producing an additional asymmetry, or parity violation, when the spin of the incoming electrons is flipped.

            The standard model expects that quarks can change flavor under the neutral current of the weak force.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor-changing_neutral_current

          • causal observer

            All helpful artcles, thanks. The sciencemag article is very helpful.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding:”6. “weak force (the Z particle – neutral current)”
            — quick research = “Exchange of a Z boson transfers momentum, spin, and energy”
            a. How is this related to point 5 about chirality?”

            The neural current changes spin. Chirality involves spin. When particles change chirality, the z particle does it or the weak force photon.

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

            see relation with Chirality.

          • causal observer

            The sciencemag article in the post below describes how the asymmetry of the action of left and right handed electrons on quarks was measured by shooting 100 billion electrons, split very carefully into right and left handed, into quarks. LENR ignition energies are not small so there could ample high energy electrons to impact the quarks, particulrly if they organized into vortices.

            From that I’m guessing that after the electron quark interaction causes the quark to change flavor, the quark changes flavor back, and in the process of doing so emits a Z particle. The Z particles then transform protons and neutrons into mesons, which decay into photons, neutrinos and electrons.

            Is the decay of the mesons then the source of the LENR effect excess energy, or is it something else?

          • Axil Axil

            I have learned a lot from the analysis of the LION reactor by Bob. The double dot track tells me that the magnetic flux tubes that carry the chiral polarized photons is what disrupts matter. It is not the electrons that pass through the nucleus all the time in their orbits. How the proton innards work is not yet known in detail so what gets changed and how many of those items are affected is not known.

            But Holmlid tells us that kaons are the first product of proton decay, That means that the down quark turns into a strange quark. The proton contains loads of energy, but most of it is lost in muon and neutrino production. Only a very small portion of proton energy is converted into heat.

            If all the matter that comprised those holes in the LION ash were turned into energy, England would be vaporized. There must be a huge amount of muons produced.

            How the weak force works is still on my list of things to study. The Higgs boson was invented to get the weak force to work correctly. There is a lot to it and people get the Nobel prize for getting it to work. Maybe someone here can figure it all out and get the prize also. I could use the help.

            see

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

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: :7. “turns them into mesons”
            …which decay into electrons, neutrinos and photons.
            => So, safe to assume that the resulting electrons and photons are a somewhat energetic.”

            Most of the energy that results from the decay of the nucleon is lost through muon escape.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: “8. From another post, I understood you to say that the Papp engine…”

            There is any number of ways to change the chirality of particles. radioactive decay is just one of many. Another way is polarization of light, microwaves, radio waves and so on.

            Also see spin filters

            https://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/chemistry/spin-filters

          • causal observer

            Helpful article. Nothing mysterious at all.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: “9. Do you believe there can be various lower energy “cold-fusion” reactions that produce some excess heat but are not the same as what you are calling the LENR reaction; e.g. Brillouin?”

            Brilloiun is a basic SPP reaction…a non fueled based reaction. It is like muzuno and piantelli.

            SAFIRE is a pure chiral reaction unsupported by and chiral filters, SPPs or fuel. The SAFIRE reaction is very pure and uncomplicated. It is the reaction that mother nature would invent.

          • John Oman

            I sense that… And that’s why it intrigues me as possibly the path of least resistance towards man’s harnessing LENR for practical use.

  • artefact
  • Axil Axil

    Rotation generates particle chirality and associated LENR effects.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

    Anti-gravity Effect? Gravitational Equivalent Of A Magnetic Field Measured In Lab

    The meissner effect of a superconductor will form a spin wave of electrons and/or polaritons near its surface. Rotation of these electrons will induce the formation of counter rotating electron vortexes that will produce a chiral nduced force perpendicular to the plane of rotation.

    In the Shishkin paper near figure 4, rotating objects produce LENR effects.Here again, rotation of electrons on the surface of metal and carbon, will induce chiral particle separation which will , om turn, induce the formation of LENR based EMF chrally polarized circular particle ring currents.

    These currents will also show anti gravity effects.

  • Axil Axil

    I have identified the mechanism in the standard modal that is responsible for the transmutation of quarks generated by the weak force. This interaction supports the exchange of chirality between particles. For example as chiral photon can change the flavor of a quark. This change can produce the decay of the nucleon.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor-changing_neutral_current

    Flavor-changing neutral current

    particle physics has searched for Flavor-changing neutral current.(1)

    The weak force can change energy and spin between particles under the mediation of the Z particle or via the exchange of a virtual photon. This particle interdiction has no effect on the charge of the particle.

    This newly added electroweak reaction is called the neutral current.

    1 – Anderson, S.; et al. (CLEO Collaboration) (2001). “Improved Upper Limits on the Flavor-Changing Neutral Current Decays B→Kℓ+ℓ− and B→K*(892)ℓ+ℓ−”. Physical Review Letters. 87 (18): 181803. arXiv:hep-ex/0106060 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87r1803A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.181803.

  • Axil Axil

    Excess heat is produced by a minor channel in the LENR reaction that is not always formed. Holes punched is matter is what reveals the nature of the LENR reaction. Bob will show that feature in abundance.

    The fault in the presentation of LENR experimentation and theory will have been based on your fraud expectations.

  • georgehants

    Bruce, science is a process of open-mindedly investigating every possible anomaly and never saying one KNOWS when the most highly qualified expert in Fact does not have a clue and brings all of science into disrespect with such incompetent opinions.
    Taking Bob as an example, he will present his findings and as I have said many times above over time with unbiased and competent checking, they will prove to be useful or mistaken.
    If mistaken then there is absolutely no harm done, we thank him for his effort and move on to the next theory, idea etc. etc.
    It would not be reliable to rely on one other person (Alan in your case) to form a conclusion.
    It would need to be generally confirmed or rebuked, but again taking no notice of biased incompetent badly educated people such as debunked P&F and many or other great scientists over the years.
    If one asks a scientist if they KNOW that genuine UFO’s etc. are impossible, then if they answer yes, one can immidiatly dismiss them from all further serious scientific work and discussion as they nor any part of science KNOWS. (publicly)

  • Axil Axil

    So Sorry, fraud should have read “flawed”,as in “blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way.”

  • Axil Axil

    Shishkin should have used the proper and universally used scientific name for magnetoelectric light. That name is Polariton, specifically Surface Plasmon Polariton.

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

  • georgehants

    Morning Bruce, you seem to have trouble understanding what I write, I have given you your answer in my example regarding Bob above, in the case that his realisation is not confirmed.
    My response would be the same in every case ,always allowing for further Research to change things again.

  • georgehants

    Morning Bob, I know it is unfair but need another big clue to keep the momentum going.
    Best

    • Bob Greenyer

      Working on it.

      Actually having my lunch – but working on a presentation with several big clues and some lovely data

      • georgehants

        Yes Bob, just read your reply to Stephen below, sounds good.

    • PhysicsForDummies

      In the physics of O day, it is becoming obvious momentum is not conserved.

  • Axil Axil

    In Bob Greenyer’s observation of the double hole pattern in the LION ash, we know that both the left handed and right handed sides of the flux tube will generate the dissolution of matter.

    The rules for weak forces decay allows this to happen in a simple way and still allows for all the adherence to all the conservation laws involved in weak force reactions.

    https://i.stack.imgur.com/frZVd.png

    For the Left handed magnetic reaction
    From this table, a down quark can be converted to a strange quark by adding about 95 MeV to the down quark. This mass addition creates a strange quark. The Up quark and a strange quark produces a negative kaon. All quarks in this reaction: Up, Down, and Strange are left handed. The left handed magnetic field side of the flux tube produces a negative kaon by adding 95 MeV to the nucleon. The Spin, Charge, and Baryon number remain unchanged,

    For the Right handed magnetic reaction
    From this table, an anti-down quark can be converted to an anti-strange quark by adding about 95 MeV to the anti-down quark. This mass addition creates a anti-strange quark. The anti-Up quark and a anti-strange quark produces a positive kaon. All quarks in this reaction: anti-Up, anti-Down, and anti-Strange are right handed. The right handed magnetic field side of the flux tube produces a positive kaon by adding 95 MeV to the nucleon. The Spin, Charge, and Baryon number remain unchanged,

    see

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

    In

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

    See the paragraph titled “definition”

    It looks like we can just add energy to the down quark to get up to the strange quark.

    It looks like

    “quantum field B mixes with the W^ 3 electroweak quantum field to produce the observed Z gauge boson and the photon of quantum electrodynamics.”

    On the last line of the the table in that section, the right and left handed quark families are broken out.

    The charge weak isospin and weak isocharge and shown to be conserved in the handed magnetic reaction that increases the masses of the down/anti-down quark into a strange/anti-strange quark.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Where does the energy come from? How is it directed?

      • Axil Axil

        First this energy comes from heat. the heat(as light) is stored in the polaritons that ride on top of the ultra dense deuterium.

        Keith Fredericks has measured the energy potential of the strange particles. That energy potential added up to a few GeV, more that enough to generate the magnetic flux tube.

        Those particles are the ultra dense deuterium (UDD) molecules that are formed during the month long diadisk soak. It takes a long time for those molecules to form. Remember that me356 said during your test session with him that his fuel was not strong enough because it was not prepared for a long enough time?

        The cloud of electrons that cover the UDD store the energy as light energy and the SPP coat converts the spin energy of light into the spin energy of handed polarized magnetism.

        The UDD can extract the excess residual nucleon binding energy as it dissolves the protons and neutrons into kaons. The UDD is superconductive so that its energy store is lossless and can last for months. Excess stored energy in on the UDD is converted to muons.

        Holmlid said that when he exposed his UDD to lab light, muon emissions increased. So the UDD can get energy from many sources.

        I have references if required…

    • causal observer

      Bob’s questions below may be asking about the energy of what I would call “ignition”; not the gross energy applied to the system, but the specific energy that kicks off the key reaction by which the electrons change the quarks. Please pardon me and correct if I’m mistaken.

      On the other side of the equation, I believe the model still needs a clear statement of where the bulk of the excess heat comes from (“the new fire” or what I would call the “release”) .

      Understanding of the LENR effect could then be narrowed down to the reactions that take place between ignition and release. (Please choose other terms if they might be more suitable.)

      I believe it would also be helpful to clarify whether the geometric patterns that Bob points out represent a major part of the excess energy release or if they are simply side effects, like cloud chamber tracks, that give clues to the inner mechanism.

      • Axil Axil

        Ultra dense deuterium (UDD) has a hexagonal crystal structure, the left handed magnetism comes from the one triangular section and the right handed magnetism comes from the other triangle. This is why the flux tube produces the triangular hole.

        Holmlid said as follows:

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895

        Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)

        The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state s = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to s = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2]. The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.

        The nucleon binding energy is 390 MeV per reaction. If 95 MeV per particle is used to destabilize the nucleon then for two protons, its requires 190 MeV to feed the reaction. That provides a minimum of 200 MeV excess binding energy per reaction.

      • Axil Axil

        It’s complicated.

        The SPP forms a Bose condensate no matter the temperature. All the members of the condensate contribute to the pool of energy. The Energy is released via superadience.

        See

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

        There is so much energy applied that any flavor of quark can be created.

        All of the nucleon’s energy (1 GeV) is available minus the energy needed to produce electrons and neutrinos, the end products of particle decay.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Max. Interested in what he presents.

    If nothing else – Strange Radiation might be taken more seriously, I know that at least one other party is preparing a presentation for ICCF 21 about it.

  • causal observer

    Axil:

    Responding to a comment you made below about using some help: I believe what could be helpful here is the equivalent of the principal investigator’s “single blackboard” that all ECW readers could view and comment on.

    In this case there could be single illustration, in which all the element of the process were given graphic, table and/or formula representations. I believe you have many of the graphic elements already, that need only to be assembled into a single, condensed view. There can be additional diagrams for the details; the initial goal would be to show the entire process in one view (the “blackboard”)

    This would be a specifically iterative approach, so I would not be concerned at first about completeness, accuracy or arrangement. I would get all the elements on one page in some approximate sequence of occurrence, with sufficient graphic/text information to remind people of the phenomena involved. The explanatory gaps would show up quickly for collective consideration.

    I mostly use Powerpoint for this sort of thing because it’s easy (and the document could evolve into a slide presentation). However there are many graphic programs that would do the job. https://www.draw.io/ is a highly functional free product that supports sharing and collaboration via Google Drive if that becomes a possibility.

    Disqus is not set up for collectively working on a shared illustration, however, you could create the illustration and post it here where it could be studied, prompting people to add more focused questions, comments, suggestions, etc. You could then use those as input to modify the document as appropriate and repost. Round and round and round, a synergistic vortex of information flow.

    If Frank would keep the thread open or open a new thread specifically for this purpose then the process of iteratively improving the document could run indefinitely and hopefully to an interesting completion.

    The advantages of doing it here are that (with Frank’s support) the infrastructure is here and the participants are all signed up.

    I’m not 100% convinced that your model of the LENR effect is correct, however I believe that it is plausible and deserves to be fully worked out. I’d like to see that happen, and the above process is one way to get there.

    • causal observer

      Ok, so I built one. “I don’t care if I’m wrong, I just want to contribute to progress”.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58f7e318e670c36a7ca66ee370865667cb51809521f3fc6ebe402f19399c2590.png

      I’ll email the source PPT to Frank, without assuming any obligation on his part to do anything with it.

      • Axil Axil

        See post in
        New Inflow: Russian Company Claims LENR Success
        http://e-catworld.com/2018/03/27/new-inflow-russian-lenr-company-claims-lenr-success/#comment-3830611062

        Would that layering structure change the diagram?

        • causal observer

          I modified the diagram to include your layering. Interestingly different perspectives: I favor temporal causation, because it seems more analyzable. The diagram still needs detai to fill that in.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: “My current biggest cognitive gap is at (8): how specifically are the excess Z particles generated?”

            When the magnetic flux tube has pumped enough energy into the quark, at Z particle is formed out of the vacuum, under the influence of the Higgs field. The sequence is as follows:
            1 – energy is added to the quark at an undetermined rate via the magnetic field flux lines.

            2 – the quark is excited, becomes unstable and the Z particle comes into existence to action the weak force.

            3 – the quark is transformed into a more massive quark by the weak force.

            One Z particle is formed per quark since the Z particle actions the weak force.

          • Axil Axil
          • causal observer

            Thanks, interesting link.

            My takeaway is that the physical matrix provides a platform in which the electron vortices can be developed. The “gearing mechanism” among the different size vortices provides an explanatory path for the amplification.

            If these were physical gears there would be no doubt. So how can there be a “gear train” (or more aptly “gear system”) of “electron vortices”?

            Pursuing that question leads to something related to crystals, energy and entropy that resonates intuitively…

            The vortices are a way for the whole system to pack the energy into a most efficient state. The formation of the “structure” of the tiered vortices is analogous to the formation of crystals in matter.

            The physical matrix has to have the appropriate structure in descending size levels (e.g. 1=nickel, 2=lithium hydride (?), 3=nano-scale metallic H or D) to support the formation of the energy structure. (Kind of like the idea that the structure of certain clays could provide a matrix for the formation of complex organic molecules i.e. basis of life.)

            The input energy creates a level of mobility in the various components of the physical matrix so that if they are close to the necessary structural relationships they can sort of “click into” the full 3- (or x) level relationship, producing the “Matrix” (capital M”) in which the “energy vortex gearing system” then operates.

            So if we posit that these little electron vortices actually form (just google “electron vortex”) then there are explanatory paths for the rest.

            In answer to the “more detail at stage 3”, then the answer would be that the H or D provides the necessary lowest level of structure for the electron vortex gearing network.

            We’ll have to hire one of Maxwell’s demons to examine this at close range and provide a full report.

          • Axil Axil

            There are at least three mechanisms that support the Surface plasmon polariton. The Ultra dense hydrogen mechanism is one, Rough metal surfaces is another, and micro/nanoparticles clustering is a third. The work done by Ken Shoulders produces nanoparticle based LENR reactions. The “fuel” produced in LENR systems is based on UDH. It is important to not confuse and conflate the various types of LENR reaction mechanisms.

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding: “If anyone would like to take over the source PowerPoint perhaps Frank could intermediate an anonymous transfer. I’m running out of budget for this one, and detail from here on will increase exponentially.”

            You now understand that documenting the complete LENR theory is a very complex and extensive project.

          • causal observer

            Seems more like systems analysis with weak structure and highly constrained information feeds, but yes complex.

      • causal observer

        The above diagram needs an update based on Axil’s assertion that it is muons that are doing the main work, not mesons. Originally people thought muons were a type of meson, however, later models concluded that muons were their own thing.

        Because of that the model fuzzes out between 8 and 11. The diagram is still accurate to my understanding of Axil’s model up to and including 8.

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

        “Because muons have a very large mass and energy compared with the decay energy of radioactivity, they are never produced by radioactive decay. They are, however, produced in copious amounts in high-energy interactions in normal matter, in certain particle accelerator experiments with hadrons, or naturally in cosmic ray interactions with matter. These interactions usually produce pi mesons initially, which most often decay to muons.

        • Axil Axil

          On step 10, meson, specifically kaon, decay eventually produces muons. The many ways that meson creation and their decay into muons is complicated. But meson decay happens so fast that most of it happens inside the reactor. Because muons have a long lifetime and are highly penetrating most all of them exit the reactor.

  • Max Nozin

    Summary of the video presentation on the danger of strange radiation at RUDN.

    Full video https://youtu.be/ALqVJ48WQzQ

    Shishkin A.L. group claims that they dicovered new type of highly penetrating radiation – vortex soliton or as they also called it magneto thoroidal electic emanations.
    From 2011 they studied tracks and craters on the photoemulsion.

    He claims that solitons are composed of cold neutrinos. He later calls it string-wave soliton sws.
    The properties of sws are correlated with the material which emits them.
    By analyzing craters in emulsion they estimated harmful energy at 23.3 MeV
    Calculations show that this level is lethal for red blood cells and damaging for the white.
    Currently they are developing an active detecor and protection methods – no details.
    The detection using films is taking days.

    Q&A and comments
    Q Rosatom. was there a decrease of the damage with the increase of the distance
    A no, screens were not effective

    Q Bychkov MGU. Do you know about Uruzkoev strange radiation experimens on anilmals?
    A We did our own. 2014 from 400W corona discharge, rats 20cm rats apart were radiated 2.5h. Exposed group received deadly amount of radiation

    Q put an estimate on the mass of sws?
    A maximum is 100GeV by our theorists’ estimate.

    Q Zatelepin (Inlease LTD) why do you calling the particle imassless
    A of course it is not massless. We think it is a 700m long string in spiral motion [yes the theirist can produce will weird claims]

    For protection it is best to use materials with sandwich structure. The more layers the better since solitons interact with all materials in the same way.

    Parkhomov: we don’t have to use films to detect. We see tracks and craters in many materials. Some tracks are cm long. The damage is so intense it is obviously exceeds 100meV and cannot be done by any known emissions. The transmutations are the mechanism behind the damage.
    Good news that we need to hold detectors for weeks by the reactor to accumulate enough tracks. 40 cm away it fades away. We see tracks on the organic glass stored away from the reactors which means we are in the ambient radiation of this type all the time

    A: suggested that Parkhomov use microscope to see more damage.

    Q A person from MIFI. I know about similar work with this anomaly (secret) myself I have been dealing with them for years. At MIFI Nesterovich and Bogdanovich published work confirming observations of similar nature. They saw LENR changing crystalline structure for of metals and that is why they are secret.
    The solitons behave like live creatures [sic] and can live in the metals for month. 15 years ago we called them ‘tracers’.

    Q Koretzkiy worked with Bazgutov , MIFI.
    We noticed that 1-2cm thick of organic glass sharply decreases this type of radiation. We saw nothing meters away form the reactor.

    To detect radioactive radiation they used beat-detector with fluoroplastic screen in front. The second control detector without screen shows no lower readings even close to the reactor.

    Zatelepin – best results were achieved on the reactors made of dielectrics. Metal construction works worse or don’t at all. We use simple carbon copy paper for detection. We see holes in it after exposure. This new matter is a composition of a chemical nature. It attracts surrounding matter and gains wieght. Having big rotation moment this gomation makes tracks by drilling. Suggests using exaust system to fight exposure.

    • causal observer

      That’s…just…great…

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.