I remember back when Bob was live streaming hours and hours of a long experiment and at the end of the experiment, he mentioned that PVC near the experiment had become MAGNETIC... I knew immediately that this fact was the key to understanding what "strange radiation" is and how LENR was working! What an amazing, strange trip it has been! Thank you Bob for taking us with you on this journey of discovery!
BTW, I've been working on my Tori and found that it works better to put the 3Tor modules on a flexible tube that is formed in a D/4D size instead of a ridged ring because the flexibility of the tubing allows the 3Tor's to align on their own for the optimal position of the ring that is needed for the 4Tor.
Fascinating, thanks. I have sneaky feeling that Matsumoto's transmutations will be the "next big thing" eventually. And some of the researchers in this field will say "we told you so" and quote Storm's paper (and maybe even MFMP!) It's just how things usually go in the history of science, anomalies become the new norm.
These last 3 weeks, I have reviewed 3 papers with some real heavy weights in the field across its history.
K. Czersky (e+e-)
S. E. Jones (Thermite)
E. Storms (Hydrogen-4)
The type of responses were as follows.
Czersky et. al. - Dismissive, aloof, did not bother to read references I sent, mocked based on presumption, refused to answer any questions, did not accept offer to test targets even if I paid for a member of his team to maintain chain of custody from his device to the SEM and they watched the analysis and took a copy of the recording. Very poor
Neils Harrit et.al. ( lead author on the Thermite paper ) - He did watch the full video I believe. Dismissive (claiming the paint argument had been dealt with), did not address the data that could easily verified, but discussed aspects downstream of that. He focussed on things I did not talk about, which I said I would not talk about. Better
Storms - Very courteous, reviewed the information and we have an on-going and rather fun email discussion where he is considering evidence and commentary I am sharing with him and vice versa. Very good
Czersky does not believe in transmutations and his theory does not allow for it. He is very unlikely to allow samples to be tested - much like Mills. Jones highly cited May 1989 paper in Nature is talking about transmutations even in a geological sense that are chemically catalysed. I don’t know how much Neils knows about that. Storms is stating, backed up with a long list of detailed observations of many parties, that transmutation occurs and that it is chemically initiated.
Well, your question to Storms at ICCF-26 gets to the heart of the whole thing. If we could just have a panel discussion with Storms, Shoulders, and Matsumoto with you as the moderator we could figure this whole thing out. I'm a bit put off by the Czersky group not responding at all to your thorough, positive review of their paper (I'm watching it for the second time to get more details.) They could at least mention Matsumoto as having proposed the same idea in 1990 in his Fusion Technology article (reprinted on p. 103 in Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse). They're claiming this is a new discovery when Matsumoto already directly suggested the idea 35 years ago.
He is having a dig (intentionally or not) at the EU funded paper, essentially in his discussion with me, he is saying that the process is initiated at chemical level energies, which I agree. He is saying that is in the eV - which of course is true.
What the EU group did is, at the lowest end at the 10,000 eV level, it was a particle beam experiment, NOT COLD FUSION. I agree with Ed. Still - I think that Konrad could have been more curious regarding his targets post impact conditions.
10,000 eV is also at the level way in excess of 5eV identified by Shishkin et. al. to induce the production of Energy Solitons from hydrogen isotopes (5eV) in fact they have calculated that other elements need 2 - 4000x more, well 2000 x 5 eV is 10,000eV it is conceivable that all they are doing is producing Energy Solitons.
I have to imagine you are aware of experiments carried out by the Safire Group (safireproject.com). Thank You for all the work to bring this information to the layman.
I remember back when Bob was live streaming hours and hours of a long experiment and at the end of the experiment, he mentioned that PVC near the experiment had become MAGNETIC... I knew immediately that this fact was the key to understanding what "strange radiation" is and how LENR was working! What an amazing, strange trip it has been! Thank you Bob for taking us with you on this journey of discovery!
Pleasure. Insights and observations old and new are converging.
Indeed...
I've also been experimenting with the L/R wrapping order for each level. Results will be posted when I've completed the set of experiments.
BTW, I've been working on my Tori and found that it works better to put the 3Tor modules on a flexible tube that is formed in a D/4D size instead of a ridged ring because the flexibility of the tubing allows the 3Tor's to align on their own for the optimal position of the ring that is needed for the 4Tor.
Wonderful!
Fascinating, thanks. I have sneaky feeling that Matsumoto's transmutations will be the "next big thing" eventually. And some of the researchers in this field will say "we told you so" and quote Storm's paper (and maybe even MFMP!) It's just how things usually go in the history of science, anomalies become the new norm.
Yes.
These last 3 weeks, I have reviewed 3 papers with some real heavy weights in the field across its history.
K. Czersky (e+e-)
S. E. Jones (Thermite)
E. Storms (Hydrogen-4)
The type of responses were as follows.
Czersky et. al. - Dismissive, aloof, did not bother to read references I sent, mocked based on presumption, refused to answer any questions, did not accept offer to test targets even if I paid for a member of his team to maintain chain of custody from his device to the SEM and they watched the analysis and took a copy of the recording. Very poor
Neils Harrit et.al. ( lead author on the Thermite paper ) - He did watch the full video I believe. Dismissive (claiming the paint argument had been dealt with), did not address the data that could easily verified, but discussed aspects downstream of that. He focussed on things I did not talk about, which I said I would not talk about. Better
Storms - Very courteous, reviewed the information and we have an on-going and rather fun email discussion where he is considering evidence and commentary I am sharing with him and vice versa. Very good
Czersky does not believe in transmutations and his theory does not allow for it. He is very unlikely to allow samples to be tested - much like Mills. Jones highly cited May 1989 paper in Nature is talking about transmutations even in a geological sense that are chemically catalysed. I don’t know how much Neils knows about that. Storms is stating, backed up with a long list of detailed observations of many parties, that transmutation occurs and that it is chemically initiated.
Well, your question to Storms at ICCF-26 gets to the heart of the whole thing. If we could just have a panel discussion with Storms, Shoulders, and Matsumoto with you as the moderator we could figure this whole thing out. I'm a bit put off by the Czersky group not responding at all to your thorough, positive review of their paper (I'm watching it for the second time to get more details.) They could at least mention Matsumoto as having proposed the same idea in 1990 in his Fusion Technology article (reprinted on p. 103 in Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse). They're claiming this is a new discovery when Matsumoto already directly suggested the idea 35 years ago.
Right now, Ed is honing his argument on LF based on some of our early discussion.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6174-transmutation-of-radioactive-into-stable-elements-induced-by-lenr-a-shortcut-to/?pageNo=2
He is having a dig (intentionally or not) at the EU funded paper, essentially in his discussion with me, he is saying that the process is initiated at chemical level energies, which I agree. He is saying that is in the eV - which of course is true.
What the EU group did is, at the lowest end at the 10,000 eV level, it was a particle beam experiment, NOT COLD FUSION. I agree with Ed. Still - I think that Konrad could have been more curious regarding his targets post impact conditions.
10,000 eV is also at the level way in excess of 5eV identified by Shishkin et. al. to induce the production of Energy Solitons from hydrogen isotopes (5eV) in fact they have calculated that other elements need 2 - 4000x more, well 2000 x 5 eV is 10,000eV it is conceivable that all they are doing is producing Energy Solitons.
I have to imagine you are aware of experiments carried out by the Safire Group (safireproject.com). Thank You for all the work to bring this information to the layman.