date:20121030

Recent dark matter news for Stewie:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/1024/Gigantic-invisible-cocoons-of-dark-matter-may-suck-up-rogue-stars

Re: [Vo]:Hurricane Sandy and the cost of the 1960s space program

2012-10-30 Thread ChemE Stewart

Dark matter orbits around and through regular matter creating.halos.
 You are seeing massive dark matter in a chaotic multi-body orbit with
these stars.  The halo is its path.

Unfortunately I just realized that some, not all halos on earth (rainbows)
are showing us the elliptical orbit of dark matter.  They freeze the water
particles passing thru their orbital path and create prisms in the air to
diffract light.  They appear during/after storms because they created the
low pressure system to begin with.  Enjoy those types of rainbows but do
not walk/drive underneath, a sinkhole may open up or you may succumb to
uncertainty.

You heard it here first...

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com








On Tuesday, October 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

 Recent dark matter news for Stewie:


 http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/1024/Gigantic-invisible-cocoons-of-dark-matter-may-suck-up-rogue-stars

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

Sigh . . . As they said of the French Bourbon dynasty, these people learn
nothing, and they forget nothing. This column could have been written
anytime in the last 23 years. There is not a single scientific fact in it.
There is not one reference to scientific literature. It is based on movies
and mythology surrounding the events of 1989.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

I updated the LENR-CANR news item about cold fusion in the mass media. I
added:

Ouellette, J., *Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold
Fusion*http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/,
in *Scientific American*. 2012. The author ignores the scientific
literature and looks instead at movies, popular culture and mythology
surrounding the 1989 announcement. She concludes that cold fusion does not
exist.

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

Would you expect more from a recovering English major?

RE: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.

2012-10-30 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Hi Dave,

EQ prediction is possible with very low frequency geomagnetic monitoring.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47319.html

Is it any surprise that when the earth fractures, or is under stress to the
point of fracture, it causes disturbances in its mag-field?  

-Mark

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.

 

If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they
should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation.  No one has been
able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles
regularity so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard.  I
think that it would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series
of small quakes occurred when a major event did not follow up?  Throwing the
dice would likely be as accurate as quake science is currently in this
field. 

 

Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in
California soon.  The pattern has been established if you look at the
behavior of the ring of fire.  Should everyone evacuate the area because
of the danger?  Who should we incarcerate when it happens?

 

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Hurricane Sandy and the cost of the 1960s space program

2012-10-30 Thread LORENHEYER

All of the Astronomers Scientists and what-have-you are confused and/or
just flatout plain wrong about what is going-on out in deep space, in the
universe All you have to do is *Realize* that Highly Advanced Civilizations
Spacecraft have a bulblike dome of their underside that can Light Up
quite bright for extended periods of time,,, and so, you being the very
naturally grounded technologically undeveloped handicapped incapable being that
you
clearly are, can begin to understand the relative importance of the amount
of time you have on this good old Earth in orbit around this Star, all *They*
have to do is Switch off the Light (which can easily mimic a star) that
to you appears be out in deep space, of which, will make you Think... thus
motivating you in the right direction to persue a more capable reliable
means or mode of technology that will someday enable you to avoid your
inevitable earthly demise!

Dark matter orbits around and through regular matter creating.halos.
You are seeing massive dark matter in a chaotic multi-body orbit with
these stars. The halo is its path.

Unfortunately I just realized that some, not all halos on earth (rainbows)
are showing us the elliptical orbit of dark matter. They freeze the water
particles passing thru their orbital path and create prisms in the air to
diffract light. They appear during/after storms because they created the
low pressure system to begin with. Enjoy those types of rainbows but do
not walk/drive underneath, a sinkhole may open up or you may succumb to
uncertainty.

You heard it here first...

Stewart
Darkmattersalot.com

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

Recent dark matter news for Stewie:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/1024/Gigantic-invisible-cocoons-of-dark-matter-may-suck-up-rogue-stars

/HTML

[Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-30 Thread Jack Cole

http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/30/mark-prelas-neutron-mu/

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

2012-10-30 Thread Chuck Sites

Thanks for sharing the video Jack.   I really like how your controlling
that with and Android and IOIO microcontroller.I'm a beginner Android
developer and the little IOIO PIC device is really cool.That is a great
way of doing a duty cycle on the AC/DC.
Here is a nice discussion on the IOIO (yo-yo) board for others that might
be interested.

http://androidcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/10/ioio-board-for-android-control-io.html

Best Regards,
Chuck

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is
 controlled with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I
 am switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon the
 mess of wires as I am early in the process.  It is interesting how the
 electrolyte turns a copper brown color.  That was after running 1 1/2 days
 on DC current at 5 to 13 watts.  I'm using the same 8 nickels on the
 thoriated tungsten rod as a cathode and 4 stainless steel washers as the
 anode.  There is more heating and almost no bubbles on AC.  I'm not sure
 what brown color is about.  I've seen this repeatedly.

 What I'm interested to try is to see the max temperature achieved by AC
 alone, then DC alone, and then AC and DC alternating for different periods
 of time.

 http://youtu.be/sH90M85S2mE

 Regards,
 Jack

Re: [Vo]:New experiment started AC/DC

2012-10-30 Thread Jack Cole

Thanks Chuck.  It's a fun hobby.

I don't program in Java having done so much in visual basic over the years.
 Fortunately, I found a language for Android that is very much like VB
called 
Basic4Androidhttps://www.plimus.com/jsp/redirect.jsp?contractId=1715566referrer=1047706.
 It has a library for the IOIO board.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Chuck Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks for sharing the video Jack.   I really like how your controlling
 that with and Android and IOIO microcontroller.I'm a beginner Android
 developer and the little IOIO PIC device is really cool.That is a great
 way of doing a duty cycle on the AC/DC.
 Here is a nice discussion on the IOIO (yo-yo) board for others that might
 be interested.


 http://androidcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/10/ioio-board-for-android-control-io.html

 Best Regards,
 Chuck

 On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:

 I shot a little video of my latest experiment with borax.  It is
 controlled with an Android phone, IOIO microcontroller, and relay bank.  I
 am switching back and forth between AC and DC current supplies.  Pardon the
 mess of wires as I am early in the process.  It is interesting how the
 electrolyte turns a copper brown color.  That was after running 1 1/2 days
 on DC current at 5 to 13 watts.  I'm using the same 8 nickels on the
 thoriated tungsten rod as a cathode and 4 stainless steel washers as the
 anode.  There is more heating and almost no bubbles on AC.  I'm not sure
 what brown color is about.  I've seen this repeatedly.

 What I'm interested to try is to see the max temperature achieved by AC
 alone, then DC alone, and then AC and DC alternating for different periods
 of time.

 http://youtu.be/sH90M85S2mE

 Regards,
 Jack

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

I posted three messages in response to this article; one from Ed Storms and
two of my own. All three disappeared within about 20 minutes. I assume they
were erased. I just re-posted two of them. We will see if they vanish again.


Here are two of them:


Here is a response to this article written by Dr. Edmund Storms. Storms is
not able to post messages here today because of some sort of technical
glitch.

“The scientific proof supporting the claims made by Fleischmann and Pons is
now overwhelming. This is not the opinion of a “handful of diehard
supporters” but of several major universities and corporations. The
information is easily obtained at http://www.LENR.org and in many books
written about the history and the science. We are no longer in 1990 when
the claims were in doubt and many people attempted to replicate them, some
with success. Many of the reasons for success and failure are now known. An
explanation for the phenomenon is being developed and claims are being
demonstrated for commercial-level power. Surely a writer for a magazine as
important as Scientific American would know these facts and not continue
using the myth that was created before the facts were known.”

Let me repeat the website address:

http://lenr-canr.org/

Shortcut: http://lenr.org/

The author quotes Robert Park: “Maybe there is… some funny reaction going
on…. If there is, it may solve some puzzles, but it won’t be important.”

Park told me and many other people that he has not [read] any papers on
cold fusion. When I offered him printed copies of papers, he refused to
take them; he let them fall to the floor. I am sure that he is telling the
truth when he says that he has read nothing about this subject, because all
of his technical assertions are wrong. He does not know what instruments
are used, what is measured, what the signal to noise ratio is, or any other
salient fact about this research. Therefore he is not in a position to
judge whether the research is valid, and he cannot predict what will come
of it.

A person who remains willfully ignorant of a scientific subject has no
right to any opinion, positive or negative.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

I am glad to see this research revived, and glad they got it to work again.

A number of other people observed neutrons and other nuclear effects from
cryogenically cooled metals.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

2012-10-30 Thread Rob Dingemans


Hi,

Seen the contents (or better said the lack of it) of this article and 
the current comments shown, thy can not otherwise than to consider the 
Scientific American as a strictly biased magazine, which lacks a decent 
chief editor who should have performed a thorough review and hence this 
magazine should be neglected.


Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

When I open a browser incognito, I find no trace of my comments, which were
#11, 12 and 13. They are only visible to me when I am signed in as Jed
Rothwell. Apparently they are embargoed. That is to say, waiting for
approval.

Ah ha. A comment posted at 2:33 just appeared. It is critical of her
comments. It quotes Robert Duncan.

My comments were posted at 2:15. Evidently they were never posted, or they
were posted and then erased.

Evidently, Ouellette does not wish to allow Storms or me to comment in her
blog.



Ah ha! The new comment posted at 2:33 also vanished. Evidently she does not
want to hear from anyone. Well, as least it isn't personal.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-30 Thread pagnucco


I am totally perplexed by how many reports of anomalous emission of
neutrons and/or high energy e-m radiation (with both Pd+D2 and Ni+H2)
can go unnoticed, or disproved by university physics labs.

The only possible explanations I can think of are

(1) intentional fraud
(2) pervasive, but honest mistakes in measurements, or interpretation
(3) the power of conformity, and fear of ostracism, completely prevents
university experimentation.

I am not sure, but many of these experiments look reproducible by well
equipped labs, so I am not sure why there is so little interest.

Am I unaware of failed serious attempts to replicate these results?

-- Lou Pagnucco

A few other recent reports are -

Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions LENR
- Heinrich Hora, George H Miley, Mark A Prelas
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf

Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2
- Edmund Storms, Brian Scanlan
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf

Jack Cole wrote:
 http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/30/mark-prelas-neutron-mu/

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

Okay, my comments are definitely gone, and the comment posted at 2:33 is
gone. That one quoted Robert Duncan.

She is erasing everything after her own comment at 1:16. At least, every
criticism. Maybe someone should post fawning praise to see if she keeps it.

If they want to close the discussion you would think they would turn off
the comment section with a notice: Comments are now closed. Many
magazines and newspapers do that.


Okay, well at least we know where Sci. Am. stands. Still stands.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

2012-10-30 Thread Daniel Rocha

Just for the record, would you post them here?

2012/10/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Okay, my comments are definitely gone, and the comment posted at 2:33 is
 gone. That one quoted Robert Duncan.

 --
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Passi22 : The CHEESE paper




http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Cheese.pdf
CONSTANTINE
MAGUIRE
(C
HICAGO),
CHARLES
ANDERSON
MC
LEOD
(T
ORONTO),
DOROTHY
MAHAJAN
F
ORMAGGIA,
(FAIRLEE,
VT).
Organic enhancer catalysts in Ni-H Lenr reactions: a successful
duplication of the Rossi-Focardi LENR device (Summer N-Physics Lab,
Lake Morey College, Fairlee, VT).

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- and the
defkalion hyperion -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

Just for the record, would you post them here?


I did:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72503.html

I posted one other short message that I did not record.

The message posted at 2:33 was from someone else. I did not get a chance to
copy it before it vanished.

I just now added one final comment, putting her on notice. Perhaps she will
read it before erasing it:

I suggest you stop erasing comments from distinguished scientists such as
Storms.

If you wish to close the discussion you should do it honestly, with a
notice: 'Comments are now closed.' Many magazines and newspapers do that.
Don’t just erase comments.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Passi22 : The CHEESE paper

2012-10-30 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

It's a shame to waste those nice products as a catalyst for LENR.

  _  

From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: mardi 30 octobre 2012 20:36
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Passi22 : The CHEESE paper

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Cheese.pdf

CONSTANTINE MAGUIRE (C HICAGO), CHARLES ANDERSON MC LEOD (T ORONTO),
DOROTHY MAHAJAN F ORMAGGIA, (FAIRLEE, VT).
Organic enhancer catalysts in Ni-H Lenr reactions: a successful
duplication of the Rossi-Focardi LENR device (Summer N-Physics Lab,
Lake Morey College, Fairlee, VT).

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- and the defkalion
hyperion -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

My last message is now gone.

You should not bother to write to this nitwit. I doubt there is any point
to writing to the editors, either.


Imagine casually erasing messages from Storms, without explanation or
apology!

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Passi22 : The CHEESE paper



At 12:46 PM 10/30/2012, Arnaud Kodeck wrote:

Its a shame to waste those nice products as a catalyst for
LENR.
It seems that a significant proportion of the test materials were ...
diverted.

Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.

2012-10-30 Thread David Roberson

That is quite a story Mark.  I am not sure why the magnetic field was modulated 
prior to an EQ but I could readily expect that behavior during one.  The 
measurements your friend performed might have indicated that movement of the 
earth was slowly occurring over a very large fault distance and I have read 
somewhere long ago that slow creep of the fault sides happens sometimes.


The problem of knowing when these movements precede large quakes seems to be 
difficult to pin down.  Crying wolf too many times is not good for your health!


I know that many knowledgeable geologists have been seeking a technique to 
predict dangerous quakes for many years but they suggest that none has been 
found.  If your friend has discovered a simple trick that works, he should be 
ready to demonstrate it to these guys.  Please do not tell me that EQ 
geologists behave like physicists when the subject of LENR is brought up.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 30, 2012 11:44 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.



Hi Dave,
EQ prediction is possible with very low frequency geomagnetic monitoring…
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg47319.html
Is it any surprise that when the earth fractures, or is under stress to the 
point of fracture, it causes disturbances in its mag-field?  
-Mark
 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mischaracterizations of verdict against seismologists.

 
If prediction of earthquakes were a solid accurate science then perhaps they 
should be punished, but that is clearly not the situation.  No one has been 
able to reliably make such a prediction with anything that resembles regularity 
so these poor guys should not be held in too much disregard.  I think that it 
would be prudent to ask ones self how many times has a series of small quakes 
occurred when a major event did not follow up?  Throwing the dice would likely 
be as accurate as quake science is currently in this field. 

 

Anyone is capable of predicting that a major earthquake is going to occur in 
California soon.  The pattern has been established if you look at the behavior 
of the ring of fire.  Should everyone evacuate the area because of the 
danger?  Who should we incarcerate when it happens?

 

Dave

[Vo]:Report 41 critic... your opinion ???

2012-10-30 Thread Alain Sepeda

on e-catnews there is a critic of report 41 that is too complex for me to
oppose without risk.
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2464cpage=3#comment-45607

here is the critic: can you comment...

 Alain posted on October 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm:

 if you don’t see there is something broken in mainstream behavior… like in
 Science rejection of report41 (just one example),

 You’re not making any arguments to persuade people that things are broken.
 You’re just listing things you don’t think should have happened. I don’t
 get it. People repeatedly point to the more than 1200 papers in cold fusion
 that have been published under peer review, and they admit many of them are
 poor quality. So it is possible to publish cold fusion results — even only
 suggestive ones. And people list all the mainstream organizations that
 “support” LENR. So how is that also consistent with suppression. Do you
 think that all these organizations validate LENR, but not enough?
 -
 Given the many publications in cold fusion, the failure of report 41 to
 get published is more plausibly blamed on its poor quality, and not on a
 systematic suppression of the field. And a look at the paper makes that
 even more plausible: There are many legitimate criticisms. The first few of
 the criticisms below would be enough for any journal to reject it:
 -
 1) They talked about correlating the helium to the heat, but missed by a
 factor of 10 (based on the Q-value for the formation of helium from
 deuterium), and then said that the measurement of a single temperature was
 too crude to get a true measure of the heat. A referee would be justified
 to send it back asking for better calorimetry if they’re gonna say
 something about the heat.
 -
 2) The speculation about DD - He-4 plus heat was very poorly justified.
 The idea that an excited He-4 can give its energy (24 MeV) to d-electrons
 is unprecedented (and fusion in Pd has been observed), and in any case, the
 electrons should be detectable, since many reactions at least will happen
 near the surface. I think a reviewer might have suggested not to speculate
 on a possible reaction at all, or collaborate with a theorist and calculate
 reaction rates.
 -
 3) If the calorimetry was not wrong by a factor of 4, then there is too
 much helium. If some of the helium has a mundane origin, why not all of it?
 -
 4) It’s been 10 years, and they said things like the calorimetry needed to
 be checked. Did they?
 -
 5) It was 2002, but there is no reference to the work in the 2004
 submission to the DOE panel. It seems that even the cold fusion advocates
 who made a critical presentation to the DOE in 2004 did not think report 41
 was credible.
 -
 6) Carlo Rubbia was acknowledged. Has he made any public statements about
 cold fusion? I looked some time ago, and found none. He has spent the last
 decade working on renewable and sustainable energy in several official
 capacities. He has personally advocated (even invented) the “energy
 amplifier”, a sub-critical reactor using thorium fuel. It would seem his
 confidence in cold fusion might not be so strong, if he’s working on a
 fission reactor, in spite of the fact that he should be quite familiar with
 this experiment.

 like in risk analysis around LENR,

 It’s not skeptics that are claiming explosions caused by LENR, or copious
 neutrons produced by temperature shocked titanium deuteride (Petras).

 and like your self-confidence that all is faked…

 My argument is mainly the lack of credible evidence. Most is probably not
 faked, but the claims from companies looking for investment should be
 treated suspiciously.

 I’ve seen the same software on 9/11 conspiracy sites, …

 Don’t know what your point is here, but if you’re supporting 9/11
 conspiracy theories too, then your attitude makes sense, and I abandon all
 hope to influence your thinking. I hold the view that it couldn’t have been
 a conspiracy with Bush involved, because it worked. If you’re arguing
 against such theories, then it makes no sense that you argue for them in
 the case of cold fusion. They are equally implausible.

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

She put up an addendum from Krivit (and alluded to posting 
difficulties) -- who is peddling discredited CF vs Real LENR --- 
I wonder how a particular experiment knows how to behave depending on 
the belief of the experimenter.  (See the Pod and The Barrier)


At least I found out that Duncan is general chair of ICCF-18 at Missouri :
http://research.missouri.edu/iccf18/welcome

RE: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-30 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com 

I am totally perplexed by how many reports of anomalous emission of
neutrons and/or high energy e-m radiation (with both Pd+D2 and
Ni+H2)
can go unnoticed, or disproved by university physics labs.

Are there credible reports of significant neutrons with protium? Anything
over 1000/sec would be significant. 

Farnsworth Fusors can get to 10k/sec. and sonofusion goes higher - but these
go largely un-noticed too. Many Fusors have been built by teenagers, but the
process is closer to hot fusion than to LENR. Often it is called warm.

AFAIK significant neutrons simply do not happen with Ni-H. Prelas used
deuterium only. The real travesty here is that Prelas was forced to stop the
work when his then-supervisor cut off his funding in 1991 despite the
incredible results, and he seems to have been way ahead of anyone else. 

They reached a million neutrons a second - wow! That is the highest number I
remember ever seeing for Pd-D. There are reports of higher with sonofusion.
Of course, this was a neutron burst, not steady state, and even the burst is
a long way from breakeven. 

With a Fusor, Farnsworth said 10^10 neutrons/sec would be breakeven IIRC.

Essentially 21 years of important RD was delayed. Isn't this a bit like
justice delayed is justice denied?
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

2012-10-30 Thread Daniel Rocha

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

2012/10/30 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com

 She put up an addendum from Krivit (and alluded to posting difficulties)
 -- who is peddling discredited CF vs Real LENR ---

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

Ouellette un-erased the comment by Storms, and added:

With all due respect to Dr. Storms, I stand by my post.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-461



Perhaps she restored this in response to my last message: I suggest you
stop erasing comments from distinguished scientists such as Storms.

My own comments remain erased, as does the comment by someone else pointing
to Robert Duncan's words.

McKubre has been watching these shenanigans from a distance. Not to put
words in his mouth, I think he regards this as a skillfully executed
hatchet job. He wrote to me with wry humor: I am glad we are still a
problem for these people.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

-Original Message-
 From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com

 I am totally perplexed by how many reports of anomalous emission of
 neutrons and/or high energy e-m radiation (with both Pd+D2 and
 Ni+H2)
 can go unnoticed, or disproved by university physics labs.

 Are there credible reports of significant neutrons with protium? Anything
 over 1000/sec would be significant.


No, most reports of gas loaded Ti are more like 57 neutrons per hour, with
40% reproducible. Such as:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KenneyFneutronemi.pdf

I suspect that kind of result is fractofusion or what-have-you. A million
neutrons, on the other hand, sounds like cold fusion to me. But who knows.

There were some other more impressive results of cryogenic Ti anomalies
from Los Alamos (Menlove), Frascati and from BARC. BARC decided to
concentrate on tritium from Ti instead. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Srinivasanobservatio.pdf

QUOTE:


A novel feature introduced by Scaramuzzi's group was the adoption of
thermal cycling of the deuterated titanium pieces by means of liquid
nitrogen cooling followed by warm up phases to create non-equilibrium
conditions in the deuterated metal lattice. It was earlier pointed out both
by Jones et al. as well as Fleischmann et al. that this helps occurrence
of nuclear reactions by causing rapid diffusion and migration of the
deuterium ions within the host metal matrix, Both the BYU and Frascati
groups have reported the measurement of significant neutron output from
deuterated Ti samples. Since then Menlove et al. of Los Alamos in
collaboration with Jones have  achieved considerable success in
carrying out a systematic study of burst neutron emission from deuterated
Ti chips, during the warm up phase following cooling to liquid nitrogen
temperatures. Their success is attributed not only to the deployment of
improved and sophisticated neutron detection equipment but also the use of
a larger quantity (up to 300 g) of Ti chips in each experimental bottle.


It should not perplex Lou Pagnucco that these results have been ignored.
There is nothing ominous about it. No conspiracy. It is not unusual for
this field. The reason is very simple. There are dozens of interesting,
promising experiments in cold fusion that have been ignored, because there
is not enough money and not enough people to replicate them.

Any researcher in this field can easily rattle off 20 or 30 promising
experiments off the top of my head that deserve a closer look. Heck, *I
could do that*, in my sleep! If someone handed me $1 billion in funding and
a large staff of qualified, eager young researchers, I could allocate the
money to worthwhile, interesting experiments in one month. I am not
exaggerating.

The problem with cold fusion is not that we have run out of ideas, clues,
or new approaches. It is just the opposite. The problem is that we have far
too many clues, and nowhere near enough people or money to sort them out
and find out which is truly promising.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SciAm blog: Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion

2012-10-30 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Alan,

 She put up an addendum from Krivit (and alluded to posting
 difficulties) -- who is peddling discredited CF vs Real LENR
 --- I wonder how a particular experiment knows how to behave
 depending on the belief of the experimenter.
 (See the Pod and The Barrier)

Sounds similar to the Reality Distortion Field, a little-understood
phenomenon which the late Mr. Jobs seemed to have mastered. It is
alleged Jobs was was capable of generating such a distortion field
within his immediate surroundings. Apparently it was capable of
affecting everyone who was within his immediate sphere of influence.

I suspect few others, including SK have mastered such an ability.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

2012-10-30 Thread Alain Sepeda

the cause is even more interesting

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf

2012/10/30 pagnu...@htdconnect.com


 I am totally perplexed by how many reports of anomalous emission of
 neutrons and/or high energy e-m radiation (with both Pd+D2 and Ni+H2)
 can go unnoticed, or disproved by university physics labs.

 The only possible explanations I can think of are

 (1) intentional fraud
 (2) pervasive, but honest mistakes in measurements, or interpretation
 (3) the power of conformity, and fear of ostracism, completely prevents
 university experimentation.

 I am not sure, but many of these experiments look reproducible by well
 equipped labs, so I am not sure why there is so little interest.

 Am I unaware of failed serious attempts to replicate these results?

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 A few other recent reports are -

 Surface Effect for Gas Loading Micrograin Palladium for Low Energy
 Nuclear Reactions LENR
 - Heinrich Hora, George H Miley, Mark A Prelas

 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWSPROFESSORS/pdf/LENR%20Korea%20ICCF-17%20Poster.pdf

 Nature of energetic radiation emitted from a metal exposed to H2
 - Edmund Storms, Brian Scanlan
 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEnatureofen.pdf

 Jack Cole wrote:
  http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/30/mark-prelas-neutron-mu/

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

It all goes to show that there is a lot we do not understand about
disturbed lattice reactions.  Some emit neutrons, some emit gammas,
some emit alphas . . .

I would think that young physicists would want to seize the day and
venture into this Undiscovered Country where they stand to make a name
for themselves.

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

Ouellette explained:


FYI, there have been some technical problems with the commenting system,
but as I announced at the start of the post, I am also moderating the
comment thread heavily — because every time anyone criticizes cold
fusion/low-temp nuclear reactions, the same people descend upon the comment
thread with the same arguments, links, and so forth. That has certainly
been the case with this post, as expected.

I reiterate what I said in my original caveat: my blog, my rules. I am
under no obligation to publish every single comment, and I will not let
obsessive acolytes hijack this space with multiple comments the way I’ve
seen done at many other sites. . .



So I wrote another message. I expect these mysterious technical glitches
she refers to will soon magically erase it. For the record, here it is:


If you are going to quote Robert Park, it seems to me you owe it to your
audience to quote him when he brags publicly that he has never read a
single paper. That is what he has said, repeatedly. He said it to a large
crowd of people at the APS. If you do not believe me, ask him yourself. It
is misleading to quote him as some sort of expert when he brags about the
fact that he knows nothing.

The editors of the Scientific American also told me that they have read no
papers on this subject, because 'reading papers is not our job.' Their
assertions about cold fusion also technically wrong. I published their
comments here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294 . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 I would think that young physicists would want to seize the day
 and venture into this Undiscovered Country where they stand to make a
 name for themselves.


They might want to, but if they talk about doing this they would soon be
tossed out the university on some pretext.

For any graduate student, anywhere in the U.S., it is career suicide to
talk about cold fusion, or to suggest doing an experiment. I have heard
that from many professors and grad students.

Academic politics is a rough game. The play it for keeps. You fail to toe
the line -- you question the system -- they kick your butt out. All this
talk you hear about academic freedom, and the tradition of questioning
authority is bullshit. It is bullshit now, and it always has been. There is
more freedom to question authority in professions such as programming than
there ever was in mainstream physics.

Read any biography of any physicist in the last hundred years and you will
find quotes like the Townes biography:


One day after we had been at it for about two years, Rabi and Kusch, the
former and current chairmen of the department -- both of them Nobel
laureates for work with atomic and molecular beams, and both with a lot of
weight behind their opinions -- came into my office and sat down. They were
worried. Their research depended on support from the same source as did
mine. Look, they said, you should stop the work you are doing. It isn't
going to work. You know it's not going to work. We know it's not going to
work. You're wasting money. Just stop!

The problem was that I was still an outsider to the field of molecular
beams, as they saw it. . . . I simply told them that I thought it had a
reasonable chance and that I would continue. I was then indeed thankful
that I had come to Columbia with tenure. (p. 65)


Read the book Hubble Wars and you will see how corrupt mainstream science
is. The problem is that there is no accountability. People publish fake
data and lies, and no one questions them or even cares. Most academic
research is inconsequential. Peter Hagelstein and I once took a 10-hour
flight. He told me story after story about corruption in academia. It is
much worse than people realize. I am a cynical person. I have seen a lot of
corruption in the computer business, on Wall Street and elsewhere. I have
seldom met such a crowd of conniving lowlifes as your average academic
professors.

You can be darn sure that if Rabi and Kusch could have stopped Townes, they
would have. Even if it meant firing him. Scientists do this sort of thing
all the time. It isn't just unethical; in any other line of work what they
do would be illegal. If they were businessmen instead of academics, what
they do routinely, with things like peer-review, would violate antitrust
laws, fair trade laws, and so many other laws they would lose their
licenses to practice, and they would be fined and jailed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

The Scientific American has been, for at least 25 years, little more than
The Scientific Democrat.  In other words, it is politics posing as
science.  BTW:  I was an adviser to Dukakis's platform committee in 88' and
I first used the term The Scientific Democrat around that time, the bias
was so obvious and embarrassing.

I don't know what happened to SciAm in the 80's.  Does anyone have an
explanation?

In any event, the important thing to note here is that they feel it
necessary to sacrifice one of their pawns.

What can be the point of this to The Scientific Democrat's political
agenda?  Is it just a random spasm?


On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ouellette explained:


 FYI, there have been some technical problems with the commenting system,
 but as I announced at the start of the post, I am also moderating the
 comment thread heavily — because every time anyone criticizes cold
 fusion/low-temp nuclear reactions, the same people descend upon the comment
 thread with the same arguments, links, and so forth. That has certainly
 been the case with this post, as expected.

 I reiterate what I said in my original caveat: my blog, my rules. I am
 under no obligation to publish every single comment, and I will not let
 obsessive acolytes hijack this space with multiple comments the way I’ve
 seen done at many other sites. . .



 So I wrote another message. I expect these mysterious technical glitches
 she refers to will soon magically erase it. For the record, here it is:


 If you are going to quote Robert Park, it seems to me you owe it to your
 audience to quote him when he brags publicly that he has never read a
 single paper. That is what he has said, repeatedly. He said it to a large
 crowd of people at the APS. If you do not believe me, ask him yourself. It
 is misleading to quote him as some sort of expert when he brags about the
 fact that he knows nothing.

 The editors of the Scientific American also told me that they have read no
 papers on this subject, because 'reading papers is not our job.' Their
 assertions about cold fusion also technically wrong. I published their
 comments here:

 http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294 . . .

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

Ouellette continues to erase messages as fast as I can write them. She
erased my message linking to the comments made by Sci. Am. editors, as I
knew she would.

She will allow only skeptical attacks; no rebuttals or defense. Here is a
response I wrote to Cude, which I expect will be erased momentarily:


Cude wrote: “I’m not aware of a single major university that has expressed
the opinion that evidence for the claims of PF is overwhelming.”

Professors at universities and at other institutions express that opinion.
For example, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission said that,
as did the world’s top expert in tritium at the Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory. In 1991, The Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical
Chemistry in Berlin wrote: “. . . there is now undoubtedly overwhelming
indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”

Hundreds of other distinguished experts in nuclear physics and other
related disciplines have said they are certain cold fusion is real. They
know this because they have conducted experiments and detected the reaction
at high signal to noise ratios, and their experiments have survived
rigorous peer-review. That is the only way anyone ever knows anything for
sure in science. Replicated, high sigma experiments are the only standard
of truth.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

The Scientific American has been, for at least 25 years, little more than
 The Scientific Democrat.  In other words, it is politics posing as
 science.


Let's not suggest that Democrats are more likely to politicize science than
Republicans. The Republicans are leading the charge to teach Creationism
instead of biology, and to deny global warming, the Big Bang theory and
just about everything else that conflicts with Fundamentalist Christianity.

Public opinion surveys show that Democrats are more open to things like
evolution than Republicans.

Old school Republicans, such as Richard Nixon in the 1960s, would never in
a million years have denied that evolution, vaccinations or climate science
are valid. Nixon was more of an environmentalist than Clinton or Obama
could ever afford to be.

Anyway, the problems with cold fusion are not caused by politicians. They
are caused by academic scientists. Especially people such as Park, Garwin,
the editors of Sci. Am. and now Ouellette -- making a name for herself, no
doubt.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mark Prelas Studies Neutron Production at MU

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 They might want to, but if they talk about doing this they would soon be
 tossed out the university on some pretext.

The smart ones will learn to mask their research in the same way that
Mills masked his first patent application.

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

I had hoped to head off your erroneous suggestion by including my
Democratic affiliation at the time I first notice SciAm's political bias.

Your comment is true but suggests that I was directing my comment toward
Democrats rather than toward Scientific American's political bias toward
the Democratic Party.  Moreover, it was directed at SciAm's choice to put
out this hit piece just as we're staring down the barrel of an election.


On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Scientific American has been, for at least 25 years, little more
 than The Scientific Democrat.  In other words, it is politics posing as
 science.


 Let's not suggest that Democrats are more likely to politicize science
 than Republicans. The Republicans are leading the charge to teach
 Creationism instead of biology, and to deny global warming, the Big Bang
 theory and just about everything else that conflicts with Fundamentalist
 Christianity.

 Public opinion surveys show that Democrats are more open to things like
 evolution than Republicans.

 Old school Republicans, such as Richard Nixon in the 1960s, would never in
 a million years have denied that evolution, vaccinations or climate science
 are valid. Nixon was more of an environmentalist than Clinton or Obama
 could ever afford to be.

 Anyway, the problems with cold fusion are not caused by politicians. They
 are caused by academic scientists. Especially people such as Park, Garwin,
 the editors of Sci. Am. and now Ouellette -- making a name for herself,
 no doubt.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms


At 03:53 PM 10/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Wow!  Mary Y relays your post 
!! 
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-473


Jed Rothwell writes on another forum that he thinks he's being 
censored so I will take the liberty to post this for him. It's not my view.

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

2012-10-30 Thread Rob Dingemans


Hi,

Just a thought, what would happen if you would write about the same 
facts but than everything in the opposite sense?

A kind of reverse psychology method.

Kind regards,

Rob

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

Ah, I now see Ouelette's article was prompted by the release of the film
The Believers.

Sorry, but when I see SciAm cited, I find myself unmotivated to read the
article.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 I had hoped to head off your erroneous suggestion by including my
 Democratic affiliation at the time I first notice SciAm's political bias.

 Your comment is true but suggests that I was directing my comment toward
 Democrats rather than toward Scientific American's political bias toward
 the Democratic Party.  Moreover, it was directed at SciAm's choice to put
 out this hit piece just as we're staring down the barrel of an election.



 On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Scientific American has been, for at least 25 years, little more
 than The Scientific Democrat.  In other words, it is politics posing as
 science.


 Let's not suggest that Democrats are more likely to politicize science
 than Republicans. The Republicans are leading the charge to teach
 Creationism instead of biology, and to deny global warming, the Big Bang
 theory and just about everything else that conflicts with Fundamentalist
 Christianity.

 Public opinion surveys show that Democrats are more open to things like
 evolution than Republicans.

 Old school Republicans, such as Richard Nixon in the 1960s, would never
 in a million years have denied that evolution, vaccinations or climate
 science are valid. Nixon was more of an environmentalist than Clinton or
 Obama could ever afford to be.

 Anyway, the problems with cold fusion are not caused by politicians. They
 are caused by academic scientists. Especially people such as Park, Garwin,
 the editors of Sci. Am. and now Ouellette -- making a name for herself,
 no doubt.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

To which I responded:

Not that I can speak for Robert Park, but it is not that he is bragging
that he knows nothing, but rather that he knows who to listen to. Indeed,
this is virtually the entire history of the “cold fusion” fiasco including
the early 1990 rejection by the US editorial staff of “Nature” of Oriani’s
replication of the phenomenon despite the peers selected by “Nature” having
reviewed and approved the paper. One can only speculate as to whom they
were listening and why.


On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 At 03:53 PM 10/30/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Wow!  Mary Y relays your post !! http://blogs.**scientificamerican.com/**
 cocktail-party-physics/2012/**10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-**
 case-against-cold-fusion/#**comment-473http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-473

 Jed Rothwell writes on another forum that he thinks he's being censored so
 I will take the liberty to post this for him. It's not my view.

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

Wow! Mary Y relays your post !! http://blogs.**scientificamerican.com/**
cocktail-party-physics/2012/**10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-**
case-against-cold-fusion/#**comment-473http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-473

Jed Rothwell writes on another forum . . .

That was nice of her! Her copy of the message has not vanished yet. I
expect it will soon.

I think it is unlikely that technical glitches deleted that message.

The other message has survived longer than I expected. Apparently you are
allowed to quote the Director of the Max Planck Institute, even though he
does not write on Wikipedia (being deceased).

I am keeping copies of these messages. If we win, history will not look
kindly at Ouellette.

By the way, I suspect that Robert Park may actually have read some papers
and he may actually know something about this field. He skirts the issues
and frames his arguments in ways that make me think he knows more than he
lets on. I think he denies reading anything to give himself plausible
deniability. I am pretty sure the editors of the Sci. Am. did not read
anything. They do not skirt any issues. Their statements are flat-out
wrong, and idiotic. They resemble Taubes, who says things like: there is
more electricity on weekends which is why cells seem to produce more heat.
It never occurred to him that:

1. This is nonsense; power generation is adjusted to meet demand.
2. People measure input power.
3. Excess heat is not correlated with weekends.

Someone told him that the heat comes from the weekend, and he is sticking
to that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:

To which I responded:

 Not that I can speak for Robert Park, but it is not that he is bragging
 that he knows nothing, but rather that he knows who to listen to.



Well said! Where did you write this? At the Sci. Am. site? I don't see it.
I guess she erased it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

This whole thing is comical.

Ouellette first censored a message from me pointing to a statement from *the
editor of her own magazine*. She will not allow a discussion of Sci. Am.'s
own editors' point of view! Then she turned around and allowed a skeptic to
post a copy of my message. (So far, anyway.) It is mind-boggling.

To paraphrase Marx, the opposition to cold fusion began as a tragedy and it
is ending as a farce.

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi's EU Patent Application Update

2012-10-30 Thread Patrick Ellul

1) was filed in 2008.
2) most recent updates just a couple of weeks ago.
3) direct link to all the documentation:
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08873805lng=entab=doclist
4) via:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-patent-report-publication-scheduled-for-nov-21/


-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

[Vo]: Nemesis Park

Lately Robert Park seems to be more interested in politix than fizzix:

http://bobpark.org/

My(another nemesis)!  How the great (tree limbs) have fallen.

[Vo]:Rossi's first 1MW hot-cat to client by Feb 2013

2012-10-30 Thread Patrick Ellul

Andrea Rossi
October 30th, 2012 at 8:35
PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=6#comment-381116

Dear Emilio Icaza:
Yes, Leonardo Corp is very much powerful now. I can already say that the
first 1 MW hot cat will go in operation within February 2013. It will not
be a military application, therefore selected persons will be allowed to
visit it. It will be installed in a big power production and distribution
plant.
This is the new. The plant is made in the USA.
An extremely important agreement has been signed after the tests of the Hot
Cat, which are going on since June in the USA and in Italy.
The details will be communicated only after the plant will have been
working for enough time to be visitable, also to avoid clubs in the wheels.
That’s all I can say right now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

source:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=6#comment-381116
via: http://rossilivecat.com/

-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

Ah, Ouellette deleted Yugo's copy as well.

Good grief!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms

For the record, Ouellette erased this one too:


 Cude wrote: “I’m not aware of a single major university that has expressed
 the opinion that evidence for the claims of PF is overwhelming.”

 Professors at universities and at other institutions express that opinion.
 For example, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission said that,
 as did the world’s top expert in tritium at the Princeton Plasma Physics
 Laboratory. In 1991, The Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical
 Chemistry in Berlin wrote: “. . . there is now undoubtedly overwhelming
 indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”

 Hundreds of other distinguished experts in nuclear physics and other
 related disciplines have said they are certain cold fusion is real. They
 know this because they have conducted experiments and detected the reaction
 at high signal to noise ratios, and their experiments have survived
 rigorous peer-review. That is the only way anyone ever knows anything for
 sure in science. Replicated, high sigma experiments are the only standard
 of truth.


It is astounding that she forbids these statements. This is how low the
skeptics have fallen, when they do not even allow people to say that
experiments are the standard of truth in science.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Ouellette un-erases Storms