[Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic Improbablity. The article below probably best describes this problem of genetic improbability. The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here: From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism. Davis, 68. In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding. Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone. Bird, 1:87. When one considers that a structure as simple as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith! This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix: Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196. Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grass' has made no secret of his skepticism: What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's (Matt, I can't get the 'u' to go small for me there!) Melancholia is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grass', 104. In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts. The numbers are not appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number Raised to the other number. hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000 1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jojo Jaro To: Vortex-l Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic Improbablity. The article below probably best describes this problem of genetic improbability. The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here: From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism. Davis, 68. In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding. Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone. Bird, 1:87. When one considers that a structure as simple as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith! This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix: Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196. Renowned French zoologist
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Hi Jojo, I think you need to rethink your maths, if the earth has been here 4billion years (according to science) then what is the chance there is life. First if we just have one self replicate molecule, simple DNA or RNa and that molecule spreads through the seas then we could have billions of billions of tehse self replicate molecules all evolving atthe same time. Many of these will be deleterious but you just need one in all the molecules in the sea to get a beneficial mutation for hat mutation to become permanent. It's this vast multitude of cell divisions and replication errors happening over the whole planet that makes it probable. Just think there's 6 Billion or so humans on Earth and each one gets about 35 mutations on each generation. That's a lot of mutation experiments running at one time. How many bacteria are there, how many viruses, no wonder we get new flus every year or so. That's evolution not a God. It's also not true that most mutations have a negative affect, there is redundancy in the DNA-RNA-Peptide process hat means many mutations have almost no affect. There's also redundancy in gene and promotor networks such that we operate more like fuzzy logic washing machines than digital computers. As a programmer, one mistyped variable name, semicolon in the wrong spot and my program won't compile. A somtaneous abortion. Life and DNA isn't like that, it couldn't be evolution wouldn't have worked if it wasn't robust to some level of chemical process errors. The whole thing is a miracle but it's a miracle of evolution not from design by some mythical being. I think you should try studying some papers written by scientists not by papers written by intelligent design advocates. At least so you see both sides and can make an intelligent choice. Colin On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts. The numbers are not appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number Raised to the other number. hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000 1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 etc. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com *To:* Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, August 06, 2012 4:18 PM *Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic Improbablity. The article below probably best describes this problem of genetic improbability. The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here: From *The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation* * *Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five *(Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), *but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. *Davis, 67-68. *In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). *Davis, 68; Wysong, 272*. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as *E. coli* (*Wysong, 113*), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (*Davis, 66*), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. *Morris, 63*. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108X 10 8 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017seconds), the resulting population (10 31) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Your argument is with evolutionists whose papers are cited in the References of this paper. They are the one who came up with this probabilities. Don't you think they have not considered what you were thinking here? They have, and have come up with these probability numbers. The numbers do not add up. Which math do you think is wrong? Be specific and I will address it. Generalized opinions that the math is wrong is not helpful. Even with 6 billion humans and trillions and trillions of bacteria, the mutation rates still do not compute. When we are talking of probabilities like 10 raised to 300,000; we are talking of a probability beyond all conceivable probabilities. Realize that in statistics, a probability of 10 raised to 50 is considered impossible; and that there are only 10 raised to 90 atoms in the known Universe. As for reading scientific papers, I have and I have found them to be faulty. That's why I now believe in Intelligent Design. In the references below, the second reference is co-written by a guy called Dean Kenyon. Dean Kenyon co-authored a book titled Biological Predestination which was a Darwinian evolution book. This book presupposes that chemicals making up our proteins and DNA have a predisposition to attach in certain ways to form the proteins and DNA we find in life forms. Hence, his theory was that physical chemical laws preordained the formation of certain proteins needed for life. All the Darwinian Evolutionists cheered loudly - alas a law that predetermines how chemicals would naturally form. The book quickly became a Darwinian Evolutionists' bible. The book was mandatory required reading for every evolutionary biologists, and all college students studying the field. A decade or so later, Dean Kenyon repudiated his own theory as impossible. He could not explain how proteins formed to assemble into DNA and he can not explain how proteins formed without DNA. Dean Kenyon suffered a serious headache case of Cognitive Dissonance. He had an intractable Chicken and Egg first problem.His own theory was a total failure. Dean Kenyon is now an Intelligent Design believer. But despite the repudiation of the author of his theory, this same book is still required reading in college biology courses. Talk about scientific integrity - eh? This example happens many many many times to scientists who look at the facts with an open mind. Darwinian Evolution is a theory in crisis. Within the field, loud murmurs are occuring as to the shortcomings of Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection paradigm. You never hear of such murmurs because the Darwinian Establishment will never allow that to happen. The Darwinian Cathedral has to be protected at all cost. Those who as much as hint at the possibility of Intelligent Design are Expelled. Think that does not happen - think again. Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Required documents these cases. Check it out at youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAAh_6OXg Jojo PS. I welcome a debate with you but I thought you don't want to debate with me anymore? - Original Message - From: Colin Hercus To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability Hi Jojo, I think you need to rethink your maths, if the earth has been here 4billion years (according to science) then what is the chance there is life. First if we just have one self replicate molecule, simple DNA or RNa and that molecule spreads through the seas then we could have billions of billions of tehse self replicate molecules all evolving atthe same time. Many of these will be deleterious but you just need one in all the molecules in the sea to get a beneficial mutation for hat mutation to become permanent. It's this vast multitude of cell divisions and replication errors happening over the whole planet that makes it probable. Just think there's 6 Billion or so humans on Earth and each one gets about 35 mutations on each generation. That's a lot of mutation experiments running at one time. How many bacteria are there, how many viruses, no wonder we get new flus every year or so. That's evolution not a God. It's also not true that most mutations have a negative affect, there is redundancy in the DNA-RNA-Peptide process hat means many mutations have almost no affect. There's also redundancy in gene and promotor networks such that we operate more like fuzzy logic washing machines than digital computers. As a programmer, one mistyped variable name, semicolon in the wrong spot and my program won't compile. A somtaneous abortion. Life and DNA isn't like that, it couldn't be evolution wouldn't have worked if it wasn't robust to some level of chemical process errors. The whole thing is a miracle but it's a miracle of evolution not from design by some mythical being. I think
Re: [Vo]:Curiosity
My wife and I stayed up to share in the seven-minutes-of-terror vigil. It was 12:30 PM CST when it touched down. It was hart warming to see the Curiosity Ground Support crew leap up in absolute pandemonium cheering and hugging each other as signal came through confirming the fact that the little rover had could had endured the gauntlet. This was another badly needed shot in the arm for NASA. I'm pleased as punch that all of NASA's team efforts paid off. Hope it paves the way for even more ambitious projects in the near future. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: This retrograde mailing system is screwing with my posts. The numbers are not appearing correctly in the Web Interface and would cause people to get confused.Whenever you see a probability number, it should be a number Raised to the other number. hence, 108 should be 10 raised to the 8 or 100,000,000 1017 should be 10 raised to the 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 1031 should be 10 raised to the 31 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 The post looks fine to me. The superscripts display correctly. I am not familiar with hotmail. Does it support hypertext markup language? If so, do you have it enabled? If it does not, you might consider a gmail account which supports html 5. T
Re: [Vo]:Curiosity
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: My wife and I stayed up to share in the seven-minutes-of-terror vigil. It was 12:30 PM CST when it touched down. It was hart warming to see the Curiosity Ground Support crew leap up in absolute pandemonium cheering and hugging each other as signal came through confirming the fact that the little rover had could had endured the gauntlet. This was another badly needed shot in the arm for NASA. I'm pleased as punch that all of NASA's team efforts paid off. Hope it paves the way for even more ambitious projects in the near future. Thanks, Steven. Yeah, NASA TV keeps playing that segment. One dude was spouting tears. Can't say I blame them, tho. Did you see the artist sketch comparing Curiosity to Spirit? I did not realize how much bigger it was. Over 1000 lbs. Martians, be warned. This puppy is armed with an infrared laser which can vaporize solid rock; so, don't be muckin' with Curiosity! T
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I rest my case. That is a snide, content-free response. I suggest you un-rest your case. I suggest you do your homework. Learn about cold fusion before writing about it. You article reminds me of the sort of thing some reporters wrote about the Wright brothers in 1904. The described the airplane as a sort of balloon with a kite attached to it. Your reports are not merely inaccurate; they are a fantasy. They bear no resemblance to what the researchers claim in the peer-reviewed literature. You do your readers a disservice with this kind of sloppy reporting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to participate here, I think you should stop writing snide retorts and instead address the technical issues. This is a science forum, not a place to accuse people of believing in conspiracy theories. For the record, I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not know any researchers who do. Please note the title of this thread is . . . annoying. I am annoyed. Not particularly angry. With all the rain we have been getting in Atlanta lately, we have a lot of mosquitoes. I swat them when I can. They annoy me. They do not anger me. There are millions of them; way too many to get angry at each individual. There are thousands of ignorant, lazy, blood-sucking, two-bit reporters writing nonsense about cold fusion. Way too many to swat, or get angry at. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed,
I happen to be at the Kitty Hawk, NC beach today so i am channeling your
thoughts. The only planes flying overhead today are pulling banners
selling Geico insurance.
You are obviously one of the better resources for all scientific documents
and history associated with anomalous heat. I suggest instead of
alienating Mark, which you have obviously already done, you engage in some
meaningful discussion with him. To me he at least seemed open to
discussions and his last article was better than his first couple.
Also, there are not thousands of reporters writing about cold fusion.
Mostly a few bloggers. Very few even covered Martin's passing, which is
sad. Hopefully in the near future there will be lots to write about, maybe
not.
I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to
me what the repeatable results are. To me the anomalous heat could include
anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking
Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting
through a wormhole.
I do not expect you to listen to me but I know you will read it as I am
your conservative concience.
On Monday, August 6, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mgi...@gibbs.com'); wrote:
I rest my case.
That is a snide, content-free response. I suggest you un-rest your case. I
suggest you do your homework. Learn about cold fusion before writing about
it. You article reminds me of the sort of thing some reporters wrote about
the Wright brothers in 1904. The described the airplane as a sort of
balloon with a kite attached to it. Your reports are not merely inaccurate;
they are a fantasy. They bear no resemblance to what the researchers claim
in the peer-reviewed literature.
You do your readers a disservice with this kind of sloppy reporting. You
should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to participate here, I
think you should stop writing snide retorts and instead address the
technical issues. This is a science forum, not a place to accuse people of
believing in conspiracy theories.
For the record, I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not know
any researchers who do.
Please note the title of this thread is . . . annoying. I am annoyed.
Not particularly angry. With all the rain we have been getting in Atlanta
lately, we have a lot of mosquitoes. I swat them when I can. They annoy me.
They do not anger me. There are millions of them; way too many to get angry
at each individual. There are thousands of ignorant, lazy, blood-sucking,
two-bit reporters writing nonsense about cold fusion. Way too many to swat,
or get angry at.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Daniel, I apologize. As I wrote the message, your contribution was indented. That was somehow lost. Looking carefully, I see that the quotation marker is missing from your intented material in my original copy, and then the indent itself disappears from what appeared in Vortex. I'm not sure I understand this. Now providing an quoted text marker, here is what I intended to write: At 04:25 PM 8/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory... He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is bad form. Jed used indent, probably a tab, rather than quote level indicator, and what I had was simply automatically copied from him (by hitting Reply). I was, however, somewhat disagreeing with you as well. I don't see Krivits action there as fairly characterized as attempting to promote WL theory. Just as him saying what was important to him. But I went into this in detail in my response. At 08:01 PM 8/5/2012, Daniel Rocha wrote: Abd, I didn`t complain about the format. That was Jed`s part. I don`t know why his comment is doing beside mine in your quote. 2012/8/5 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com At 04:25 PM 8/4/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I just noticed that Krivit used his death to promote WL theory... He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is bad form. I'm going to disagree. If this was the only obituary, okay, bad form. But this is Krivit's blog, and he has a story which is important to him. If we were to buy that New Energy Times is some kind of neutral publication, objectively reporting, it would be a problem. But this isn't even a formal NET issue. It's his blog entry. [etc.] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: He also put himself front and center in someone else's obituary, which is bad form. I don't see Krivits action there as fairly characterized as attempting to promote WL theory. Hey, I was just making a minor kvetch! Overall it was a nice obit. He can promote the WL theory all he wants. It is his web site. Why not promote it? What harm? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
The exact quote from Beaudette at 40:50 into the mp3 recording linked below: If Pons and Fleischmann would be so cooperative today as to conveniently die, tomorrow, I suspect, the most prominent critics would say, 'Well, maybe its time now to give the field a second look.' On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Beaudette, in his MIT lecturehttp://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Beaudette-LincolnLab.shtmlquipped that if Fleischmann and Pons would have the good manners (not sure the exact wording) to die, cold fusion research could become respectable. Note, I am not suggesting that anyone go kill Pons. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/04/fleischmann-dead-at-85-end-of-an-era/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat
The 6000:1 figure is close to correct. The cross sectional area of the earth is 127.8 million km^2. Each km^2 receives a approximately a gigawatt of solar radiation. In one hour the earth receives 127 thousand terawatt hours of energy. Which is approximately the global consumption of energy in a year. This is a ratio of around 9000:1. Or an extra 10 seconds of extra sunlight a day. If one were to multiply this energy by the weight of the atmosphere + the weight of the top meter of the earths surface, multiplied by the average heat capacity of the total mass, it would be obvious that the heat contribution of human activity to global warming attributable to direct heat release is insignificant in comparison to the greenhouse effect. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:19:21 -0400 You have made an interesting WAG Bab. I intend to give it a lot of consideration as I try to understand your derivation better. I had hoped that the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that was wishful thinking. Perhaps I can still find one of those tickets to Mars before they all get sold out! Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is the accepted value? I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places. I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at the problem from another perspective. Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere. Since this gas only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year. Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so. If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6. Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by further investigation. Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us? Dave -Original Message- From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by (really wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty years of sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, yourself, might profit from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out. Yes, establishment goons is an ad hominem attack, and silly. Perpetually angry, from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is mostly resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's people's right, after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your article is not as sloppy as many, so something must have pushed him over the edge. I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. Great. You have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. That's great as well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy journalism, that's easily overlooked, it will slide right past most people. It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion: 1. Cold fusion doesn't exist. 2. It is too unreliable to be practical. Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look at the evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior commitment, cold fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and it is nuclear, this was established through helium correlation, long ago discovered, and confirmed amply. There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major mainstream peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, where cold fusion came in out of the cold, came out of the closet, being called cold fusion, rather than the less definitive low energy nuclear reactions. That's Status of cold fusion (2010), Edmund Storms. There is a preprint on lenr-canr.org, but the abstract alone is remarkable. Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and comparing it with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position (it was evenly split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively established, a vast difference from 1989, where probably only one or two out of 15 reviewers thought that it might be real. There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But fusion is a term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and converts them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of mechanism, releases a characteristic amount of energy, a signature. That signature has been observed by many, and there is no contradictory experimental record. The early negative replications *confirm* the correlation, because they found no heat and no helium. There is now a simple harmonizing interpretation of all the experimental record with palladium deuteride: there is an unknown nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, with little or no observed radiation, taking place on the surface, probably in cracks of a certain size. It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary to establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, statistical analysis is necessary, because single experiments can turn out many different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are accustomed to running what amount to vast numbers of trials at once, where statistical variations even out. Cold fusion, however, so far, as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, requires a very specific structure in the palladium, that is not present in pure palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated loading of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it does not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself destroys the reaction sites. The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured with a reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and collecting and measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The result of the experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat correlated with helium production? At what value? Nobody who has done this has failed to find the correlation. The dead cells are effectively the controls. The variability in the amount of
RE: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
Agreed, This is the same basic process and also related to sonoluminescence but totally gaseous medium where the environment forms the needed geometry and the catalytic gas through natural self assembly based on the nature of the gases with changes in pressure. The gas cyclically reforms the geometry in the form of a gaseous meniscus enclosing an ionized plasma where like sonoluminescence you don't have to worry about self destruction because you are constantly harvesting and reforming the geometry. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:57 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine Noble Gas Plasma Engine In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his Noble Gas Plasma Engine. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called inteligentry, LTD to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type try it before you buy it money back guaranty. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology since most of it is in the public domain. Kettner's company inteligentry, LTD, is selling a demo unit to the experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are provide. The gas is user supplied. If you are interested, see http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/ Public domain LENR Fuel mix xenon 8.5 krypton 12.5 argon 16.9 neon 26.3 Helium comprise the remainder. This technology shares most of the features that are currently under development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these similarities in another post. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
Axil, I am not acquainted with this engine. You wrote - After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)? Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades? If so, have RF-emissions been characterized? Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the phenomenon can be observed better? I would be interested in answers to any of these questions - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil^2 wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his Noble Gas Plasma Engine. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called inteligentry, LTD to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type try it before you buy it money back guaranty. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology since most of it is in the public domain. Kettner's company inteligentry, LTD, is selling a demo unit to the experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are provide. The gas is user supplied. If you are interested, see http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/ Public domain LENR Fuel mix xenon 8.5 krypton 12.5 argon 16.9 neon 26.3 Helium comprise the remainder. This technology shares most of the features that are currently under development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these similarities in another post. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Real satellite photo of Curiosity using parachute!
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia15978b.html That is absolutely fascinating. Thanks! Looks like we could have Skynet on Mars before Earth. T
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1
Dave: Went back to Wikipedia, got you this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption I think the data is all there, just needs the calculation of the ratio. I remember calculating the number of square yards of the earth that faced the Sun, and I remember being 2x off the first time around, and then finding that I didn't need to know that. This was on July 18th. I plead fatigue. The article had a LOT of references, can't be off much. (a rule, right? reliability of data proportional to number of references.) But the WAG... I had a vague idea that the time required for the earth to stabilize at a new T after a step change in heat input... hmm. And the slope of change is, er, hmm. Well. Some sort of intuitive leap occurred, and I grasped at 1%. Maybe because it's a nice simple number. Have not looked further. Kinda' hoping some one else would. It's got to be out there. Regarding the pound of coal trapping more heat than it held originally, think of a pound of gold, rolled to foil, spread to reflect sunlight. Big amount of heat intercepted, yet the gold can't burn at all. Sort of an apples and oranges thing. Ol' Bab, who used to be an engineer. No, not that kind, electronic. On 8/5/2012 5:19 PM, David Roberson wrote: You have made an interesting WAG Bab. I intend to give it a lot of consideration as I try to understand your derivation better. I had hoped that the Sun was far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that was wishful thinking. Perhaps I can still find one of those tickets to Mars before they all get sold out! Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is the accepted value? I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places. I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at the problem from another perspective. Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere. Since this gas only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year. Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so. If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6. Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by further investigation. Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us? Dave -Original Message- From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat On 8/5/2012 11:21 AM, David Roberson wrote: It seems apparent that the final global consideration is that extra heat is released into the atmosphere, land, and water of the earth as a result of us burning fossil fuels. In other terms, one kilogram of coal results in the net earth heating of X times the initial heat outlay. I found part of the picture in Wikipedia: The ratio of all the energy incident from the Sun, to all the energy mankind used globally (in 2009?) was roughly 6,000 to 1. (I assume this was only the energy that involved payment, ie, almost all fossil sourced energy). Unknown to me is the added heat energy from new CO2 and methane. If our present rate of warming is caused by (/really /wild guess) 1% more retention of solar energy than before, then that 1% is 60 times more than our total energy consumption, for x = 60. If you diddle in the all the renewable and nuclear parts it won't be much different. Hey, a wild guess is better than none. So if, if, if, all co2 sources get replaced by LENR, no problem. But bloody unlikely. Also, there WILL BE a huge increase in total energy usage, exponential, year after year after year. Might take us all of 200 years to get back in trouble. Ol' Bab. I would greatly appreciate it if some of our esteemed members join into this discussion. Do you consider my thought experiment completely off base or is there a way to get a handle upon the true X factor I am suggesting? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Real satellite photo of Curiosity using parachute!
That is astounding. The whole thing is astounding. I wonder if they planned to have Orbiter there? Here is the scene at the JPL when the vehicle landed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlo0wHx9bk Geek heaven! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Back to Reality on Earth, my friends, please!]]
Hi Reliable, Do you have any more details about the Bloke who saw the noble gas engine that purred like a kitten? John the inventor claims that it runs, even purrs.. He also seems to hint that it is an over-unity device (recharge your car once a year). And also says they are building a kit for anyone who wants to build one. All lofty claims.. but any additional details you can share would be great! - Brad G'Day, Bloke witnessed this operational and said it purred like a kitten. http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=2EgT3G6lKnohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgT3G6lKno Warm Regards, Reliable
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: In my continuing seris of Posts, I will touch on the issue of Genetic Improbablity. The article below probably best describes this problem of genetic improbability. The Paper is a well-cited paper and should be worthy of sciencific acceptance from open minded folks here: The problem is that the paper assumes errors. Garbage in, garbage out. Jojo, I've been watching this. You have swallowed a pile of highly defective argument. From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. [...] Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. There is a lost consideration. Take a random combination of five letters. Not just any combination will form a functional word. However, there are many combinations that would form a word. There is an assumption here that the mutations to form a particular word must occur simultaneously. That's completely bogus. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. This would vary greatly with environment and the particular organism. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. A mutation is a process. So what is being said is that there would be one mutation per ten cell replications. Just note: the first living things, under most understandings, would certainly not be a single-celled organism. It would be a self-replicating molecule, an enzyme that catalyzes its own production. It would not be something we would recognize as living. We don't recognize DNA as living, rather DNA can catalyze the assembly of elements that create something we recognize as living, but stripping this down to basics, the simplest element is something that reproduces itself, given the appropriate environment. DNA as we know it is probably far more complex than the original self-replicating molecule. I'm not sure what definition of mutation is being used here, and this could be part of the problem. A change in the nucleotide sequence, something other than exact copying, is the simple definition. Call them errors. Not all errors are expressed in the organism, and I suspect that mutation is being restricted to something expressed. It actually causes a change in function. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), I don't trust this figure. What research is it based upon? (No, I'm not looking it up today.) Note, again, this does not refer to changes. Further, the definition of mutation used in the original claim about once in every 100,000 gene replications may be different. If a mutation requires an expressed difference, what kind of difference? I don't know what harmful means. Does it mean that any cell with that specific mutation will not function? there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! There is a total imprecision of definition here. The claim of five genes needing to be changed simultaneously is highly suspect. There is a complete neglect of the vast amount of junk DNA present in the genome. Junk DNA may have been functional at one time, but expression was turned off. To turn expression on and off takes, if I'm correct, a single mutation. It's a mess. [...] When one considers that a structure as simple as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I happen to be at the Kitty Hawk, NC beach today so i am channeling your thoughts. What a great place! I love that that they have a small airfield next to the historic site. I suggest instead of alienating Mark, which you have obviously already done, you engage in some meaningful discussion with him. Not possible. He is one of these know-it-alls never willing to do his homework. I uploaded 1,200 papers he has either not read a single one, or he does not understand them. I mean for crying out loud! Various reactions that output more energy than is put into them . . . That could describe anything, chemical or nuclear! It proves nothing and it means nothing. It isn't even factually right, since there is no energy put into some of them. It is blather. This is what passes for science journalism these days. Also, there are not thousands of reporters writing about cold fusion. This is not show business, in which any news is good news. Better they should ignore us than publish nonsense based on their own imaginations. Anyway, scientists and engineers download 6,000 papers a week from LENR-CANR.org. We don't need the mass media. We have done an end-run around them. I do not expect you to listen to me but I know you will read it as I am your conservative concience. My conscience?!? Mine's clear. Mass media reporters can kiss my ass! I don't care what they say, and I sure don't care what they think of me. Most of them are useless, lazy, ignorant gits. In the whole history of this field, I can't think of more than a half dozen who bothered to learn anything. The people at 60 Minutes and a few others. The rest plagiarize Wikipedia. Most of are like Gary Taubes: they don't even know how electricity works. They wouldn't understand the papers even if they did try to read them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Abd, Great informative post with ego left out unlike others. On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty years of sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, yourself, might profit from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out. Yes, establishment goons is an ad hominem attack, and silly. Perpetually angry, from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is mostly resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's people's right, after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your article is not as sloppy as many, so something must have pushed him over the edge. I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. Great. You have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. That's great as well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy journalism, that's easily overlooked, it will slide right past most people. It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion: 1. Cold fusion doesn't exist. 2. It is too unreliable to be practical. Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look at the evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior commitment, cold fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and it is nuclear, this was established through helium correlation, long ago discovered, and confirmed amply. There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major mainstream peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, where cold fusion came in out of the cold, came out of the closet, being called cold fusion, rather than the less definitive low energy nuclear reactions. That's Status of cold fusion (2010), Edmund Storms. There is a preprint on lenr-canr.org, but the abstract alone is remarkable. Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and comparing it with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position (it was evenly split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively established, a vast difference from 1989, where probably only one or two out of 15 reviewers thought that it might be real. There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But fusion is a term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and converts them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of mechanism, releases a characteristic amount of energy, a signature. That signature has been observed by many, and there is no contradictory experimental record. The early negative replications *confirm* the correlation, because they found no heat and no helium. There is now a simple harmonizing interpretation of all the experimental record with palladium deuteride: there is an unknown nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, with little or no observed radiation, taking place on the surface, probably in cracks of a certain size. It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary to establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, statistical analysis is necessary, because single experiments can turn out many different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are accustomed to running what amount to vast numbers of trials at once, where statistical variations even out. Cold fusion, however, so far, as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, requires a very specific structure in the palladium, that is not present in pure palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated loading of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it does not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself destroys the reaction sites. The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured with a reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and collecting and measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The result of the experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat correlated with helium production? At what value? Nobody who has done
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
*Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition* The Papp engine produced a brown substance. Kettner believes that neon was being transmuted. No transmutation information is released about the Kettner engine. The Papp engine is primitive and is substantively different in detail from the Kettner engine in the same way that a model T is different from a current car model. I believe that the Kettner engine recharge time of 144,000 miles equivalent is a result of transmuted ash buildup in the noble gas. *Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the **phenomenon can be observed better?* Since no heat is produced, the engine core can be and has been built out of clear plastic. I would like to put the core in a cloud chamber to characterize any particle emissions but the restraining coils keep eveything inside the core. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, I am not acquainted with this engine. You wrote - After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)? Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades? If so, have RF-emissions been characterized? Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the phenomenon can be observed better? I would be interested in answers to any of these questions - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil^2 wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money back guaranty”. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology since most of it is in the public domain. Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are provide. The gas is user supplied. If you are interested, see http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/ Public domain LENR Fuel mix xenon 8.5 krypton 12.5 argon 16.9 neon 26.3 Helium comprise the remainder. This technology shares most of the features
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
A continuation of the video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkX69BA35_Afeature=player_embedded Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money back guaranty”. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology since most of it is in the public domain. Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are provide. The gas is user supplied. If you are interested, see http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/ Public domain LENR Fuel mix xenon 8.5 krypton 12.5 argon 16.9 neon 26.3 Helium comprise the remainder. This technology shares most of the features that are currently under development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these similarities in another post. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOwmDZX5Zgfeature=relmfu On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: A continuation of the video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkX69BA35_Afeature=player_embedded Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money back guaranty”. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology since most of it is in the public domain. Kettner's company “inteligentry, LTD,” is selling a demo unit to the experimenter types for $350 so that they can verify in their own minds that gas based LENR works. This LENR engine produced no heat. Its energy output is strictly mechanical energy. A simple spark and frequency generator are provide. The gas is user supplied. If you are interested, see http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/07/28/inteligentry-open-sourcing-noble-gas-engine-core-design/ Public domain LENR Fuel mix xenon 8.5 krypton 12.5 argon 16.9 neon 26.3 Helium comprise the remainder. This technology shares most of the features that are currently under development by other LENR vendors and Focus Fusion. I will discuss these similarities in another post. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1
Good job Bab. I have been attempting to improve my guess as well. The data is available, but fairly well hidden and at the moment, you seem to have a better WAG. Here is how my thoughts line up at this time: Carbon in Earth's total atmosphere: .8286 x 10 ^ 15 kilograms. Derived from Wikipedia data Total area of Earth: 510,072,000 square kilometers. Again from Wiki. Radiative Forcing due to Carbon Dioxide in atmosphere: 1.46 Watts per square meter. From Wiki. Total Watts of forcing due to Carbon Dioxide: 510,072,000 square kilometers x (1000 meters/kilometer) ^ 2 x 1.46 watts/square meter = 7.141 x 10 ^ 14 watts for CO2 forcing. Watts per Kilogram of Carbon as forcing agent: 7.141 x 10 ^ 14 watts/ .8286 x 10 ^ 15 Kilograms = .8618 watts/kilogram. Burn anthracite coal and the energy content is: 35,300 kilo joules/kilogram. Wiki data. Number of seconds required to reach one X factor according to my proposal: 35,300,000 joules/kilogram / .8618 joules/second-kilogram = 4.096 x 10 ^ 7 seconds. Number of years for X joules: 4.096 x 10 ^ 7 seconds x 1 min/ 60 seconds x 1 hour/60 min x 1 day/24 hours x 1 year/365 days = 1.2988 years. So, if I assume that the carbon dioxide half life is 60 years, then the X factor becomes: 60 years / 1.2988 years = 46.2. Fairly close to your estimate of 60! Wiki rough time choice. It is amazing to think that burning coal results in the effective burning of an equal amount every 1.3 years into the future for many years. Sounds like a new definition of life after death. These numbers are preliminary and might be corrected as I give the concept further consideration. Dave -Original Message- From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 2:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal Heat - 6000:1 Dave: Went back to Wikipedia, got you this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption I think the data is all there, just needs the calculation of the ratio. I remember calculating the number of square yards of the earth that faced the Sun, and I remember being 2x off the first time around, and then finding that I didn't need to know that. This was on July 18th. I plead fatigue. The article had a LOT of references, can't be off much. (a rule, right? reliability of data proportional to number of references.) But the WAG... I had a vague idea that the time required for the earth to stabilize at a new T after a step change in heat input... hmm. And the slope of change is, er, hmm. Well. Some sort of intuitive leap occurred, and I grasped at 1%. Maybe because it's a nice simple number. Have not looked further. Kinda' hoping some one else would. It's got to be out there. Regarding the pound of coal trapping more heat than it held originally, think of a pound of gold, rolled to foil, spread to reflect sunlight. Big amount of heat intercepted, yet the gold can't burn at all. Sort of an apples and oranges thing. Ol' Bab, who used to be an engineer. No, not that kind, electronic. On 8/5/2012 5:19 PM, David Roberson wrote: You have made an interesting WAGBab. I intend to give it a lot of consideration as I try tounderstand your derivation better. I had hoped that the Sunwas far ahead of mankind in this regard, but maybe that waswishful thinking. Perhaps I can still find one of thosetickets to Mars before they all get sold out! Could you recheck your source defining the 6000 to 1 ratio to see if that is the accepted value? I hope that you made an error of a few decimal places. I suspect that the 60 to 1 ratio is a little on the high side when I look at the problem from another perspective. Our test block of coal at 1 kilogram turns into mainly carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere. Since this gas only remains there for between 30 and 90 years (half life) then it seems a little bit of a stretch to consider that it allows for heat to be trapped equalling the original amount of carbon in a single year. Off the cuff I would guess 10% or so. If my WAG is better than your WAG, the X factor would be about 6. Who knows, but I think we can obtain a modestly close number by further investigation. Anyone else out there have a guess or fact that might help us? Dave -Original Message- From: David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR Heat Vs. Coal
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states: We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28. First of all, evolution would not start with a simple micro-organism, that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can be created without life, thus the primordial soup. An organism is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself, but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus, which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed. So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own structure. When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition* will evolve. It will probably never become uniform. This is quite predictable. Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be viable, i.e, will also be capable of reproduction. Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable). The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of itself. When it also organizes metabolic and protective structures, or the enzymes that create them. This would be the point where it begins to code life. Further, a variation may arise that efficiently cannibalizes existing undefended enzymes, using them to make copies of itself, but possibly also incorporating some of their code into its own. This variation might become the foundation for all further evolution. But it will never come to pass that a single enzyme will exist, totally dominating the soup, because this enzyme itself, as it spreads through the soup, will vary through copying error. The quoted analysis above *assumes* that such a process cannot create a code for life of present complexity. It assumes a certain number of mutations are necessary, and very likely assumes that these mutations must take place serially, i.e., one after the other. It also attempts too much. The early processes and later ones could be quite different. Before sexual reproduction, there was genetic interchange; and both create combinations that are far more complex than single-mutation changes. Basically, random change (possibly accelerated at certain times and places by local conditions that cause increased copying error) is a proposal for the *basic* process allowing the evolution of forms *that is observed.* As with any scientific theory, one judges it compared to alternatives. The alternative of Goddidit is a cop-out, simply avoiding looking at *how* God does things. What is the alternative mechanism to random change? I haven't seen any. If you want to believe that God did it, fine, but *how*? The sun shines, and God made it that way. But how? Pretending that Let there be light is the full story is refusal to appreciate what God has actually done. Don't imagine that he will be grateful that you disrespect his creation in favor of your shallow imaginations. Indeed anything that blinds you to his wondrous depth is a failure to realize the potential of the human. To my atheist friends, I'll explain that God is another name for Nature or Reality, for what actually exists, which is beyond our descriptions and imaginations. There is a whole conversation on the meaning of existence, but this is a conversation for another day. For today, I'll simply
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
On 2012-08-04 22:36, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/04/fleischmann-dead-at-85-end-of-an-era/ Here's an article from The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54640856-78/fleischmann-fusion-cold-pons.html.csp Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Obituary: Fleischmann, 85
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Here's an article from The Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/**news/54640856-78/fleischmann-** fusion-cold-pons.html.csphttp://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54640856-78/fleischmann-fusion-cold-pons.html.csp Yikes. That one is depressing. The article is depressing and so are the stupid comments below it. Steve Krivit, bless his heart, apparently thinks . . . well I am not sure WHAT he thinks. He wrote: Remember that the early discoverers of fission did not immediately understand why certain materials were producing heat with apparently no loss in mass. We'll do our best to remember! Maybe he thinks: They discovered special relativity before radioactivity. It is possible to measure the lost mass from nuclear reactions. (Nope. Too small to detect) Energetic chemical reactions cause lost mass. (Huh? Chemical ash plus CO2 is, of course, heavier than the original mass of C, as chemists discovered when they first inventoried the products of combustion. There is lost mass from relativity. The same amount per joule as for nuclear reactions.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created any self-replicating molecules, it never create any life The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a Reducing Atmosphere of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment was designed on top of faulty assumptions. No one knows how life could have arised from non-life. Your speculations below, while apparently eloquent, is simply that, speculation. Abiogenesis is the biggest hole in Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory. Even Richard Dawkins has resorted to wild speculations about infinite Multiverses so that he can bring the probabilities down to manageable numbers to speculate on the first biogenesis. If you know what these self-replicating molecules and viruses are which arised out of non-life molecules, by all means, tell us and I assure you, you will win the Nobel Prize, and will become the new Darwin. And since you asked, I believe in the God of the Bible. The almighty creator of everything and the sustainer of everything. His name is Jesus Christ, my savior. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states: We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28. First of all, evolution would not start with a simple micro-organism, that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can be created without life, thus the primordial soup. An organism is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself, but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus, which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed. So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own structure. When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition* will evolve. It will probably never become uniform. This is quite predictable. Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be viable, i.e, will also be capable of reproduction. Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable). The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of itself. When it also organizes metabolic and protective structures, or the enzymes that create them. This would be the point where it begins to code life. Further, a variation
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to me what the repeatable results are. To me the anomalous heat could include anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting through a wormhole. CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the literature can be confusing. I came into the study of cold fusion in 2009, as a result of happening upon an abusive blacklisting (of lenr-canr.org) on Wikipedia. It puzzled me. So, cold fusion was fringe science, perhaps unreal. But why blacklist the major repository of scientific papers on the subject? I looked at the article and started to read the sources. I had the background to understand why cold fusion was considered impossible. That same background, my training in physics from Richard P. Feynman, had led me, as well, to know that experiment was King. That if experiment showed that, say, Newton's Laws of Motion were wrong, we'd better be ready re-examine the Laws (not just the experiment!). I knew from Feynman that we did not have the math to analyze the solid state, it was way too complex. Still, the lack of progress in the field (as I imagined from the lack of press coverage of progress), had led me to think (from 1990 or so) that cold fusion was a dud. Intrigued by what I found, I bought most of the major books on the topic, including the skeptical ones, i.e, Huizenga, Taubes, Park, etc. I bought Storms, Beaudette, Mizuno, and a figure in the field was kind enough to donate a copy of the 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook to me. And I noticed something. Early on I figured out that the matter had actually been iced, as to the reality of cold fusion, when Miles found a correlation between the anomalous heat found so erratically in palladium deuteride, and helium produced. I.e., the amount of heat might be erratic, but then, regardless, helium was found in the evolved gases at a particular ratio to the heat, consistent with a hypothesis that the heat was the result of some kind of fusion process, fusing deuterium to helium, with some of the helium remaining trapped at least temporarily. *Rougly* half is released, under that hypothesis. This was very strong evidence that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (FPHE) is nuclear in nature, and is very likely some kind of fusion. Huizenga noticed this in the second edition of his book. Good thing I bought that edition! He wrote that, if confirmed, this would solve a major mystery of cold fusion, i.e., the ash. Before that, there was total uncertainty about the ash, and it didn't seem there was one. Some early efforts to find helium had looked in the palladium rod. It's not found there, except for very near the surface, and they had taken off the surface to avoid contamination from ambient helium! -- As I recall. One of Fleischmann's errors, God rest his soul, was a belief that the reaction was taking place in the lattice, in the bulk. I can understand why he thought that, but ... it wasn't so. Huizenga expected that the result would not be confirmed. But it was. There is actually no contrary experimental evidence, and plenty of confirmation. If the field were being treated normally, the issue would long ago have been considered resolved. What I noticed, however, was that heat/helium wasn't emphasized in the reviews and articles in the field *from those who accept the reality of LENR.* I suspect that this may be that most were already convinced by the calorimetry, and the level of pseudoskepticism involved in the massive rejection of calorimetry as evidence was indeed enormous and frustrating. Beaudette covers this very well. Chemical Engineer, if you want a repeatable result, you would do this: Set up and run a series of cells, as many as possible, using a protocol known to *occasionally* produce excess heat, use the state of the art for the electrolysis and calorimetry. Measure helium in the evolved gas (or sample it from the cell if it's a closed cell; for this purpose, though, it's a bit more efficient to use an open cell, because the helium will then reflect the recent history of the cell and you can take more and more meaningful samples from the cell. But it's also worth considering using closed cells and thus measuring total accumulated helium. You'll have to compensate for slow leakage of helium out of the cells, if they are glass. Helium can leak through glass.) Measure the helium blind, whoever is running the analysis should not know the history of the cell from which it came. Sample from all cells the same, whether or not they show heat. Compare the excess energy, determined from calorimetry, with the helium measurements, extrapolated back to evolution rates using methods you work out in advance. Something like this has been done many times. The
[Vo]:The literature is confusing. That's why I recommend . . .
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the literature can be confusing. I agree it is confusing, and this is a problem. That is why on the main page and Introduction page I recommend papers such as Storms and McKubre: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf When people from the mass media contact me, I send them to those two, plus Barnhart for background: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf (I do not start off by calling them useless, lazy, ignorant gits.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
The Rossi reactor is already obsolete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=L7wZqDQ7Pjg This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori. A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach.. This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited high process heat specialty industrial market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=UNoxQDS3LlU The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, I am not acquainted with this engine. You wrote - After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)? Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades? If so, have RF-emissions been characterized? Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the phenomenon can be observed better? I would be interested in answers to any of these questions - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil^2 wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type “try it before you buy it money back guaranty”. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same basic electron screening LERN principles as the Rossi reactor. In the Papp engine, helium is the fuel and Argon is the catalyst. Jim Kettner is very open about his technology
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
Axil, I watched the videos you referenced. If correct, the over-unity claims should be very easy to verify. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: The Rossi reactor is already obsolete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=L7wZqDQ7Pjg This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori. A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach.. This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited high process heat specialty industrial market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=UNoxQDS3LlU The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, I am not acquainted with this engine. You wrote - After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)? Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades? If so, have RF-emissions been characterized? Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the phenomenon can be observed better? I would be interested in answers to any of these questions - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil^2 wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his Noble Gas Plasma Engine. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep recycling through the new energy community. Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called inteligentry, LTD to simply and optimized the Papp process. He will license his prototype for mass production shortly uses the Rossi type try it before you buy it money back guaranty. It looks to me like the Papp engine uses the same
[Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy
I do not mean to beat a dead horse, but mass media blather causes more harm than you might realize. It destroys the credibility of researchers. The problem is, professionals often read the mass media account and assume it is an accurate report of what the researchers said. Take this latest example: . . . from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them . . . Imagine you are a scientist or an engineer. You know nothing about cold fusion. You have not read any papers. You read Gibbs, and you think to yourself: Those cold fusion 'researchers' must be a gang of idiots. They think that getting more energy out than in proves the effect is nuclear?!? What amateurs. They must be tin-foil helmeted high-school dropouts. Mass media articles about technology sometimes have mix-ups such as confusing power and energy (watts and watt-hours). An educated reader can usually sort this out. She can recreate in her mind what the reporter actually heard from the researcher. In this case, we know that Gibbs did not hear anything. He made it up! No cold fusion researcher would say: we are getting more out than we are putting in, so we know this is real. Every article by Gibbs has mistakes like that, as do the ones in the Scientific American. Anyone who believes Sci. Am. would surely dismiss cold fusion: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294 Needless to say, Wikipedia is a compendium of chaos, confusion, and lies. When I last checked a few years ago, every substantive assertion in it was incorrect. Most of them are about things like recombination that have been circulating endlessly since 1989. Trying to kill these things off is like trying to quell birther rumors that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The mass media and Wikipedia is where people go first, these days. People who go to these sources to learn about cold fusion will get the impression that cold fusion scientists are lunatics. I know I would. That is why mass media reports written by ignorant people are worse than no reports at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy
Jed, Obama was indeed NOT born in Hawaii. If he was, why the fake Birth Certificate? Why hide his Birth Certificate for so long? Once again, I find myself having to correct your misinformation. You like taking pot shots and insult those you disagree with, using these one liners. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:23 AM Subject: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy Trying to kill these things off is like trying to quell birther rumors that Obama was not born in Hawaii. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy
Jojo, are you serious? You seem to adopt only views of the American conspiratorial right. You seem to play with the stereotyped red-neck, those we see in films and cartoons. 2012/8/6 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** Jed, Obama was indeed NOT born in Hawaii. If he was, why the fake Birth Certificate? Why hide his Birth Certificate for so long? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy
It's no longer a conspiracy from the right when 70% of Americans feel he should present it, andobama himself refuses to release his birth certificate. I talking about the real one, not the photoshoped version he's been parotting to gullible people like you and Jed. Goodness, every American is required to present his real Birth Certificate for something as mundane as a Driver's License and yet Bambi thinks he is above the law and hides his, and you people think that is normal and give him a pass. Looks like you and Jed are more gullible and uninformed than I give you credit for. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy Jojo, are you serious? You seem to adopt only views of the American conspiratorial right. You seem to play with the stereotyped red-neck, those we see in films and cartoons. 2012/8/6 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Jed, Obama was indeed NOT born in Hawaii. If he was, why the fake Birth Certificate? Why hide his Birth Certificate for so long? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are crazy
The solution to your frustrations is easy. In six months when the papp engine is for sale on the market, we all here will contribute a nominal amount to motivate the purchase of a Papp engine together with its installation in your car by an auto customizer. You are rich by your own admission and such things are possible for you. You can then take Gibbs for a ride and let him make sure there is no gas tank to be found in your new ride. After his long drive with you, a time of bonding and joking and good comradeship, if he still maintains his current position, then you will certainly know his ulterior motives for who could possibly ignore such a strong proof of concept. Be patient, the time of reckoning for Gibbs grows short together with your ultimate vindication. Gibbs will then be forced to eat his words along with the many others who will ride with you, so they all best stay hungry. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not mean to beat a dead horse, but mass media blather causes more harm than you might realize. It destroys the credibility of researchers. The problem is, professionals often read the mass media account and assume it is an accurate report of what the researchers said. Take this latest example: . . . from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them . . . Imagine you are a scientist or an engineer. You know nothing about cold fusion. You have not read any papers. You read Gibbs, and you think to yourself: Those cold fusion 'researchers' must be a gang of idiots. They think that getting more energy out than in proves the effect is nuclear?!? What amateurs. They must be tin-foil helmeted high-school dropouts. Mass media articles about technology sometimes have mix-ups such as confusing power and energy (watts and watt-hours). An educated reader can usually sort this out. She can recreate in her mind what the reporter actually heard from the researcher. In this case, we know that Gibbs did not hear anything. He made it up! No cold fusion researcher would say: we are getting more out than we are putting in, so we know this is real. Every article by Gibbs has mistakes like that, as do the ones in the Scientific American. Anyone who believes Sci. Am. would surely dismiss cold fusion: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294 Needless to say, Wikipedia is a compendium of chaos, confusion, and lies. When I last checked a few years ago, every substantive assertion in it was incorrect. Most of them are about things like recombination that have been circulating endlessly since 1989. Trying to kill these things off is like trying to quell birther rumors that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The mass media and Wikipedia is where people go first, these days. People who go to these sources to learn about cold fusion will get the impression that cold fusion scientists are lunatics. I know I would. That is why mass media reports written by ignorant people are worse than no reports at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
I watched these as well and have to wonder if this is real. How could a system with these characteristics not attract more attention from the auto industry? Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine Axil, I watched the videos you referenced. If correct, the over-unity claims should be very easy to verify. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: The Rossi reactor is already obsolete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=L7wZqDQ7Pjg This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori. A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach.. This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited high process heat specialty industrial market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=UNoxQDS3LlU The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, I am not acquainted with this engine. You wrote - After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)? Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades? If so, have RF-emissions been characterized? Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the phenomenon can be observed better? I would be interested in answers to any of these questions - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil^2 wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his Noble Gas Plasma Engine. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the energy to expand the gases. The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are 5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful Work from the Fuel. There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems to keep
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
You saw the engine working with your own eyes and can get a demo kit for $350. I will be looking for reaction reports about the demo kit on the net. But I want to believe, and yet it is just too cool to be true. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I watched these as well and have to wonder if this is real. How could a system with these characteristics not attract more attention from the auto industry? Dave -Original Message- From: pagnucco pagnu...@htdconnect.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine Axil, I watched the videos you referenced. If correct, the over-unity claims should be very easy to verify. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: The Rossi reactor is already obsolete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=L7wZqDQ7Pjg This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori. A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production approach.. This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited high process heat specialty industrial market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=UNoxQDS3LlU The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, I am not acquainted with this engine. You wrote - After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their elasticity. Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)? Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades? If so, have RF-emissions been characterized? Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the phenomenon can be observed better? I would be interested in answers to any of these questions - especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil^2 wrote: *Noble Gas Plasma Engine * In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his “Noble Gas Plasma Engine”. A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage discharge in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston. This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement. After the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and density, and the cycle is repeated. Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour . Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper end modifications. Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each cylinder every sixty thousand miles. Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives of the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from apparent neutron radiation from his engine. There were indications that such an engine could provide its own electrical power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of the Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters which provide the
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Abd, First off, thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with words. We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience. I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems. The bulk of my projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large concentrated solar thermal project. I am currently working on a Natural Gas mid-stream storage supply system. I have to deal with alot of real world problems to make systems in the field perform. Not all do. Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects all work. When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat gains. I also see a wide range of radiation emissions claimed from nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire) I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to market. I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet. I see NASA promoting WL theory and I see you tearing down the WL theory and appear soundly in the fusion camp. I see Krivit discrediting cold fusion. I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism. WL promotes beta decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways. Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin and q-pulse lattice rattling. Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question). I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up as HEAT. The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based on a Planck length. Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP? Maybe the singularity carries a charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table, amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat engine. Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat and extra strain within the lattice? No Coulomb barrier to worry about penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an extremely small target/horizon and there they go. Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine. LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might create and said they would just evaporate quickly. No explosions, just maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF! Gone. Once they are gone NO MORE HEAT effect. Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF. Since the event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes. Only way I can explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory. Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains heat after death which would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate? It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme point sources of high temperature? What I believe we have here my friend is a magnificent quantum singularity heat engine. This is my grand unification theory of cold fusion. No wine involved. I was hoping you could answer all of these questions by morning?... Godspeed On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to me what the repeatable results are. To me the anomalous heat could include anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting through a wormhole. CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the literature can be confusing. I came into the study of cold fusion in 2009, as a result of happening upon an abusive blacklisting (of lenr-canr.org) on Wikipedia. It puzzled me. So, cold fusion was fringe science, perhaps unreal. But why blacklist the major repository of scientific papers on the subject? I looked at the article and started to read the sources. I had the background to understand why cold fusion was considered impossible. That same background, my training in physics from Richard P. Feynman, had led me, as well, to
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
Axil,
I believe that light is from a quantum singularity evaporating while
feeding off your rydberg matter. A perfect e=mc2 engine. See my grand
unification theory of cold fusion just posted.
On Monday, August 6, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
Joseph Papp: Papp Engine
Footagehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=L7wZqDQ7Pjg
This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination has
maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to
electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a
dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear generator
concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid
system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production
approach..
This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to start
of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very limited
high process heat specialty industrial market.
Papp Piston
Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=UNoxQDS3LlU
The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the
papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of fusion.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.comjavascript:_e({},
'cvml', 'pagnu...@htdconnect.com');
wrote:
Axil,
I am not acquainted with this engine.
You wrote -
After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
elasticity.
Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition
Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
phenomenon can be observed better?
I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
- especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
-- Lou Pagnucco
Axil^2 wrote:
*Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
“Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
xenon)
fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
discharge
in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
After
the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume and
density, and the cycle is repeated.
Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with upper
end modifications.
Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders, the
engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower. The
inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge each
cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
Papp had arranged for a demonstration of Volvo engine to representatives
of
the Stanford Research Institute. Unfortunately the day before the
demonstration, the Volvo engine exploded. One person was killed, and
another person was injured. Papp himself is believed to have died from
apparent neutron radiation from his engine.
There were indications that such an engine could provide its own
electrical
power and being a closed system, require no fuel. It is not by definition
an electromagnetic engine, however. It is believed that at the heart of
the
Papp engine is the development of high-density electrical charge clusters
which provide the energy to expand the gases.
The Papp technology is now in the public domain, Other US patents are
5319336, 4151431, 3670494, 4046167 - Mechanical Accumulator, 3680431 for
Method and Means for Generating Explosive Forces, and 4,428,193 for Inert
Gas Fuel, Fuel Preparation Apparatus and System for Extracting Useful
Work
from the Fuel.
There are several groups working on versions of the Papp engine. It seems
to keep recycling through the new energy community.
Jim Kettner has incorporated a company called “inteligentry, LTD” to
simply
and optimized the Papp
Re: [Vo]:The literature is confusing. That's why I recommend . . .
Jed,
Thanks, I have read Ed's guide and found it very easy to understand and
very informative. He mentions there is only one pathway (other than
fission) to release that level of energy - Fusion, while I believe there is
another which better explains the phenomenon seen across the board - the
evaporation of quantum singularities, nature's perfect heat engine. The
confusion goes away when you embrace the thought.
In the last years of Einstein's life he studied this. I know you hate
wilkipedia but here you go:
In physics http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics, there is a *speculative
* notion that if there were a black
holehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole with
the same mass and charge as an
electronhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron,
it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic
moment http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_dipole_moment
and Compton
wavelength http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength. This idea
is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein
between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were
treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate
geodesic http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_(general_relativity) motion
as part of general
relativity.[1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron#cite_note-0
On Monday, August 6, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'a...@lomaxdesign.com'); wrote:
CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the
literature can be confusing.
I agree it is confusing, and this is a problem. That is why on the main
page and Introduction page I recommend papers such as Storms and McKubre:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
When people from the mass media contact me, I send them to those two, plus
Barnhart for background:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
(I do not start off by calling them useless, lazy, ignorant gits.)
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Noble Gas Plasma Engine
Quantum singularities are either created in these events or WIMPS awaken
that consume matter and antimatter and can eject antimatter ions as well
as gammas. It is not fusion or lenr, it is the evaporation of the
singularity causing this. WL theory is wrong
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, wrote:
Well, here are a couple of old stories identifying some very surprising
e=mc^2 phenomena in atmospheric electrical discharges during
thunderstorms. Probably not related unless ionized noble gases are
excellent gamma absorbers, though.
Weather so severe it generates antimatter
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/01/weather-so-severe-it-generates-antimatter/
NASA's Fermi Catches Thunderstorms Hurling Antimatter into Space
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html
Also, the August edition of Scientific American re-examines this:
Thunderclouds Make Gamma Rays—and Shoot Out Antimatter, Too
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thunderclouds-make-gamma-rays-shout-out-matter
-- Lou Pagnucco
Chemical Engineer wrote:
Axil,
I believe that light is from a quantum singularity evaporating while
feeding off your rydberg matter. A perfect e=mc2 engine. See my grand
unification theory of cold fusion just posted.
On Monday, August 6, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
The Rossi reactor is already obsolete.
Joseph Papp: Papp Engine
Footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=L7wZqDQ7Pjg
This video shows the Papp engine under a *dynamometer* test with
narration and introduction by Jimmy Sabori.
A high efficiency linear generator can be integrated into the design of
the papp engine to convert the reciprocating motion of the piston into
maximum electric power. This free-piston engine/generator combination
has
maximum high efficiency and reliability when converting motion to
electric power because of the absence of the mechanical devices like a
dedicated generator crankshaft, connecting rod, etc. The linear
generator
concept plays a very important role in this free-piston engine hybrid
system to realize unparalleled high efficient electric power production
approach..
This concept is best for transportation, or electric production at home
or office when coupled with a generator. It can be instantly started or
stopped based on demand whereas the Rossi reactor takes one hour to
start
of stop. This leaves the Rossi type reactor to best serve the very
limited
high process heat specialty industrial market.
Papp Piston
Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=UNoxQDS3LlU
The video above is a demo of the reaction inside the cylinder of the
papp engine. You will note the formation of ball lightning inside the
transparent cylinder as the noble gas explodes. IMHO, this marks the
formation of Rydberg mater with mediates the intense electron shielding
that reduces the coulomb barrier of the noble gases to the point of
fusion.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM,
pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:;javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'pagnu...@htdconnect.com javascript:;');
wrote:
Axil,
I am not acquainted with this engine.
You wrote -
After several thousand hours the gases lose structure and their
elasticity.
Does this mean there are transmutations that change gas composition
Has anyone look at the ash (both gas and cylinder walls)?
Is there dielectric breakdown during ignition with electron cascades?
If so, have RF-emissions been characterized?
Has anyone tried reproducing the effect outside of an engine where the
phenomenon can be observed better?
I would be interested in answers to any of these questions
- especially since McKubre believes it's probably a real nuclear effect.
-- Lou Pagnucco
Axil^2 wrote:
*Noble Gas Plasma Engine *
In the 1980s, Joseph Papp was granted US Patent No. 3,670,494 for his
“Noble Gas Plasma Engine”.
A mixture of recycled inert gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, and
xenon)
fills a piston cylinder These gases are exposed to a high-voltage
discharge
in this sealed cylinder capped with a piston.
This spark causes the gases to expand violently though no combustion
occurs. Mechanical energy is delivered by the piston's displacement.
After
the spark, the gases immediately collapses to their original volume
and
density, and the cycle is repeated.
Replacing these gases cost 15 cents per operating hour .
Papp's first prototype was a simple 90-horsepower Volvo engine with
upper
end modifications.
Attaching the Volvo pistons to pistons fitting the sealed cylinders,
the
engine worked perfectly with an output of three hundred horsepower.
The
inventor claimed it would cost about twenty five dollars to charge
each
cylinder every sixty thousand miles.
Papp had
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Abd, I appreciate your comments. After reading your post below and rereading it and rereading it several times, I am still at a lost on what you are contending. Please restate your contentions in simpler prose that dumb people like me can understand. Yes, While we know that amino acids can be created from non-life simple hydrocarbons, the conditions do not match known earth atmospheric conditions. I believe you are alluding to the Urey-Miller experiment where they successfully created amino acids from base molecular H20 and some simple hydrocarbons. But one thing you need to realize, it never created any self-replicating molecules, it never create any life The Urey-Miller experiment was successful but did not simulate the correct conditions. For one, it was performed on a Reducing Atmosphere of hydrocarbon gases, not the oxidative atmosphere with oxygen. When the experiment was redone with oxygen, the oxidizing action of oxygen destroyed the animo acids just as quickly as it was created. Hence, the experiment was designed on top of faulty assumptions. No, the earths atmosphere was reducing before we had photo synthesis No one knows how life could have arised from non-life. Your speculations below, while apparently eloquent, is simply that, speculation. Abiogenesis is the biggest hole in Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theory. Even Richard Dawkins has resorted to wild speculations about infinite Multiverses so that he can bring the probabilities down to manageable numbers to speculate on the first biogenesis. If you know what these self-replicating molecules and viruses are which arised out of non-life molecules, by all means, tell us and I assure you, you will win the Nobel Prize, and will become the new Darwin. And since you asked, I believe in the God of the Bible. The almighty creator of everything and the sustainer of everything. His name is Jesus Christ, my savior. Jojo - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacis of Darwinian Evolution - Genetic Improbability At 03:18 AM 8/6/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states: We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28. First of all, evolution would not start with a simple micro-organism, that's way too complex. We do know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can be created without life, thus the primordial soup. An organism is already a complex structure that not only reproduces itself, but protects itself and metabolizes materials. Closer would be a virus, which is already, as well, too complex, as far as any viruses observed. So some molecule arises by chance in the soup that is capable of catalyzing the assembly of itself. It's an enzyme. DNA does this, but this enzyme is much simpler. It is not carrying any message other than its own structure. When it is created, the soup will rapidly reach an equilibrium with copies being made of the molecule and being destroyed by various chemical processes. Variations in the structure will arise, and some of these variations will favor survival of the variation, so the *soup composition* will evolve. It will probably never become uniform. This is quite predictable. Sometimes these molecules will, through normal chemistry, attach to each other, becoming longer sequences, and some of these will be viable, i.e, will also be capable of reproduction. Increasingly complex structures will arise, and the soup will become full of these, the ones more successful and faster in catalyzing their own copying, and of pieces of them (broken and perhaps not viable). The really big step is when an enzyme arises that can organize its environment in a more complex way than simply making a copy of itself. When it also
