Hey Bob, Great presentation as always! I really loved the song. Looking forward to a high quality version some day so I can recommend it be played as part of the freedom music rotation on an alternative internet radio station I listen too (media monarchy for those who might be interested). I haven't had an opportunity to repeat my ultra experiments yet as my daughter has a cold and hasn't been out of the house for the last week and a bit. Hopefully they'll be a chance next week, I have my camera and microscope stuff ready.
Related to the comment about planetary destruction you made. I often felt based on various readings that nuclear weapons being co developed in two locations was not an coincidence, and done precisely for the purpose of providing a fail safe redundant self destruct deterrent to potential off world influences. I now find it curious that the worlds super powers are all racing to build larger and larger particle accelerators. I realize it's rather a leap, but I've suspected for a long time, there may be an argument to be made that a super conducting torus might be an oppropriate geometry for some kind of torsion weapon, perhaps even the next generation fail safe redundant self destructive weapon (as you alluded this type of technology would be capable of in your presentation).
I sometimes try to see it from the perspective of our unfortunate rulers, and wonder are they so foolish and drunk with superiority as to believe that a termination switch for the entire planet is really a necessity for humanity as a collective to retain it's sovereignty in the cosmos. It's good to be cautious I guess, but it feels like humanities fear is continually leveraged against us to put us in terrible situations. I really hope this technology and with it a grander vision of the cosmos might lesson humanities fear and bring us back from the precipice which we always seem to foolishly border on.
All the best, looking forward to o day presentations, and perhaps in the next few months I will have my own space (not the family kitchen) to do experiments in!
PS: I forgot to mention, if you, Sho, Omasa and Matsumoto get together some kind of leaflet or mailing regarding the nuclear remediation technique and want help mailing it to politicians, fishery bureaus or other outlets in Japan let me know, I'm happy to be an envelope stuffer. ( did a paper route for 8 years as a kid) I'm may also be able to deliver in person if it's near Hiroshima for added impact. Just let me know, it sounded like you guys had a plan, so if I can be of assistance just email me.
I was able to follow the live stream sparsely but got lucky to be just on when the SEMs / EDX of Alan's foils where being shown by you. As always, and thinking on the skeptic criticisism, in the conditions the experiment is being conducted, is impossible to rule out contamination either from the material (Al foil) itself or the reaction vessel. A way to isolate from the influence of the vessel material itself would be to use a Polipropilene (PP) container inmersed in the ultrasound bath, I recall that the waves will be present anyway as the PP will transmit them, might be some attenuation / distorsion, but should work anyway. I plan to do this in my experiments with reference solutions, to discard iron coming from the basin itself.
Now, Isolating from contaminants in the material is always more complex, and in solid samples, practically impossible to remove the doubt completely, at least for skeptical's sake. The work around it would be to have a control experiment with the same material but I can hardly think of another process that would produce the same mechanical shredding effect. In my case, as I am working with solutions, is easier as one can have a reference experiment with non cavitating mechanic stirring and the same energy input that should not show any transmutation. The only other workaround is to work with certified purity materials, or even with purity patrons, which is always expensive, but might be worth a try, tho.
I meant the last sentence on the above comment for the case of solid samples. In solutions one can always analyse the solutions for impurities before treatment.
Yes, we discussed using different containers and also using say Caustic Soda to dissolve a role of Al foil and then see if there are magnetic ferrite spheres in the residue.
Yes, contamination (from the SS bowl and from Al foil impurity) is a problem that need to be addressed. However it is not so hard to work around. An inner bowl made of a sufficiently hard material not containing iron should be quite transaprent to the ultrasound filed (of course it will affect the standing wave pattern and the overall resonating fraqunecy, but if the erosion of the Al foil can still be observer, this may not be a problem). The purity of Al foil can be assessed by dissolving it (in HCl or NaOH) and by analysing the residues. NaOH is very good, because it will not dissolve Fe, so it can even be detected by using a magnet. Avoiding contamination by design and assessing the purity of initial samples, is IMO a more convenient and practical way of dealing with this issue compared to a control experiment (that may also rise addisional questions and uncertainty).
I think the only way to do that would be with sample destroying methods, tho, I don't know of any process that can do that with a SEM. There's a technique that was mentioned to my by a German Dr. of Engineering (Herbert Kliem) that found some apparent anomalies in his work and got interested in the so called "craters" he found in his experiments and look related to the ones so often found in Pd electrodes. I contacted him due to his suggestion of potential nuclear anomaly, and he was interested in looking for transmutation using a rather sophisticated technique that creates an atomic map of the region under observation, called AFM (Atomic Force Microscope), but I don't know anyone currently working with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy
Hi Curbina! AFM is mainly used to analyse surface morphology and some material properties, but cannot be used to make elemental or isotopic analysis. BTW, the principles involved in AFM microscopes are relatively simple: I know university researchers that built an AFM micoscope from scratch! :-)
It turns out I got the name of the technique mingled up on my mind, the technique that Herbert Kliem wants to use is APT (Atom Probe Tomography) which is capable of elemental analysis but also of mapping it in 3D, but is also destructive of the sample (it literally destroys it atom by atom and creates a 3D map of the sample with the elemental composition at the same time.
Hey Bob, Awesome presentation! I finally had 5 hours today to try afew more ULTR experiments at higher framerates with a microscope lens. I didn't see anything too shockingly interesting so only watch them when you have some free time. The main takeaway for me was stuff appeared to pulsate at around 100-120hz (bubble expansion collapse cycles and even some of the spinning vortices). The other thing I think I gathered was that all the things flying around quickly (no the aluminum flakes usually) are bubbles of some form. I think you are probably right that the paramagnetic oxygen is important. I look forward to hearing why. I have all the videos in raw format so if you want any specific portions extracted and slowed down just let me know in the next 3 months.
bubble cycle at 22 second mark takes 5-7 frames usually 6 between stable frames that works out to a cycle of 120-160 hz
Last 3 are tap water with HHO bubbled through it for 30 mins before hand. Not sure if it made any difference really. I did see a grid like pattern of sprites but I think that may have been related to the spacing between the foil and the cd cover I used for my boat.
what would appear to be a spinning aluminum in the middle at timestamp 14-15 appears to pause every 5 frames this kind of fits with the 120hz frequency spotted in earlier video for bubble pulsation frequency.
Also I just realized my aluminum foil actually has a thin silicon coating on the back to make it non stick (no wonder it cost more and only had a piddly 6 meters on the roll...)
2. I'm using a custom lens assembly I 3d printed that uses a 125mm "tube lens" DCR-250 and a 4x infinity corrected plan fluor nikon objective. The pixel size should be about 2.07um based on a test I did where I filmed my LCD screen and calculated the pixel size. This comes out to a horizontal field of view of about 4mm (I'll get a picture of the setup re-assembled minus the water tomorrow, I forgot to take one today)
3. I think down sampling may ave been the incorrect word to describe it. I'm just taking what was a 220, 440, 600, 830 fps video and adjusting the frame rate to 30 fps for upload to youtube, there is no merging of frames. The only thing that I wish I had recorded was the exposure times. I believe I had my exposure should be the maximum for the framerate selected so it should have minimum downtime between captures but I'm not 100% certain as looking at the video it seems there may be some strange gaps (I don't think they are dropped frames)
I'll upload the full raw file for 11_02_31Uncompressed-0000 it's a 25GB raw avi file uncompressed, compressed with bzip2 it's 4.5 GB. I dropped it on mega.nz (if it's to large for you or you have trouble downloading it just let me know what part you want specifically and I can cut that out, or upload it elsewhere).
As mentioned above I'll get a reproduction picture of the setup tomorrow and send it with everything in the same places just no water or foil :).
If I do it again in the future I'll be sure to take photos of the setup with another camera.
I reversed the foil orientation between the first 4 videos and the last 3. I think the first 4 had the silicon coated side facing the camera, the last 3 had the raw aluminum facing the camera. This may have also effected the results.
I had one video where I saw a bubble that compressed into a smaller bubble and a burst of light came out at that instant. I have it stored but I couldn't find it when I was trying to choose which videos to send to youtube. If you're interested I can watch them again and try to find it. It seemed like it was probably the same type of light people say comes from "normal" cavitation.
I really look forward to your high speed videos, I really wish I had auto focus, the focus drift is such a pain. I had to use a syringe to add and remove water from the cleaner in realtime to get the floating boat to stay in focus as the ultrasonics pushed the foil up and down. This is slow and takes 4 seconds, and when the video is going to be played back 10x slower that's 40 seconds of blurry mess. It's also relatively trivial to put higher magnification objectives on this setup, but it would be impossible to maintain any usable focus with an even smaller depth of field.
1. Nice camera, large pixel/sensor size, sensitive with Global Shutter, as you have this monochrome capability - I have decided to go for colour on our camera - I believe the sensitivity will be fine for this and VEGA so will be nice to have the colour information and I can throw the lasers in to shot to capture other information.
2. Great - would be helpful to have the STL file for those that wish to replicate.
3. That is what I thought, thanks for the clarification. Yes there are some gaps, so that needs to be resolved - I was going to join some motions together like I have done with VEGA to show multi-frame motions, however, I could see the gaps - so the the exposure time needs to be for the full frame time. You should be able to set that on this camera
No problem on file size, took about 10 mins to download on my connection.
Could you also do a parts photo please?
The light bust shout would be great. Yes please. Have you tried fixing all the parameters and then running it in the dark?
There is muck more going on in this work that 'normal' cavitation (of course, it is normal too)
Not sure auto focus will work - however, I have the stack focus rack and so I can adjust with that rather than the method you are using. Have to wait 5 weeks at least to get the camera. The stack focus rail option is quite affordable.
Where I am less certain on is the type of sense I will use. It has a CS mount and I can get adaptor for C and also via that to Canon EF/EF-s. The Macro lens I use is EF-S but I need to find out if it supports power pass through for the ring light and the focus etc. I think a dedicated lens that mounts direct to the CS and is suitable for the sensor size would be better.
Thanks for recommending that macro rail it is cheapish I will consider it in the future! The water approach works ok. I think if I had a rigid mount for the foil a rail like that would be good. Adding and removing water to get focus gave good precision until things started to move.
I uploaded the additional video you asked for it's 2.14GB compressed.
I did a bit of experimenting with the camera and the software was lying to me about exposure times. I figured out what I need to do to get an almost complete exposure time, I think I can get about 93% time coverage. I will give it another go when the opportunity arises! :)
I will hunt for the burst video over the next few days. I didn't try running in the dark. Really looking forward to seeing your videos with the new camera in 5 weeks. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about camera stuff, so not sure I can recommend a macro lens for your cs/c-mount. I use microscope objectives because I have them available. 160mm objectives are easier to connect with a camera as they don't require an additional tube lens. I might consider used 160mm objectives instead of a macro lens if you want high magnification (although I'm not even sure that's what we really want/need).
"I had one video where I saw a bubble that compressed into a smaller bubble and a burst of light came out at that instant. I have it stored but I couldn't find it when I was trying to choose which videos to send to youtube. If you're interested I can watch them again and try to find it. It seemed like it was probably the same type of light people say comes from "normal" cavitation."
To which you had said:
"The light bust shout would be great. Yes please. Have you tried fixing all the parameters and then running it in the dark?"
I spent 2 hours watching all my footage from the 20th and I think I found the section of video I was referring to regarding the bubble, I think your latest youtube video has far cooler effects going on but I have uploaded the corresponding clip as you said you wanted it. (the negatives of slow motion footage is watching it takes so bloody long to watch and find the stuff! I learned my lesson to write down timestamps or take screen shots if I see anything interesting the first time!)
The footage is titled "11 28 14Uncompressed 0000" recorded on 2021-04-20 it was recorded at 90 fps but encoded at 30 fps 3x slowdown with an original resolution of 1920x2048 and file size of around 106GB. I didn't have the exposure time set to match the framrate for optimal downtime that day.
The timestamps of interest are mentioned below.
2:15-2:16 at middle left of screen, small bubble to the top right of the big one moves around then emits light and shrinks (a little hard to see as it's over a foil indentation that also causes specular highlighting) (this bubble is later absorbed into another bubble at 4:13-4:16 and it looks like it may have a different refractive index than the outer bubbles gas maybe, or there is some layer between them? this is probably a bit of a stretch but maybe different forms of coherent matter?) Later on if you watch this double bubble it gets very phase shifty and appears to show a rippling substructure inside it.
I made a youtube video showing my cursor around the bubble I'm talking about at the times of interest. (https://youtu.be/wkSPDtTUMyU)
3:35-3:36 at bottom left of screen, sprite fast moving unstable structure merges with stable bubble to increase volume 2 fold. I think this is why the hazy things that move around quickly are some kind of structure made of oxygen (or some other gas perhaps) as they appear to merge to bubbles in certain situations..
I uploaded the video to youtube as 4k due to the odd resolution of 1920x2048 (I chose 60fps even though it's a 30fps video so when frame single stepping you will need to click twice) I think it may have scaled it strangely as 2048 is smaller than the 2160 used by normal 4k. https://youtu.be/_IDjQ2E1V4Q
I have the raw video file again but it's 18G compressed. If you want a certain section of it let me know and I will try to extract just that portion.
This is indeed interesting, though I cannot work out if it is a bubble inside a bubble or vertically stacked.
Yes, it takes a LONG time to go through these files. I am currently going though the video I uploaded to YT and noting down frame numbers for interesting things and noting what they are. On a second pass I will choose the best bits, export frames crop and make animated gif - I am only working at 240 or 960fps (the latter is too mushy, by the 240fps is ok).
I think I will wait though until I have a black background to remove the steel reflections and provide higher contrast - the case of the endoscope showed how much better things could be set against a black background.
If you could separate the sections you think are of most value and upload raw files for that 18GB is no problem for me, but need to avoid clutter where possible.
Good Point, it's possible it may have just been stacked and very hard to tell :) I don't think there's an aweful lot more detail in the raw file vs the youtube one so I'll probably hold off. Hopefully I will see something more interesting next time I attempt an experiment. The black background with side illumination is an interesting idea, kind of like dark field illumination in microscopy, it would really highlight the reflections from the gasses in the water. I wonder if I might be able to achieve a similar thing with a sheet of anodized black aluminum, rather than just continuing to use aluminum foil.
I would like to know if any foil disappears. Is it possible to design an experiment that can detect if foil is disappearing? The experiment would go like this... weigh using a very sensitive scale the foil going into the experiment and then at the end of the experiment the foil coming out of the experiment together with the foil fragments. I want to determine if the EVOs are "bubbles of nothing" see my post above. If you can prove that EVOs make matter disappear, that would be an important scientific discovery. The is science theory that goes along with the Bubbles of nothing including the existence of a micro black hole inside the EVO. Also the Black Hole could be producing time dilation to stabilizes radioactive isotopes. Proving this is important stuff.
Hey Axil, I am pretty sure I could attempt this. The experiment before my last one I attempted to run the water through a coffee filter but it was nearly impossible given the volume of water, and I kept overflowing the filter and spilling. Also my ultraonic cleaner has a drain port in the bottom (I regret buying one with a drain port, it isn't very useful and the weld joint rusts and might contaminate the water too) If I were to attempt this I think I would have to put the water inside another smaller vessel that was partially submersed. I'm very happy to attempt this using a borrosilicate beaker as I designed a mount for holding a beaker before. I worry however that the beaker may attenuate the ultrasosnic power so much that the effect largely disappears but testing would be the best way. Someone with a smaller cleaner that doesn't have a drain port could probably do it directly in the cleaner with higher power.
I have jewelry scale I can weigh with. I think the challenge will pre-weighing the entire filter paper on the tiny jewelry scale then running the water through the filter, drying the filter, then some how getting it all on the tiny jewelry scale again (for the final weigh perhaps I can just cut it into smaller peices with scissors). And during this whole process I have to try and avoid dropping any of the aluminum "dust". I say dust because it really is smaller than flakes and even fine grain sand in my case. I will have a try if I get 2-3 spare hours by myself this week in the kitchen. I would probably want to run it for an hour or something to fully particulate the aluminum. I have some lab grade distilled water I can use if I'm testing with a small flask. I would also probably bubble some air or HHO through it first just for luck. I wouldn't call it a positive result though unless there is a reduction of like mass by > 25% as I fully expect some aluminum dust to blow off the filter while it dries.
Alternatively perhaps one could submerse it in a tiny ziplock bag, to eliminate the necessity to filter and dry fluids. I just feel this would also attenuate the ultrasonics too much and the bag might also be perforated. I'll have to try, maybe I can attempt both at the same time :)
Using a filter is an inaccurate method of capturing the residue, in my opinion.
Can't you put the water from the cavitiator along with the foil residue in a old pot or a glass beaker and slowly boil the water off so that no foil residue is lost?
On the foil input side, just use small pieces of foil that measure up to the maximum capacity of your scale and do the operation "N' times until you think you have enough to show results. Boil off the water after each iteration of the experiment.
A last cleanup rince can be done to make sure you have gotten all the residue out of the cleaner. Getting all the residue out of the beaker in order to do final weight measurement will be difficult to ensure an accurate reading.
Guys, there is one big challenge with this, the Aluminium will, in quite a large way, go from 2Al to Al2O3, adding 24 nucleons for every 27Al that becomes part of an oxide molecule.
For this reason, I am not sure this is a good use of time.
It is, I believe, a better use of time to attempt the Mexican observations (no partially walked back) that they saw lead disappear with, at the time of the original paper, no sign of 75% of the missing material.
Hey Bob and Axil, Thanks for both your tips. Boiling off is a much better idea if I were to proceed with this. It's pretty possible to do if I put the water in beaker to start with. Bob has a good point about the 2Al -> Al2O3 I hadn't even considered that. For the Mexican lead experiment Bob, is it just thin lead foil? I haven't read the paper. I seem to recall you saying they were using a parabolic reflector to focus the ultrasound. I'm not sure if a regular cleaner is going to provide necessary intensity. Perhaps with a thin enough foil it might just work, I found some 0.3mm foil with adhesive on the back (I could remove the adhesive with some cleaner) https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Active-Lead-Seal/dp/B0028IG10K/ref=psdc_15672621_t2_B003C2YE3C? Worth trying?
It is a very different experiment, where the sound is pulsed and focussed to one point. Having said that, we have seen that there are very resonant nodes in these domestic cleaners so you could try it all the same, get some lead as you have identified, then, after preparing the sample (removing adhesive), you could seal in a plastic food sealer bag system (I have one for storing the mushrooms and fruit I harvest and dry in the autumn). This would also prevent contaminating the chamber with lead.
I have one similar to this (no scale, different vendor)
You would need to keep it fixed in a specific position in the chamber.
Then you weigh before and after a period of exposure in the chamber. The bag may loose some mass so a control of a bag with no lead may be useful to determine error bars.
Over this week I will be filling out the newsletter pages on recent presentations after I have done part two of "Something-electric".
Still some questions as to exactly how this was setup in the actual experiment but this does give us a lot more information, probably enough here to start some experiments trial and error to try out some interpretations of what he is describing. Not sure if he simply mashed up the wire into a ball with pinches into it before he rolled it into a ball or how the electrodes were laid our in respect to each other etc. but definitely enough clues and details here to start some experimentation! That reference 1 has got to have some tasty stuff in it I would imagine.
This last structure added is comparatively much bigger and has a little higher Iron so it must be denser. It looks “layered”, and as you say the part we can’t see looks like it could be similar to the surface of the spheres. Might this be a bigger sphere that was destroyed? Fascinating effects of Ultrasound in the aluminum foil.
Yes indeed I was addressing your idea and agreeing with it, I also agree the central layer looks strikingly clear to be an amorphous material, which is on itself tantalizing.
I was just thinking, while looking this last anomalous bit of sonicated foil during my lunch, how such a fascinating complex shape and composition could be thoughtlessly dismissed by anyone not really aware of how it was created, to be any random inclusion or impurity on the foil that got loosened.
I was thinking that looking at the untreated foil for any anomaly (and failing to find anything as this) could help dispel all the clumsy and shallow criticisms that are thrown around by people that lack the patience and focus to sit and watch a 4 hours lecture. The shallowness of the criticisms and the incapacity to see are somewhat irritating.
I actually think that the glassy amorphous state is a signature of frozen formerly coherent matter. I saw this in the LION crust, then in the Dendrites on the Ti that was exposed to Ohmasa Gas and then touched on PTFE and now this.
I have a very specific set of reasons, but this is now the third independent system to see this in and all of them I believe are involve coherent matter.
Absolutely that verification needs to be done and many, including myself have been clear about that. For me though, this is not an observations that stands alone. A near one for one morphological sphere was found in Norway at the point a ball lightning was expected to have hit the ground - and there are all the other examples I give here
I will do the atomic to weight conversions and compare the element mass ratios between what we see from NOVA and what is here in ULTR.
There are the magnetic spheres in LION and other examples.
So we are not operating in a vacuum, I predicted there would be crenelated, magnetic, iron-rich spheres. Then I saw something that looked like it in the centre of the 3-winged part I had extracted and then Alan found 3 iron-rich crenelated spheres in his first attempt.
Moreover, the other elements look to be arranged in defending mass order as deposits on the outside of the spheres and there is no Cr or Ni as would be expected if this came from the ultrasonic tank.
I was pondering the other day that many people do the “aluminum foil test” on their ultrasonic jewel cleaners because it is the way one is supposed to test if they are working properly, and no one ever realizes the complex and fascinating processes that are happening, literally, right under their noses. Looking at these crenelated spherules I can only wonder what forces and phenomena can produce such a seemingly perfect spherical particle with such a complex surface features and elemental composition out of an apparently simple hydraulic system. How much people has simply completely overlooked this fascinating observation?
So far no answer from professor Fernández nor from Dr. Islev. about the possibility of having their guidance for the practical aspects of a replication. The ultrasound source is a kidney stone smashing device, have tried to get a sense of how much would it cost, to no avail, but being it a medical equipment, is probably expensive.
The other paper of Dr. Islev where he pondered the emission of X rays from metals exposed to laser, reminds me a lot to the work of the Russian team that found "Strange Radiation" from water exposed to the sun and surrounded by magnets, so I agree that is possible EVOs being blasted by the laser. I also think it has some degree of relationship to the work of Holmlid in that sense.
I think that the emission is interpreted as being solely X rays, mostly because of the unawareness of the more complex"SR", and given that Dr. Islev is a Quantum Mechanics theorist. I have got a sense that he has been trying to prove macroscopic quantum tunneling and the dissapearance of matter fits in his line of work, in that sense.
So they are literally blasting the kidney stones with EVOs..., and one can only wonder what kind of other stuff happens to the organs, perhaps even positive stuff.
Well, Getting to know these things begins to paint a more clearer picture out of the data available. Professor Fernández might have seen something that caught their attention and that led them to do the work with the lead, he has several publications of the effects of shockwaves in biological and medical applications.
That's a very interesting and surprising piece of information, Indeed, and I have to admit I was a bit baffled by the dramatic effect of the ultrasound shockwave at those low frequencies, but this means that it has not much to do with the frequency used to cavitate but with the cavitation per se.
Evening Bob, Question of the day is ,was the WardenClyff a giant Tesla coil housing a nuclear fusion reactor. Did it use the ionosphere (as a means of free energy)to jumpstart the energy requirements to perform cold fusion?
Let me see, So it releases both photons and RF which are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. If I understand correctly that would mean this wireless energy functions similarly to the way The Sun emits sun rays. Would Tesla’s wireless energy be some form of artificial sunlight?
Physicists Are Studying Mysterious ‘Bubbles of Nothing’ That Eat Spacetime
“[A bubble of nothing] describes a possible channel for 'universe destruction;' in that the bubble of nothing expands and can 'eat' all of spacetime, converting it into 'nothing'"
“It would be interesting to work out under what conditions an observer could 'ride' on the bubble of nothing and see a universe that is similar to the one we live in"
The universe might be on track to eat itself from the inside out.
Luckily for us, physicists studying the phenomenon, called “spacetime decay”, believe this is very unlikely. Still, the possibility is interesting enough to explore in mind-boggling detail, covering “bubbles of nothing” in spacetime, hidden extra dimensions, and a hypothetical observer hitching a ride on the outer surface of our universe.
This "bubble of Nothing" behaves just like the EVO, doesn't it?
I haven’t done any research really but I’m just wondering how Tesla would use the Wardenclyff as a energy source instead of transmitting energy.Can you give me any hints on how a process would operate?
As I commented below in reply to Stevenson, I had mixed up in my mind the technique that Herbert Kliem was interested into, is not AFM but APT (atom probe tomography) that is indeed capable of elemental analysis, y destroys the sample atom by atom and maps the position and composition of each in a 3D map. It has several constraints but if one wants to study materials and effects of conditions on materials at the nano scale, this analytical method is really useful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_probe
Hey Bob, Great presentation as always! I really loved the song. Looking forward to a high quality version some day so I can recommend it be played as part of the freedom music rotation on an alternative internet radio station I listen too (media monarchy for those who might be interested). I haven't had an opportunity to repeat my ultra experiments yet as my daughter has a cold and hasn't been out of the house for the last week and a bit. Hopefully they'll be a chance next week, I have my camera and microscope stuff ready.
Related to the comment about planetary destruction you made. I often felt based on various readings that nuclear weapons being co developed in two locations was not an coincidence, and done precisely for the purpose of providing a fail safe redundant self destruct deterrent to potential off world influences. I now find it curious that the worlds super powers are all racing to build larger and larger particle accelerators. I realize it's rather a leap, but I've suspected for a long time, there may be an argument to be made that a super conducting torus might be an oppropriate geometry for some kind of torsion weapon, perhaps even the next generation fail safe redundant self destructive weapon (as you alluded this type of technology would be capable of in your presentation).
I sometimes try to see it from the perspective of our unfortunate rulers, and wonder are they so foolish and drunk with superiority as to believe that a termination switch for the entire planet is really a necessity for humanity as a collective to retain it's sovereignty in the cosmos. It's good to be cautious I guess, but it feels like humanities fear is continually leveraged against us to put us in terrible situations. I really hope this technology and with it a grander vision of the cosmos might lesson humanities fear and bring us back from the precipice which we always seem to foolishly border on.
All the best, looking forward to o day presentations, and perhaps in the next few months I will have my own space (not the family kitchen) to do experiments in!
PS: I forgot to mention, if you, Sho, Omasa and Matsumoto get together some kind of leaflet or mailing regarding the nuclear remediation technique and want help mailing it to politicians, fishery bureaus or other outlets in Japan let me know, I'm happy to be an envelope stuffer. ( did a paper route for 8 years as a kid) I'm may also be able to deliver in person if it's near Hiroshima for added impact. Just let me know, it sounded like you guys had a plan, so if I can be of assistance just email me.
Thankyou, so much. We may just need your foot work!
I was able to follow the live stream sparsely but got lucky to be just on when the SEMs / EDX of Alan's foils where being shown by you. As always, and thinking on the skeptic criticisism, in the conditions the experiment is being conducted, is impossible to rule out contamination either from the material (Al foil) itself or the reaction vessel. A way to isolate from the influence of the vessel material itself would be to use a Polipropilene (PP) container inmersed in the ultrasound bath, I recall that the waves will be present anyway as the PP will transmit them, might be some attenuation / distorsion, but should work anyway. I plan to do this in my experiments with reference solutions, to discard iron coming from the basin itself.
Now, Isolating from contaminants in the material is always more complex, and in solid samples, practically impossible to remove the doubt completely, at least for skeptical's sake. The work around it would be to have a control experiment with the same material but I can hardly think of another process that would produce the same mechanical shredding effect. In my case, as I am working with solutions, is easier as one can have a reference experiment with non cavitating mechanic stirring and the same energy input that should not show any transmutation. The only other workaround is to work with certified purity materials, or even with purity patrons, which is always expensive, but might be worth a try, tho.
I meant the last sentence on the above comment for the case of solid samples. In solutions one can always analyse the solutions for impurities before treatment.
Yes, we discussed using different containers and also using say Caustic Soda to dissolve a role of Al foil and then see if there are magnetic ferrite spheres in the residue.
Yes, contamination (from the SS bowl and from Al foil impurity) is a problem that need to be addressed. However it is not so hard to work around. An inner bowl made of a sufficiently hard material not containing iron should be quite transaprent to the ultrasound filed (of course it will affect the standing wave pattern and the overall resonating fraqunecy, but if the erosion of the Al foil can still be observer, this may not be a problem). The purity of Al foil can be assessed by dissolving it (in HCl or NaOH) and by analysing the residues. NaOH is very good, because it will not dissolve Fe, so it can even be detected by using a magnet. Avoiding contamination by design and assessing the purity of initial samples, is IMO a more convenient and practical way of dealing with this issue compared to a control experiment (that may also rise addisional questions and uncertainty).
Is Alan’s SEM able to differentiate between iron isotopes? If the magnetic pieces of foil are primarily Fe54 then we have a slam dunk!
No - but that can come.
I think the only way to do that would be with sample destroying methods, tho, I don't know of any process that can do that with a SEM. There's a technique that was mentioned to my by a German Dr. of Engineering (Herbert Kliem) that found some apparent anomalies in his work and got interested in the so called "craters" he found in his experiments and look related to the ones so often found in Pd electrodes. I contacted him due to his suggestion of potential nuclear anomaly, and he was interested in looking for transmutation using a rather sophisticated technique that creates an atomic map of the region under observation, called AFM (Atomic Force Microscope), but I don't know anyone currently working with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy
Hi Curbina! AFM is mainly used to analyse surface morphology and some material properties, but cannot be used to make elemental or isotopic analysis. BTW, the principles involved in AFM microscopes are relatively simple: I know university researchers that built an AFM micoscope from scratch! :-)
It turns out I got the name of the technique mingled up on my mind, the technique that Herbert Kliem wants to use is APT (Atom Probe Tomography) which is capable of elemental analysis but also of mapping it in 3D, but is also destructive of the sample (it literally destroys it atom by atom and creates a 3D map of the sample with the elemental composition at the same time.
https://www.cameca.com/products/apt/technique
Hey Bob, Awesome presentation! I finally had 5 hours today to try afew more ULTR experiments at higher framerates with a microscope lens. I didn't see anything too shockingly interesting so only watch them when you have some free time. The main takeaway for me was stuff appeared to pulsate at around 100-120hz (bubble expansion collapse cycles and even some of the spinning vortices). The other thing I think I gathered was that all the things flying around quickly (no the aluminum flakes usually) are bubbles of some form. I think you are probably right that the paramagnetic oxygen is important. I look forward to hearing why. I have all the videos in raw format so if you want any specific portions extracted and slowed down just let me know in the next 3 months.
First four are regular tap water
https://youtu.be/ZQo_9G--m4s
220 fps downsampled to 30 fps
https://youtu.be/Vkg9atQ3x6I
440 fps downsampled to 30 fps
bubble seems to be pulsating at around 100hz at timestamp 2:10
another interesting bubble at timestamp 2:35
https://youtu.be/lSWlzSf2WN0
440 fps downsampled to 30 fps erosion and cracking along grain boundaries?
https://youtu.be/qzxMUD5mOqA
830 fps downsampled to 30 fps
bubble cycle at 22 second mark takes 5-7 frames usually 6 between stable frames that works out to a cycle of 120-160 hz
Last 3 are tap water with HHO bubbled through it for 30 mins before hand. Not sure if it made any difference really. I did see a grid like pattern of sprites but I think that may have been related to the spacing between the foil and the cd cover I used for my boat.
https://youtu.be/Q4gHC0f6_QU
176 fps downsampled to 30 fps
lots of sprites appearing to form a network of condensate as well as some impacts.
https://youtu.be/006Vy9VWClU
176 fps downsampled to 30 fps
https://youtu.be/LbUTW4wyrGM
500-600 fps downsampled to 30 fps
what would appear to be a spinning aluminum in the middle at timestamp 14-15 appears to pause every 5 frames this kind of fits with the 120hz frequency spotted in earlier video for bubble pulsation frequency.
Also I just realized my aluminum foil actually has a thin silicon coating on the back to make it non stick (no wonder it cost more and only had a piddly 6 meters on the roll...)
Also - this one please.
https://youtu.be/006Vy9VWClU
Ok, great work (and I have only seen 3 videos so far). Thankyou!
Can you take a photo of the experiment setup, camera, light positions etc.
Ok - I'd like the full file on this one. (where I am at moment)
https://youtu.be/lSWlzSf2WN0
Hi Peter, quick questions (I have just watched the first clip)
1. What camera are you using?
2. What lens?
3. The you are downsampling - are you playing all of the frames at the lower frame rate or are you merging a bunch of frames into one?
1. I'm using the following camera https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/gs3-u3-41c6m-c-1-grasshopper-usb-30-monochrome-camera/30770/
2. I'm using a custom lens assembly I 3d printed that uses a 125mm "tube lens" DCR-250 and a 4x infinity corrected plan fluor nikon objective. The pixel size should be about 2.07um based on a test I did where I filmed my LCD screen and calculated the pixel size. This comes out to a horizontal field of view of about 4mm (I'll get a picture of the setup re-assembled minus the water tomorrow, I forgot to take one today)
3. I think down sampling may ave been the incorrect word to describe it. I'm just taking what was a 220, 440, 600, 830 fps video and adjusting the frame rate to 30 fps for upload to youtube, there is no merging of frames. The only thing that I wish I had recorded was the exposure times. I believe I had my exposure should be the maximum for the framerate selected so it should have minimum downtime between captures but I'm not 100% certain as looking at the video it seems there may be some strange gaps (I don't think they are dropped frames)
I'll upload the full raw file for 11_02_31Uncompressed-0000 it's a 25GB raw avi file uncompressed, compressed with bzip2 it's 4.5 GB. I dropped it on mega.nz (if it's to large for you or you have trouble downloading it just let me know what part you want specifically and I can cut that out, or upload it elsewhere).
https://mega.nz/file/P7hgwRzB#7-sa7E5aSA4e-e-TmFc26e-aDXoco6Ia-ZnPlP50bKk
As mentioned above I'll get a reproduction picture of the setup tomorrow and send it with everything in the same places just no water or foil :).
If I do it again in the future I'll be sure to take photos of the setup with another camera.
I reversed the foil orientation between the first 4 videos and the last 3. I think the first 4 had the silicon coated side facing the camera, the last 3 had the raw aluminum facing the camera. This may have also effected the results.
I had one video where I saw a bubble that compressed into a smaller bubble and a burst of light came out at that instant. I have it stored but I couldn't find it when I was trying to choose which videos to send to youtube. If you're interested I can watch them again and try to find it. It seemed like it was probably the same type of light people say comes from "normal" cavitation.
I really look forward to your high speed videos, I really wish I had auto focus, the focus drift is such a pain. I had to use a syringe to add and remove water from the cleaner in realtime to get the floating boat to stay in focus as the ultrasonics pushed the foil up and down. This is slow and takes 4 seconds, and when the video is going to be played back 10x slower that's 40 seconds of blurry mess. It's also relatively trivial to put higher magnification objectives on this setup, but it would be impossible to maintain any usable focus with an even smaller depth of field.
1. Nice camera, large pixel/sensor size, sensitive with Global Shutter, as you have this monochrome capability - I have decided to go for colour on our camera - I believe the sensitivity will be fine for this and VEGA so will be nice to have the colour information and I can throw the lasers in to shot to capture other information.
2. Great - would be helpful to have the STL file for those that wish to replicate.
3. That is what I thought, thanks for the clarification. Yes there are some gaps, so that needs to be resolved - I was going to join some motions together like I have done with VEGA to show multi-frame motions, however, I could see the gaps - so the the exposure time needs to be for the full frame time. You should be able to set that on this camera
No problem on file size, took about 10 mins to download on my connection.
Could you also do a parts photo please?
The light bust shout would be great. Yes please. Have you tried fixing all the parameters and then running it in the dark?
There is muck more going on in this work that 'normal' cavitation (of course, it is normal too)
Not sure auto focus will work - however, I have the stack focus rack and so I can adjust with that rather than the method you are using. Have to wait 5 weeks at least to get the camera. The stack focus rail option is quite affordable.
https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Professional-focusing-Compatible-camcorders-close-up/dp/B07WK11QKW/ref=sr_1_6
Where I am less certain on is the type of sense I will use. It has a CS mount and I can get adaptor for C and also via that to Canon EF/EF-s. The Macro lens I use is EF-S but I need to find out if it supports power pass through for the ring light and the focus etc. I think a dedicated lens that mounts direct to the CS and is suitable for the sensor size would be better.
What would you recommend for a 4/3" sensor?
Hey Bob,
Thanks for recommending that macro rail it is cheapish I will consider it in the future! The water approach works ok. I think if I had a rigid mount for the foil a rail like that would be good. Adding and removing water to get focus gave good precision until things started to move.
I uploaded the additional video you asked for it's 2.14GB compressed.
13_49_16Uncompressed-0000: https://mega.nz/file/HzIkWRTR#PyTXun1rvc6wCp6A-LhjBIvx7T5n3B7q3P1mQ1yuojI
Yeah so regarding the setup.
Video of setup: https://youtu.be/KKunPi72MtE (I didn't put water in but it should give anyone who cares to reproduce a general idea)
Ultrasonic Cleaner: https://www.ebay.com/itm/323639907162
Lens Assembly Objective to CMount Adapter (I wouldn't necessarily recommend this setup, I just wanted to use optics I had on hand):
OpenSCAD: https://mega.nz/file/T7IGHRZC#ToVl6f5GUK0x35V80_qL0pJKjjLSG8D9DsLbQkMhxIQ
1) Camera: https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/gs3-u3-41c6m-c-1-grasshopper-usb-30-monochrome-camera/30770/
2) 20mm c-mount extender: https://www.ebay.com/itm/20mm-C-CS-Mount-Lens-Adapter-Ring-Extension-Tube-for-CCTV-Security-Camera/164472308612 (I don't like screwing expensive stuff into PLA directly cause it leaves junk on the brass threads)
3) Main 3d printed extender tube adapter c-mount to m43 female
4) DCR-250 Macro Lens: https://www.amazon.com/Raynox-DCR-250-Super-Macro-Snap/dp/B000A1SZ2Y
5) M42 to M39 3d printed adapter
6) M42 to M25-0.75 adapter: https://www.ebay.com/itm/M25-M42-M25-x0-75-Female-To-M42-Male-thread-Screw-Camera-Lens-Adapter/164364513194
7) 4x Nikon Objective: https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/4x-objective-nikon-cfi-plan-fluor/30636
I did a bit of experimenting with the camera and the software was lying to me about exposure times. I figured out what I need to do to get an almost complete exposure time, I think I can get about 93% time coverage. I will give it another go when the opportunity arises! :)
I will hunt for the burst video over the next few days. I didn't try running in the dark. Really looking forward to seeing your videos with the new camera in 5 weeks. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about camera stuff, so not sure I can recommend a macro lens for your cs/c-mount. I use microscope objectives because I have them available. 160mm objectives are easier to connect with a camera as they don't require an additional tube lens. I might consider used 160mm objectives instead of a macro lens if you want high magnification (although I'm not even sure that's what we really want/need).
Thanks for all that detail - off to bed now but will look in more detail tomorrow.
I had said in one of my comments:
"I had one video where I saw a bubble that compressed into a smaller bubble and a burst of light came out at that instant. I have it stored but I couldn't find it when I was trying to choose which videos to send to youtube. If you're interested I can watch them again and try to find it. It seemed like it was probably the same type of light people say comes from "normal" cavitation."
To which you had said:
"The light bust shout would be great. Yes please. Have you tried fixing all the parameters and then running it in the dark?"
I spent 2 hours watching all my footage from the 20th and I think I found the section of video I was referring to regarding the bubble, I think your latest youtube video has far cooler effects going on but I have uploaded the corresponding clip as you said you wanted it. (the negatives of slow motion footage is watching it takes so bloody long to watch and find the stuff! I learned my lesson to write down timestamps or take screen shots if I see anything interesting the first time!)
The footage is titled "11 28 14Uncompressed 0000" recorded on 2021-04-20 it was recorded at 90 fps but encoded at 30 fps 3x slowdown with an original resolution of 1920x2048 and file size of around 106GB. I didn't have the exposure time set to match the framrate for optimal downtime that day.
The timestamps of interest are mentioned below.
2:15-2:16 at middle left of screen, small bubble to the top right of the big one moves around then emits light and shrinks (a little hard to see as it's over a foil indentation that also causes specular highlighting) (this bubble is later absorbed into another bubble at 4:13-4:16 and it looks like it may have a different refractive index than the outer bubbles gas maybe, or there is some layer between them? this is probably a bit of a stretch but maybe different forms of coherent matter?) Later on if you watch this double bubble it gets very phase shifty and appears to show a rippling substructure inside it.
I made a youtube video showing my cursor around the bubble I'm talking about at the times of interest. (https://youtu.be/wkSPDtTUMyU)
3:35-3:36 at bottom left of screen, sprite fast moving unstable structure merges with stable bubble to increase volume 2 fold. I think this is why the hazy things that move around quickly are some kind of structure made of oxygen (or some other gas perhaps) as they appear to merge to bubbles in certain situations..
I uploaded the video to youtube as 4k due to the odd resolution of 1920x2048 (I chose 60fps even though it's a 30fps video so when frame single stepping you will need to click twice) I think it may have scaled it strangely as 2048 is smaller than the 2160 used by normal 4k. https://youtu.be/_IDjQ2E1V4Q
I have the raw video file again but it's 18G compressed. If you want a certain section of it let me know and I will try to extract just that portion.
This is indeed interesting, though I cannot work out if it is a bubble inside a bubble or vertically stacked.
Yes, it takes a LONG time to go through these files. I am currently going though the video I uploaded to YT and noting down frame numbers for interesting things and noting what they are. On a second pass I will choose the best bits, export frames crop and make animated gif - I am only working at 240 or 960fps (the latter is too mushy, by the 240fps is ok).
I think I will wait though until I have a black background to remove the steel reflections and provide higher contrast - the case of the endoscope showed how much better things could be set against a black background.
If you could separate the sections you think are of most value and upload raw files for that 18GB is no problem for me, but need to avoid clutter where possible.
Thanks for your excellent work!
Good Point, it's possible it may have just been stacked and very hard to tell :) I don't think there's an aweful lot more detail in the raw file vs the youtube one so I'll probably hold off. Hopefully I will see something more interesting next time I attempt an experiment. The black background with side illumination is an interesting idea, kind of like dark field illumination in microscopy, it would really highlight the reflections from the gasses in the water. I wonder if I might be able to achieve a similar thing with a sheet of anodized black aluminum, rather than just continuing to use aluminum foil.
I would like to know if any foil disappears. Is it possible to design an experiment that can detect if foil is disappearing? The experiment would go like this... weigh using a very sensitive scale the foil going into the experiment and then at the end of the experiment the foil coming out of the experiment together with the foil fragments. I want to determine if the EVOs are "bubbles of nothing" see my post above. If you can prove that EVOs make matter disappear, that would be an important scientific discovery. The is science theory that goes along with the Bubbles of nothing including the existence of a micro black hole inside the EVO. Also the Black Hole could be producing time dilation to stabilizes radioactive isotopes. Proving this is important stuff.
Hey Axil, I am pretty sure I could attempt this. The experiment before my last one I attempted to run the water through a coffee filter but it was nearly impossible given the volume of water, and I kept overflowing the filter and spilling. Also my ultraonic cleaner has a drain port in the bottom (I regret buying one with a drain port, it isn't very useful and the weld joint rusts and might contaminate the water too) If I were to attempt this I think I would have to put the water inside another smaller vessel that was partially submersed. I'm very happy to attempt this using a borrosilicate beaker as I designed a mount for holding a beaker before. I worry however that the beaker may attenuate the ultrasosnic power so much that the effect largely disappears but testing would be the best way. Someone with a smaller cleaner that doesn't have a drain port could probably do it directly in the cleaner with higher power.
I have jewelry scale I can weigh with. I think the challenge will pre-weighing the entire filter paper on the tiny jewelry scale then running the water through the filter, drying the filter, then some how getting it all on the tiny jewelry scale again (for the final weigh perhaps I can just cut it into smaller peices with scissors). And during this whole process I have to try and avoid dropping any of the aluminum "dust". I say dust because it really is smaller than flakes and even fine grain sand in my case. I will have a try if I get 2-3 spare hours by myself this week in the kitchen. I would probably want to run it for an hour or something to fully particulate the aluminum. I have some lab grade distilled water I can use if I'm testing with a small flask. I would also probably bubble some air or HHO through it first just for luck. I wouldn't call it a positive result though unless there is a reduction of like mass by > 25% as I fully expect some aluminum dust to blow off the filter while it dries.
Alternatively perhaps one could submerse it in a tiny ziplock bag, to eliminate the necessity to filter and dry fluids. I just feel this would also attenuate the ultrasonics too much and the bag might also be perforated. I'll have to try, maybe I can attempt both at the same time :)
Using a filter is an inaccurate method of capturing the residue, in my opinion.
Can't you put the water from the cavitiator along with the foil residue in a old pot or a glass beaker and slowly boil the water off so that no foil residue is lost?
On the foil input side, just use small pieces of foil that measure up to the maximum capacity of your scale and do the operation "N' times until you think you have enough to show results. Boil off the water after each iteration of the experiment.
A last cleanup rince can be done to make sure you have gotten all the residue out of the cleaner. Getting all the residue out of the beaker in order to do final weight measurement will be difficult to ensure an accurate reading.
Just an idea from a non experimenter.
Guys, there is one big challenge with this, the Aluminium will, in quite a large way, go from 2Al to Al2O3, adding 24 nucleons for every 27Al that becomes part of an oxide molecule.
For this reason, I am not sure this is a good use of time.
It is, I believe, a better use of time to attempt the Mexican observations (no partially walked back) that they saw lead disappear with, at the time of the original paper, no sign of 75% of the missing material.
Hey Bob and Axil, Thanks for both your tips. Boiling off is a much better idea if I were to proceed with this. It's pretty possible to do if I put the water in beaker to start with. Bob has a good point about the 2Al -> Al2O3 I hadn't even considered that. For the Mexican lead experiment Bob, is it just thin lead foil? I haven't read the paper. I seem to recall you saying they were using a parabolic reflector to focus the ultrasound. I'm not sure if a regular cleaner is going to provide necessary intensity. Perhaps with a thin enough foil it might just work, I found some 0.3mm foil with adhesive on the back (I could remove the adhesive with some cleaner) https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/Active-Lead-Seal/dp/B0028IG10K/ref=psdc_15672621_t2_B003C2YE3C? Worth trying?
Hi Peter,
It is a very different experiment, where the sound is pulsed and focussed to one point. Having said that, we have seen that there are very resonant nodes in these domestic cleaners so you could try it all the same, get some lead as you have identified, then, after preparing the sample (removing adhesive), you could seal in a plastic food sealer bag system (I have one for storing the mushrooms and fruit I harvest and dry in the autumn). This would also prevent contaminating the chamber with lead.
I have one similar to this (no scale, different vendor)
https://www.amazon.com/Vacuum-Machine-VOLADOR-Automatic-Cooking/dp/B08MVK9J9Z/ref=zg_bs_1090768_16
But there are cheaper options that will work with the heat sealable bags
https://www.amazon.com/Handheld-Resealer-Storage-Portable-Machine/dp/B08MVY1BJS/ref=zg_bs_1090768_20
You would need to keep it fixed in a specific position in the chamber.
Then you weigh before and after a period of exposure in the chamber. The bag may loose some mass so a control of a bag with no lead may be useful to determine error bars.
Over this week I will be filling out the newsletter pages on recent presentations after I have done part two of "Something-electric".
Like you have stated many times, "you don't know that it is true unless you try."
Well - I have an idea for a workaround, just put aluminium foil in a bag.
Bob, can you provide the reference to the Matsumoto paper describing the new kind of electricity. Was it published somewhere? I think I missed it...
It does not exist anywhere yet - I will improve the translation and post here later.
Looking forward to this Bob! This is a key to the kingdom that would enable sooo much!
Matsumoto paper published and link added above.
Matsumoto paper published and link added above.
Still some questions as to exactly how this was setup in the actual experiment but this does give us a lot more information, probably enough here to start some experiments trial and error to try out some interpretations of what he is describing. Not sure if he simply mashed up the wire into a ball with pinches into it before he rolled it into a ball or how the electrodes were laid our in respect to each other etc. but definitely enough clues and details here to start some experimentation! That reference 1 has got to have some tasty stuff in it I would imagine.
Thanks for translating this Bob!!!
This last structure added is comparatively much bigger and has a little higher Iron so it must be denser. It looks “layered”, and as you say the part we can’t see looks like it could be similar to the surface of the spheres. Might this be a bigger sphere that was destroyed? Fascinating effects of Ultrasound in the aluminum foil.
As you can see from my comment, I suggest it might be a segment of a partially hollow sphere that has 'unwrapped'.
The most interesting thing for me is the central part of it which looks as if it is amorphous.
Yes indeed I was addressing your idea and agreeing with it, I also agree the central layer looks strikingly clear to be an amorphous material, which is on itself tantalizing.
I was just thinking, while looking this last anomalous bit of sonicated foil during my lunch, how such a fascinating complex shape and composition could be thoughtlessly dismissed by anyone not really aware of how it was created, to be any random inclusion or impurity on the foil that got loosened.
I was thinking that looking at the untreated foil for any anomaly (and failing to find anything as this) could help dispel all the clumsy and shallow criticisms that are thrown around by people that lack the patience and focus to sit and watch a 4 hours lecture. The shallowness of the criticisms and the incapacity to see are somewhat irritating.
I actually think that the glassy amorphous state is a signature of frozen formerly coherent matter. I saw this in the LION crust, then in the Dendrites on the Ti that was exposed to Ohmasa Gas and then touched on PTFE and now this.
I have a very specific set of reasons, but this is now the third independent system to see this in and all of them I believe are involve coherent matter.
Absolutely that verification needs to be done and many, including myself have been clear about that. For me though, this is not an observations that stands alone. A near one for one morphological sphere was found in Norway at the point a ball lightning was expected to have hit the ground - and there are all the other examples I give here
https://steemit.com/steemstem/@mfmp/ufos-over-hessdalen-norway-explained-ball-lightning-and-low-energy-nuclear-reactions
I will do the atomic to weight conversions and compare the element mass ratios between what we see from NOVA and what is here in ULTR.
There are the magnetic spheres in LION and other examples.
So we are not operating in a vacuum, I predicted there would be crenelated, magnetic, iron-rich spheres. Then I saw something that looked like it in the centre of the 3-winged part I had extracted and then Alan found 3 iron-rich crenelated spheres in his first attempt.
Moreover, the other elements look to be arranged in defending mass order as deposits on the outside of the spheres and there is no Cr or Ni as would be expected if this came from the ultrasonic tank.
I was pondering the other day that many people do the “aluminum foil test” on their ultrasonic jewel cleaners because it is the way one is supposed to test if they are working properly, and no one ever realizes the complex and fascinating processes that are happening, literally, right under their noses. Looking at these crenelated spherules I can only wonder what forces and phenomena can produce such a seemingly perfect spherical particle with such a complex surface features and elemental composition out of an apparently simple hydraulic system. How much people has simply completely overlooked this fascinating observation?
Updated with another sample element analysis
It is a wonder in its own right.
Don't look - Don't see.
So far no answer from professor Fernández nor from Dr. Islev. about the possibility of having their guidance for the practical aspects of a replication. The ultrasound source is a kidney stone smashing device, have tried to get a sense of how much would it cost, to no avail, but being it a medical equipment, is probably expensive.
The other paper of Dr. Islev where he pondered the emission of X rays from metals exposed to laser, reminds me a lot to the work of the Russian team that found "Strange Radiation" from water exposed to the sun and surrounded by magnets, so I agree that is possible EVOs being blasted by the laser. I also think it has some degree of relationship to the work of Holmlid in that sense.
I think that the emission is interpreted as being solely X rays, mostly because of the unawareness of the more complex"SR", and given that Dr. Islev is a Quantum Mechanics theorist. I have got a sense that he has been trying to prove macroscopic quantum tunneling and the dissapearance of matter fits in his line of work, in that sense.
Yes - I spotted the 'Kidney Stone' smashing thing.
Researching it, it is normally 0.5-2Hz
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26486335/
OH MY GOD - you are not going to believe what they use to create the shockwaves - A SPARK PLUG
https://sci-hub.se/10.1056/NEJMct1103074
MIND BLOWN!!!!
Literally - 100% EVO/SR/SVS (cold neutrino condensate) generator right there. Focussed emissions.
The Spark IS UNDER WATER!
So they are literally blasting the kidney stones with EVOs..., and one can only wonder what kind of other stuff happens to the organs, perhaps even positive stuff.
Well, Getting to know these things begins to paint a more clearer picture out of the data available. Professor Fernández might have seen something that caught their attention and that led them to do the work with the lead, he has several publications of the effects of shockwaves in biological and medical applications.
LEAD has no where stable to go. I have been making this point for years.
That's a very interesting and surprising piece of information, Indeed, and I have to admit I was a bit baffled by the dramatic effect of the ultrasound shockwave at those low frequencies, but this means that it has not much to do with the frequency used to cavitate but with the cavitation per se.
Evening Bob, Question of the day is ,was the WardenClyff a giant Tesla coil housing a nuclear fusion reactor. Did it use the ionosphere (as a means of free energy)to jumpstart the energy requirements to perform cold fusion?
Given what we have seen (D - 4D toroidal structures) I am of the belief it was a generator.
It would use air as fuel to condense, releasing photons, these would produce electricity.
There would be RF produced also in this process which could power devices.
The height was to allow the high voltage without discharge to ground.
Let me see, So it releases both photons and RF which are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. If I understand correctly that would mean this wireless energy functions similarly to the way The Sun emits sun rays. Would Tesla’s wireless energy be some form of artificial sunlight?
Well, there is coherent light and broad scale EM / Scalar that these emit.
Bob, Yesterday the MFMP YouTube channel had a video scheduled to be streamed today titled “what is O”, and now its not there, did I dream it?
I will do something tonight in this subject.
You did not dream it.
Look out for it.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/939g5p/physicists-are-studying-mysterious-bubbles-of-nothing-that-eat-spacetime
Physicists Are Studying Mysterious ‘Bubbles of Nothing’ That Eat Spacetime
“[A bubble of nothing] describes a possible channel for 'universe destruction;' in that the bubble of nothing expands and can 'eat' all of spacetime, converting it into 'nothing'"
“It would be interesting to work out under what conditions an observer could 'ride' on the bubble of nothing and see a universe that is similar to the one we live in"
The universe might be on track to eat itself from the inside out.
Luckily for us, physicists studying the phenomenon, called “spacetime decay”, believe this is very unlikely. Still, the possibility is interesting enough to explore in mind-boggling detail, covering “bubbles of nothing” in spacetime, hidden extra dimensions, and a hypothetical observer hitching a ride on the outer surface of our universe.
This "bubble of Nothing" behaves just like the EVO, doesn't it?
I haven’t done any research really but I’m just wondering how Tesla would use the Wardenclyff as a energy source instead of transmitting energy.Can you give me any hints on how a process would operate?
As I commented below in reply to Stevenson, I had mixed up in my mind the technique that Herbert Kliem was interested into, is not AFM but APT (atom probe tomography) that is indeed capable of elemental analysis, y destroys the sample atom by atom and maps the position and composition of each in a 3D map. It has several constraints but if one wants to study materials and effects of conditions on materials at the nano scale, this analytical method is really useful. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_probe