date:20130113


From: Ron Kita 

Greetings Vortex,

I wasn t aware of Naudin s Patent Application:


http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2F
netahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=9f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PG01s1=naudin.IN.
OS=IN/naudinRS=IN/naudin

Hi Ron,

That one seems to have gone nowhere, but do not despair. Naudin has a new
toy these days - called the GeGene. 

http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

The name is an acronym but it could also be a French pun. Anyway, it is
based on the peculiarities of the famous Tesla pancake coil when used as a
transformer secondary, and combined with an induction cooktop, being used as
the HF input power supply (~60 kHz).

Here is one for less than $100.

http://www.amazon.com/Burton-6200-1800-Watt-Induction-Cooktop/dp/B0037Z7HQK/
ref=sr_1_3?s=home-gardenie=UTF8qid=1358094166sr=1-3keywords=induction+co
oktop

OK first off - it is NOT overunity, at least it is not gainful when powering
conventional loads ... and Naudin shows a simplified calorimeter with water
boiling - which at 95% efficiency is still surprising in a way (you would
expect about 80% with the losses) but it is clearly not OU. So why get
excited?

It's all about the load, and in the context of so-called cold current.
Some loads do not work for gain with the Tesla pancake, and some do (maybe).

Now if you ask a number of EEs if there is such a thing as cold current -
you may be surprised how many of them would agree that there is something
else in some circuits, which is mysterious. Terry might correct me on this
point but even if one includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect and other
nearly-well-known mysteries, EE is still far from complete when it comes
to things like the Tesla pancake.

The main characteristic (assuming for the sake of argument that there is a
mystery here) - is that this kind of current does not supply heat to some
types of circuits in familiar ways. In fact the Tesla pancake coil stays
cool at 1000 watts to the primary, but then again - it contains no iron and
the primary is designed specifically to heat ferromagnetic materials.
Catch-22 some of these cooktops will heat aluminum, but anyway... do not
focus on the cooktop as being anything other than a cheap PS.

Most observers would write this particular Naudin experiment off as
meaningless ... or measurement error, despite the $10K DSO. Never mind that
Naudin worked for EDF and has their support (the French grid power
monopoly).

Actually, I think there could be something valid to this one, despite the
negativity on the forums, and I hope that the eventual surprise will be a
better understanding of cold-current. Or at least a complete debunking - if
nothing is there.

Above in this post ... when I said it's all about the load that is not
completely accurate - and what would be more precise to say is that
cold-current is all about driving a special kind of bifilar ironless
secondary inductor at high frequency through a special kind of load that
will absorb more apparent power than the primary produces. Halogen lamps
are one type but there are others, and curiously, incandescent lamps do not
work.

The $64 question is: can one ever find a fit - i.e. a valid commercial use
for cold-current apparent gain, aside from a very expensive kind of lighting
effect ? 

... or else, did the great Tesla get it wrong with his unfulfilled claims
for this kind of coil?

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:It ate my book


 But what are you talking about here?? :) What virus? What book? How was it
 eaten? Which person are you referring to?
these books

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooksfield-keywords=frank+znidarsic+science+books


Something went wrong with Java and my files were temporally lost.  Its been 
fixed now and I have an update uploaded.  I did not want to loose months of 
work.  


I have a peer reviewed paper at a journal that looks like it is going to make 
it.  I'll keep my fingers crossed on this one.
I am glad vortex is now running and amazon is back.  I would not want to miss 
what Rossi says this February.


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:It ate my book

2013-01-13 Thread Jed Rothwell

fznidar...@aol.com wrote:


 Something went wrong with Java and my files were temporally lost.


The problem was on your computer, not Amazon's. If Amazon goes down it will
be a national calamity since they supply data processing services to many
others, such as Netflix.

Things often go wrong with Java.



  Its been fixed now and I have an update uploaded.  I did not want to
 loose months of work.


Lose, not loose. You have already loosed it upon the world.



 I would not want to miss what Rossi says this February.


Yes. He is the most interesting man in the world.

- Jed

[Vo]:I feel really good about what I have done

I feel really good about what I have done.  The peer reviewed article forced me 
to be logically consistent.  I then
applied this consistency to my book.  The result is simple.
I refactored Coulombs equation into the form of an elastic constant and a wave 
number.  Using these terms I produced the Compton frequency and the atomic 
velocity.
Using the same form with the nuclear wave number 1.36 Fermi meters, I produced 
the speed of sound in the nucleus.
This speed 1,094,000 meters per sec was first observed in cold fusion 
experiments.  Setting the forms equal produced the energy levels of the atoms 
and the amplitude of harmonic motion.  In other words setting the speed of 
light to the speed of sound produced the atomic energy levels and the intensity 
of spectral emission.
I hope that I am now done with no more revisions.

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:It ate my book

2013-01-13 Thread Harry Veeder

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 fznidar...@aol.com wrote:


 Something went wrong with Java and my files were temporally lost.


 The problem was on your computer, not Amazon's. If Amazon goes down it will
 be a national calamity since they supply data processing services to many
 others, such as Netflix.

 Things often go wrong with Java.



  Its been fixed now and I have an update uploaded.  I did not want to
 loose months of work.


 Lose, not loose. You have already loosed it upon the world.



 I would not want to miss what Rossi says this February.


 Yes. He is the most interesting man in the world.


Compilation of all commercials using the most interesting man in the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtA2u3uhi2U

Harry

[Vo]:Re: I feel really good about what I have done

Things learned recently.  I had this number rp.  I thought it was the protons 
radius.  That was wrong.  It
was the electrons wave number.  With that my calculations fit into standard 
forms.  I had this other number 1.36 fermis. 
I found it in the literature with a negative one exponent.  Lane Davis asked 
why the negative one?  Now I know.
It is the wave number.  Wave numbers are presented as reciprocals.  The math 
spoke for itself, however, it took
years to get through to me.  Rev 2 will be available in two days.

I am now happy.  I appreciate the critical slams now.  At the time I hated them.

Frank


Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

I feel really good about what I have done.  The peer reviewed article forced 
me to be logically consistent.  I then
applied this consistency to my book.  The result is simple.
I refactored Coulombs equation into the form of an elastic constant and a wave 
number.  Using these terms I produced the Compton frequency and the atomic 
velocity.
Using the same form with the nuclear wave number 1.36 Fermi meters, I produced 
the speed of sound in the nucleus.
This speed 1,094,000 meters per sec was first observed in cold fusion 
experiments.  Setting the forms equal produced the energy levels of the atoms 
and the amplitude of harmonic motion.  In other words setting the speed of 
light to the speed of sound produced the atomic energy levels and the 
intensity of spectral emission.
I hope that I am now done with no more revisions.

Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Leo LQG - are we now centered?

“Centering” has profound implications in many fields. Never mind that this
Sunday, at least in the USA, most males are thinking only about it only in
the context of the sport of football. Yawn.

It is almost a primal duality in perception to contrast an uncentered
(uniform) system vs a centered (focused) system. In fact centering may
relate to the other anthropomorphic dualities like good and evil - in many
ways not yet fully appreciated.

What if our Universe has a center? Do not jump to a reflexive negative
conclusion, at least not just yet!

Leo the Lion is one of first constellations to have been regularly noticed
by ancient humans, but not as the center of anything – that was the role of
Ra. Leo is positioned between Cancer to the west and Virgo to the east and
the LQG is barely visible there. In fact, until a few days ago this vector
as seen from Earth was nothing special. As of few hours ago “LQG” was not
even listed as a search term by NASA on their site. That will probably
change on Monday.

In fact, the entire perception of our Universe being centerless may have has
changed – almost overnight. If our Universe has a “center” it is in Leo and
it is known at LQG.

Of course, modern cosmology professes that there is no recognizable center
to the Universe. Part of that belief was based on many assumptions but the
most important was the former appearance of uniformity (when looking out in
every direction). All of that nice uniformity went down the drain last week
with a discovery which is not yet on the Evening News, but maybe it should
be. It has not “sunk in yet” even with most cosmologists.

Here is one story on the discovery of the LQG – and it is actually tempered
down. I suspect that as next week goes by - in the Science News - and more
and more observers from other disciplines get in on the act - to realize the
profound implications of this – you will see more-and-more hype about the
possibility that the Universe just might be “centered” after all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50434185/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/large
st-structure-universe-found-its-mind-boggling/

Most of us can take a peek tonight at the possible genesis point – the
possible center of it all – well … at least take a peek at the LQG. It will
take much longer to sort out all of the implications, but a singularity is
usually that: singular and by extension: centered. Here is what to look for:

http://stardate.org/nightsky/january-10

Jones
attachment: winmail.dat

[Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread Terry Blanton

Is it the wind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

[Vo]:Re: I feel really good about what I have done

Thank you Jed for all that you have done.  Here are all the number you need.
1.409  fermis , The electronic wave number
1.36 fermis,  the nuclear wave number
29.05 / r,  the electrons elastic constant

The numbers emerged from cold fusion experiments.
They are not much but the change the foundation of quantum physics.

Frank Z




Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

I feel really good about what I have done.  The peer reviewed article forced 
me to be logically consistent.  I then
applied this consistency to my book.  The result is simple.
I refactored Coulombs equation into the form of an elastic constant and a wave 
number.  Using these terms I produced the Compton frequency and the atomic 
velocity.
Using the same form with the nuclear wave number 1.36 Fermi meters, I produced 
the speed of sound in the nucleus.
This speed 1,094,000 meters per sec was first observed in cold fusion 
experiments.  Setting the forms equal produced the energy levels of the atoms 
and the amplitude of harmonic motion.  In other words setting the speed of 
light to the speed of sound produced the atomic energy levels and the 
intensity of spectral emission.
I hope that I am now done with no more revisions.

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread mixent

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:35:01 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Is it the wind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

I doubt it. The speed is fairly constant irrespective of orientation. The
voltage from the coil on the meter is 5.92 volts, which seems to match the
sluggish performance of the motor compared to its speed when running on the 9
volt battery.
Note that the flat plate glued to the coil is a magnet. 
Missing is a 360º panoramic view showing whether or not there is a large radio
tower or high voltage overhead wires nearby.
The main coil is centre tapped (approximately) by the perpendicular coil, which
I think may be related to full wave rectification.

The whole thing is reminiscent of the Avramenko Plug. One or more solder joints
may function as a diode.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: I feel really good about what I have done

Oh, by the way, here are the numbers you no longer need.

Planck's constant
The Compton frequency
The deBroglie wavelength
An adHoc Schrodinger wave equation
The principle of quantum correspondence

Start with the 3 New numbers and you can produce all of the above.

Frank Z

Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

I feel really good about what I have done.  The peer reviewed article forced 
me to be logically consistent.  I then
applied this consistency to my book.  The result is simple.
I refactored Coulombs equation into the form of an elastic constant and a wave 
number.  Using these terms I produced the Compton frequency and the atomic 
velocity.
Using the same form with the nuclear wave number 1.36 Fermi meters, I produced 
the speed of sound in the nucleus.
This speed 1,094,000 meters per sec was first observed in cold fusion 
experiments.  Setting the forms equal produced the energy levels of the atoms 
and the amplitude of harmonic motion.  In other words setting the speed of 
light to the speed of sound produced the atomic energy levels and the 
intensity of spectral emission.
I hope that I am now done with no more revisions.

Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Fwd: Re: I feel really good about what I have done



 Original Message 
Subject: Re: I feel really good about what I have done
From: Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
CC: 

Oh, by the way, here are the numbers you no longer need.

Planck's constant
The Compton frequency
The deBroglie wavelength
An adHoc Schrodinger wave equation
The principle of quantum correspondence

Start with the 3 New numbers and you can produce all of the above.

Frank Z

[Vo]:Fwd: Re: I feel really good about what I have done

Almost forgot.  No longer needed.
Coulombs equation
3 New factors do it all.

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: I feel really good about what I have done
From: Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
CC: 

Oh, by the way, here are the numbers you no longer need.

Planck's constant
The Compton frequency
The deBroglie wavelength
An adHoc Schrodinger wave equation
The principle of quantum correspondence

Start with the 3 New numbers and you can produce all of the above.

Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 The whole thing is reminiscent of the Avramenko Plug. One or more solder 
 joints
 may function as a diode.

Yes, he gave the coordinates (53.322062,6.206194) and I had a look but
saw no obvious large towers within a mile or so.   I wondered if he
gave the coordinates for this very reason.

Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread Brad Lowe

A battery inside of the motor case and multimeter.
Here is a video rebuttal describing the scam and some choice (NSFW)
commentary.
https://www.youtube.com//watch?v=mv713TggGT8

- Brad



On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:35:01 -0500:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 Is it the wind?
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

 I doubt it. The speed is fairly constant irrespective of orientation. The
 voltage from the coil on the meter is 5.92 volts, which seems to match the
 sluggish performance of the motor compared to its speed when running on
 the 9
 volt battery.
 Note that the flat plate glued to the coil is a magnet.
 Missing is a 360º panoramic view showing whether or not there is a large
 radio
 tower or high voltage overhead wires nearby.
 The main coil is centre tapped (approximately) by the perpendicular coil,
 which
 I think may be related to full wave rectification.

 The whole thing is reminiscent of the Avramenko Plug. One or more solder
 joints
 may function as a diode.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM,  mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 The whole thing is reminiscent of the Avramenko Plug. One or more solder 
 joints
 may function as a diode.

 Yes, he gave the coordinates (53.322062,6.206194) and I had a look but
 saw no obvious large towers within a mile or so.   I wondered if he
 gave the coordinates for this very reason.

Oh, there is a rather large modern windmill 1 km due east of his location.

RE: [Vo]:Re: I feel really good about what I have done

Hi Frank 

 Oh, by the way, here are the numbers you no longer need... Planck's constant, 
 the Compton frequency, the DeBroglie wavelength, etc

 Start with the 3 New numbers and you can produce all of the above.


OK, no problem with that - but if you start with the better-known numbers, you 
can produce all of your numbers, so what is special about them?

Can you use them to make a useful prediction in LENR?

(this is not a criticism, just an obvious question which you must have seen 
before, so you probably have an obvious answer)

Jones

[Vo]:newVortex

As some of you know, a number of us have started a newVortex 
mailing list. This is a moderated list, but, routinely, new 
subscribers, on showing that they aren't spammers by submitting a 
coherent, on-topic post, will be taken off of moderation. The list, 
as a yahoogroup, has other associated tools, such as a file space, 
and currently any list member may post a file.


To read a post on the list, one does not have to subscribe, but to 
access files, security requires that the person join the list. One 
may join as a no mail member (or better, Special Messages.)


The initial rules are the same as the Vortex rules, except that we 
are less likely to ban anyone. Rather, if there are problems, a 
member will be placed on moderation, until the problem clears up. We 
could also shut the whole list down, easily, so that all members 
(including us( are on moderation. If we do that, no messages will be 
lost, but some might be rejected. (In which case, the submitting 
member will get a rejection mail with a reason and a copy of the post.)


The initial moderators are:

Abd Lomax
Stephen V. Johnson
David Roberson

The list archive is public and googleable.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

We even have a Mary Yugo post. I found it informative. I have not, 
however, personally verified the facts alleged.


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/47

Be nice, folks!

Re: [Vo]:Re: Microwave based motor


At 03:42 PM 1/12/2013, Alex wrote:

This second link says much about the possibilty of this microwave motor.
But in the end I am not really able to try it, because once they 
were speaking about electrolysis from water into hydrogen then about 
splitting water with microwaves and then about making steam with 
microwaves and this should give a overunity.


BUT what is the Conclusion in the end?
Because I want to convert a internal combustion engine which uses 
petrol as fuel to use hydrogen. Well that is possible with a 
elecrolysis engine. But what about the steam generated by a magnetron?


I dont want some fake answers, just answers which are correct.


How about there is no answer there? Is that correct?

The idea described does not use water as a fuel, it uses water as a 
working fluid. The water described is vaporized by microwave 
energy, supplied by a magnetron. There was no evidence provided that 
any energy was released over what was put in, electrically, by the 
magnetron. There were, though, some possibly confused or confusing statements.


It's a fancy kind of electric motor. As was ultimately described, you 
could, if you wanted, recycle the water. If the steam is allowed to 
exit the cyclinder on the return of the piston, with new water (as an 
atomized mist, presumably) sprayed into the cylinder for the next 
cycle. The exhaust water need be cooled only enough that it 
condenses, and if the water entering the cylinder is hot, it would 
take less energy to vaporize it.


However, TANSTAAFL. There will be waste heat, and any energy 
converted to work by the piston must come from the magnetron.


A little more below.



  Discussion: microwave motor.
  http://amasci.com/freenrg/magnet.html


When other users asked the message-poster Tim Chandler whether 
his claim was a joke, he stopped posting...



From: Rick Monteverde 76216.2...@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: magnetron engine O/U?
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
On May 12 Mike Butcher wrote:

   Did I understand this correctly, you did get a self-running
engine to operate just on water? If this is the case then
your statement nothing more nothing less seems a bit
casual. Or have I misunderstood and you tried and failed to
get the engine to operate in such a self sustaining mode?
Me too, Mike. Frankly, I'm rather suspicious this story was put 
here to tease us a bit. My apologies to Timothy Chandler if it's a 
true story, but I think you have to admit it looks a little 
strange as posted here. It's like, yeah, we got an engine to run 
on *nothing but water*, and then just shrugged and went on with 
our lives.  I basically thought it might have been posted as a joke.


Actually, Tim Chandler posted again, 20 July, 1996.


There has been some talk on this list of how to modify a
standard combustion engine to use Microwaves and water as
fuel.

Has anyone done this to a car's engine?

Yes I know of someone who did try it, last I checked, he wasn't very 
successful.


If anyone has done this, how can I get in touch with them?

I will see if I can dig up his email address and send it to you...
[...]
Tim


May 13, Rick Monteverde had written:


[...] Mike. Frankly, I'm rather suspicious this story was put here to tease
us a bit. My apologies to Timothy Chandler if it's a true story, but I think
you have to admit it looks a little strange as posted here. It's 
like, yeah, we
got an engine to run on *nothing but water*, and then just shrugged 
and went on
with our lives.  I basically thought it might have been posted as a 
joke. [...]


Before that, Tim Chandler had written:


Rather than using a battery, we took the time to modify the existing
ignition coil setup on the engine, in order that it would properly
trigger/fire the magnetron.  For our first few runs we did however use an
external power supply to power the filiment heater on the magnetron (approx.
3VAC), but eventually that too was supplied by the ignition system.  So we
really had no battery, to go dead, the power was generated and used...

I personally did not handle the major modifications to the ignition system,
and I do not recall exactly what they were.  I have however skoke with the
guy who did redesign it, he said he would draw up a schematic and send it to
me when he finishes up with his finals (which are all this week).  Once I
get the schematic I will post it to the list.


This is a striking claim. From other discussion and a report of a 
phone conversation with Tim, they used a magnatron, note the 
spelling difference. This ignition device generates an impulse of 
power from rotation of a permanent magnet or magnets past a coil. If 
the engine actually ran and maintained rotation even without load, 
this would be a remarkable achievement, apparently violating 
conservation of energy. (Some energy must be lost in heating of the 
components, so the available energy to recycle would decline. 
Unless there was other energy storage (or supply) in the

[Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.

This document by Bill Beaty is well worth reviewing, if the reader is 
not familiar with it.


http://amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html

This doesn't just apply to inventors. Similar phenomena happen with 
pseudoskeptics, and *who isn't pseudoskeptical* on occasion, at 
least? A genuine skeptic does not forget to be skeptical of self.


Bill lays out the psychology quite well.

I received today an announcement of a remarkable video.

[Kim Sand, salsasas3996@ ...] wrote, to a list of prominent Vo participants:

In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and 
astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the 
fundamental forces in all matter.


You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used 
to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter 
equatorial disc of plasma around it!


All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or 
manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. 
Hard to believe, but it is all true.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI



(I had no problem believing that the videos were real and not fake, 
though, of course, some are constructed. Not a problem.)


The basic test device that LaPoint uses is a thing of wonder, the 
kind of thing I'd have spent months playing with when I was young. 
The astrophysical images are beautiful, the video is eye candy.


The video had the best production values I've seen in the alternative 
science field. Yet my mind was screaming at me, Pseudoscience!!


Maybe. Maybe he has found something. However, I see nothing like an 
adequate explanation of the experimental *basis* for his theory, and 
I certainly don't see the attitude that Bill is pointing to, an 
attitude of self-skepticism. I see no specific testable predictions 
(the lack of such is a basic characteristic of pseudoscience). What 
it looks to me like is that the theorist has discovered, in fact, a 
*pattern* that matches many phenomena. He hasn't shown how this 
pattern explains *anything*. At least not to me!


I'm reminded of the claims of Rashad Khalifa, whom I knew. He 
believed he had found a pattern in letter and word frequencies in the 
Qur'an. I know almost exactly what led him to that, there was a minor 
statistical anomaly that he'd discovered. As soon as he believed that 
the anomaly was real evidence of a hidden message, he started to see 
it more and more. He became convinced that he had made a monumental 
discovery, that, in fact, he was specially chosen by God to deliver 
this to the world. He paid with his life for this belief.


I was able, years later, when he was assassinated and I tried to 
verify his work, to see exactly what he had done. Counting words and 
letters in the Qur'an is nowhere near as simple as people might 
think, one must make choices. He made the choices that confirmed his 
pattern. That was, in his mind, the correct way to count. But every 
time he made such a choice, he constrained future choices. 
Eventually, when he still found contradictions to his theory (based 
on discovered counting errors in his prior claims), he started to 
correct the text of the Qur'an to match his theory. And he always 
found some excuse for his choices or his later corrections.


The human mind is a pattern-recognition machine, a very efficient and 
powerful one. We can readily find patterns in random data. For a 
scientific theory, we must do more than see a pattern. We must then, 
from the pattern we have detected, make predictions that can test the 
pattern, and we must keep thinking about how we might be wrong, 
rather than about how we might be right.


Bill gets it right. The scientific explorer works as hard as 
possible to *refute* the new discovery, and documents that work 
meticulously. Because the *mind* -- which very much wants to be 
successful, and we love to be right -- will forget all contrary 
evidence and only remember confirmation.

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.

2013-01-13 Thread James Bowery

So-called confirmation bias must have had some adaptive value.  I wonder
what it was or perhaps even is?

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 This document by Bill Beaty is well worth reviewing, if the reader is not
 familiar with it.

 http://amasci.com/freenrg/**rules1.htmlhttp://amasci.com/freenrg/rules1.html

 This doesn't just apply to inventors. Similar phenomena happen with
 pseudoskeptics, and *who isn't pseudoskeptical* on occasion, at least? A
 genuine skeptic does not forget to be skeptical of self.

 Bill lays out the psychology quite well.

 I received today an announcement of a remarkable video.

 [Kim Sand, salsasas3996@ ...] wrote, to a list of prominent Vo
 participants:

  In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and
 astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the
 fundamental forces in all matter.

 You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to
 create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc
 of plasma around it!

 All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or
 manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to
 believe, but it is all true.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=9EPlyiW-xGIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI



 (I had no problem believing that the videos were real and not fake,
 though, of course, some are constructed. Not a problem.)

 The basic test device that LaPoint uses is a thing of wonder, the kind of
 thing I'd have spent months playing with when I was young. The
 astrophysical images are beautiful, the video is eye candy.

 The video had the best production values I've seen in the alternative
 science field. Yet my mind was screaming at me, Pseudoscience!!

 Maybe. Maybe he has found something. However, I see nothing like an
 adequate explanation of the experimental *basis* for his theory, and I
 certainly don't see the attitude that Bill is pointing to, an attitude of
 self-skepticism. I see no specific testable predictions (the lack of such
 is a basic characteristic of pseudoscience). What it looks to me like is
 that the theorist has discovered, in fact, a *pattern* that matches many
 phenomena. He hasn't shown how this pattern explains *anything*. At least
 not to me!

 I'm reminded of the claims of Rashad Khalifa, whom I knew. He believed he
 had found a pattern in letter and word frequencies in the Qur'an. I know
 almost exactly what led him to that, there was a minor statistical anomaly
 that he'd discovered. As soon as he believed that the anomaly was real
 evidence of a hidden message, he started to see it more and more. He became
 convinced that he had made a monumental discovery, that, in fact, he was
 specially chosen by God to deliver this to the world. He paid with his life
 for this belief.

 I was able, years later, when he was assassinated and I tried to verify
 his work, to see exactly what he had done. Counting words and letters in
 the Qur'an is nowhere near as simple as people might think, one must make
 choices. He made the choices that confirmed his pattern. That was, in his
 mind, the correct way to count. But every time he made such a choice, he
 constrained future choices. Eventually, when he still found
 contradictions to his theory (based on discovered counting errors in his
 prior claims), he started to correct the text of the Qur'an to match his
 theory. And he always found some excuse for his choices or his later
 corrections.

 The human mind is a pattern-recognition machine, a very efficient and
 powerful one. We can readily find patterns in random data. For a scientific
 theory, we must do more than see a pattern. We must then, from the pattern
 we have detected, make predictions that can test the pattern, and we must
 keep thinking about how we might be wrong, rather than about how we might
 be right.

 Bill gets it right. The scientific explorer works as hard as possible to
 *refute* the new discovery, and documents that work meticulously. Because
 the *mind* -- which very much wants to be successful, and we love to be
 right -- will forget all contrary evidence and only remember confirmation.

Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread David Roberson

I would guess that there is some form of RF coupling to the coil or antenna 
from a nearby powerful source.  This can be rectified to generate the DC 
voltage that he is using to drive the motor.


I would include a zener type diode to limit the voltage and make it look 
constant.  This design is too simple to actually tap a large unknown source.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 13, 2013 2:35 pm
Subject: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?


Is it the wind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

RE: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

This is an easy fake to do. There are 2 hidden small power sources. The
sources have equally same potential by means of Zener diode for example.
Small batteries are enough for the test with take 10 minutes to be
completed.

 

One source is placed inside the voltmeter in series with the (+) input. Com
= Voltmeter = Hidden source = (+) Input

 

The second source is hidden inside the motor in series also. Com = Motor =
2nd Hidden source = Input power

 

To be not a fake, the multimeter should be opened as well as the motor. The
strap is put not only for the decoration.

 

Arnaud

  _  

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: dimanche 13 janvier 2013 23:50
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

 

I would guess that there is some form of RF coupling to the coil or antenna
from a nearby powerful source.  This can be rectified to generate the DC
voltage that he is using to drive the motor. 

 

I would include a zener type diode to limit the voltage and make it look
constant.  This design is too simple to actually tap a large unknown source.

 

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 13, 2013 2:35 pm
Subject: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

Is it the wind?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

[Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science movement

2013-01-13 Thread Jed Rothwell

This is a dreadful story. See:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/13/brilliant_life_and_tragic_death_of_aaron_swartz.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/13/aaron_swartz_s_suicide_may_make_the_open_access_movement_mainstream.html

It gives me the willies because it is somewhat similar to what I do at
LENR-CANR.org.

- Jed

Statement from MIT:

http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz

We are deeply saddened to hear the news about Aaron Swartz. We extend our
heartfelt condolences to Aaron’s family, friends, and everyone who loved,
knew, and admired him. He was a truly gifted person who made important
contributions to the development of the internet and the web from which we
all benefit.

We have had inquiries about JSTOR’s view of this sad event given the
charges against Aaron and the trial scheduled for April. The case is one
that we ourselves had regretted being drawn into from the outset, since
JSTOR’s mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of
scholarly knowledge. At the same time, as one of the largest archives of
scholarly literature in the world, we must be careful stewards of the
information entrusted to us by the owners and creators of that content. To
that end, Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR
settled any civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service and a member of the internet community.
We will continue to work to distribute the content under our care as widely
as possible while balancing the interests of researchers, students,
libraries, and publishers as we pursue our commitment to the long-term
preservation of this important scholarly literature.

We join those who are mourning this tragic loss.

[Vo]:I feel really good about what I have done





Subject: Re: I feel really good about what I have done


Can you use them to make a useful prediction in LENR?

(this is not a criticism, just an obvious question which you must have seen 
before, so you probably have an obvious answer)

Jones




Thank you Jones, that is a good question.  Elasticity and wave number are 
classical numbers.  I can
produce the quantum condition as a subset of Newtonian mechanics.  I think that 
is very special.
It predicts that if you can induce a wave motion in the dissolved hydrogen or 
deuterium with a velocity of  one mega meter per second cold fusion will 
progress.  Normal sound velocity in a solid is 2 kilo meters per second.  Now 
we reduced the cold fusion process down to a material condition.  We must apply 
external stimulation at 1 million meters per second.  We must transfer that 
velocity to the dissolved protons.
The problem now become how can we increase the external stimulation.  Laser, 
radio wave, or thermal.
How can we get the dissolved deuterium to resonate with and effectively couple 
with a velocity of one mega-meter per second.  The applied transverse 
vibrations must induce a wave motion of 1,094,000 meters per second in the 
dissolve protons.  I don't know the answer of how to do this yet.  



Sometimes the solution is found is asking the correct questions.



Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

2013-01-13 Thread David Roberson

I suspect that you are correct with what you are saying.  The helical large 
wire would act as a highly conductive current pass from one end to the other.  
I was hoping for a at least an attempt to make free energy as opposed to 
conducting a pure scam.


This type of non sense makes me ill.  Why would a guy want to fake a device 
such as this and make our jobs all the more difficult?  I wish someone would 
take people that performs these scams out to the wood shed and put a belt to 
them.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 13, 2013 6:08 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?



This is an easy fake todo. There are 2 hidden small power sources. The sources 
have equally same potentialby means of Zener diode for example. Small batteries 
are enough for the testwith take 10 minutes to be completed.
 
One source is placedinside the voltmeter in series with the (+) input. Com = 
Voltmeter =Hidden source = (+) Input
 
The second source ishidden inside the motor in series also. Com = Motor = 2nd 
Hiddensource = Input power
 
To be not a fake, themultimeter should be opened as well as the motor. The 
strap is put not only forthe decoration.
 
Arnaud



From:David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: dimanche 13 janvier 201323:50
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:What Makes thisMotor Turn?

 
I would guess that there is some form ofRF coupling to the coil or antenna from 
a nearby powerful source.  Thiscan be rectified to generate the DC voltage that 
he is using to drive themotor. 

 

I would include a zener type diode tolimit the voltage and make it look 
constant.  This design is too simple toactually tap a large unknown source.

 

Dave



-OriginalMessage-
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Jan 13, 2013 2:35 pm
Subject: [Vo]:What Makes this Motor Turn?

Is it the wind?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.


At 05:18 PM 1/13/2013, James Bowery wrote:

So-called confirmation bias must have had some adaptive value.  I 
wonder what it was or perhaps even is?


Okay, let me guess. We are good at guessing. We might occasionally 
even get it right.


Much human behavior is learned. We need to be able to create models 
of the world, and we don't have a whole lifetime to do that. Without 
working models, we may not survive very long.


At the same time, behavioral models, in the wild where we evolved (or 
to which we are adapted), to find food, say, are often unreliable. So 
we must persist in the face of evidence that the model fails. We keep 
looking consistently with the model we have formed. Sometimes too long.


With mice, behavior that always finds a reward is extingished more 
rapidly than behavior that only sometimes finds a reward. In the 
former case, the no-reward conditions may be more likely to represent 
a *real change* in the environment, rather than just the breaks for that day.


I'm getting that the phenomenon is related to language, and that it 
arises in language. Without a concept of truth, we might not have 
such attachment to being right. So this would apply to models 
constructed in language, and the problem arises when we think we need 
to find the truth. And, of course, to reject what is false. So we 
start to think that models are true or false. Actually, they are just models.


The use of language, in spite of this problem, is very powerful, it 
obviously confers survival value. So far, anyway. If language takes 
us into global extinction, well, I suppose that idea would have been 
falsified


An old metaphor for the ego is the camel. Very, very useful 
creature. However, they may step on your face if they get the chance. 
Be careful with camels. Be careful with your self.

Re: [Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science movement

2013-01-13 Thread Alan Fletcher

 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 3:22:49 PM
 Subject: [Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science 
 movement

 It gives me the willies because it is somewhat similar to what I do at
 LENR-CANR.org.

Just as well nobody cares about pathological science papers ...

... yet.

Re: [Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science movement


At 06:22 PM 1/13/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is a dreadful story. See:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/13/brilliant_life_and_tragic_death_of_aaron_swartz.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/01/13/brilliant_life_and_tragic_death_of_aaron_swartz.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/13/aaron_swartz_s_suicide_may_make_the_open_access_movement_mainstream.html

It gives me the willies because it is somewhat similar to what I do 
at LENR-CANR.org.


Well, that was part of what he did. I've had occasion to review your 
practices in hosting files at lenr-canr.org, and you aren't doing 
anything illegal, in spite of what a certain idiot claimed, ad 
nauseum, on Wikipedia.


You are taking modest steps. Aaron Swartz took some big ones. 
Sometimes people struggling with depression do that, the rush can 
lift the depression for a while. I read a memoir by his 
ex-girlfriend. Made me cry. He was loved.

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.

2013-01-13 Thread Jed Rothwell

Martin Fleischmann expressed a view that you might say is the opposite of
this. He said when you find an anomaly, it is the easiest thing in the
world to convince yourself it isn't real. Your first instinct is to
dismiss it. I think he meant that was the first instinct of a trained
scientist such as himself. Other people may go too far the other direction.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.

2013-01-13 Thread ChemE Stewart

My theory predicts that many rainbows create their own clouds and
thunderstorms through atmospheric collapse and condensing in their vicinity
and the energetic particle orbiting through the elliptical arc of the
rainbow can weigh millions of tons (if you could weigh it).  The rainbow
itself is the refraction of light through the frozen ice crystals created
by the massive orbiting entropic particle.  It is the missing 95% dark
energy of the universe.

Take a look at the photos on my site and tell me those rainbows are not
creating the clouds:

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/01/10/please-forgive-your-mama-nem/

How is that for a brain warp.

Godspeed

Stewart
darkmattersalot.com








On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Martin Fleischmann expressed a view that you might say is the opposite of
 this. He said when you find an anomaly, it is the easiest thing in the
 world to convince yourself it isn't real. Your first instinct is to
 dismiss it. I think he meant that was the first instinct of a trained
 scientist such as himself. Other people may go too far the other direction.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.

2013-01-13 Thread James Bowery

In behavioral psych, the term is variable ratio reinforcement for the
kind of reinforcement schedule, your refer to, that produces
long-persisting behaviors/models/beliefs.  Pseudoskeptics would,
undoubtedly, like to point to that as an explanation for why cold fusion
researchers are irrational.  If we view cold fusion researchers as mice in
a Skinner Box pressing a lever for food pellets, where food pellets are
cases of observed nuclear products such as excess heat, then clearly they
would be correct, except for two things:  the mouse isn't irrational and
the implied payoff of a cold fusion event is far greater than a food pellet
is to a mouse.  As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's
original review of cold fusion: However, even a single short but valid
cold fusion period would be revolutionary.

The payoff for cold fusion, if true, is so huge that it would be a mistake
of monstrous proportions to invest anything less than an enormous amount of
resources in determining that it could not be reproduced, once there was
evidence for it.

PS:  After a brief web search, there are competing theories out there for
the evolution of confirmation bias.  One is the payoff bias, that demands
taking into account the risk adjusted value of a behavior.  I tend to go
along with that.  There is another theory that it originates in social
interactions of advocacy.   The idea that reasoning is primarily social
seems unwarranted and tendentious.  If confirmation bias is adaptive for
the individual interacting with nature, one needn't explain its persistence
in the social setting.  The converse, as was presented in the podcast, is
not true.  Individuals interact with nature all the time, even though they
are within a social setting.  It seems therefore that not only William of
Ockham, but reality demands some explanation of individual confirmation
bias.

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 05:18 PM 1/13/2013, James Bowery wrote:

  So-called confirmation bias must have had some adaptive value.  I
 wonder what it was or perhaps even is?


 Okay, let me guess. We are good at guessing. We might occasionally even
 get it right.

 Much human behavior is learned. We need to be able to create models of the
 world, and we don't have a whole lifetime to do that. Without working
 models, we may not survive very long.

 At the same time, behavioral models, in the wild where we evolved (or to
 which we are adapted), to find food, say, are often unreliable. So we must
 persist in the face of evidence that the model fails. We keep looking
 consistently with the model we have formed. Sometimes too long.

 With mice, behavior that always finds a reward is extingished more rapidly
 than behavior that only sometimes finds a reward. In the former case, the
 no-reward conditions may be more likely to represent a *real change* in the
 environment, rather than just the breaks for that day.

 I'm getting that the phenomenon is related to language, and that it arises
 in language. Without a concept of truth, we might not have such
 attachment to being right. So this would apply to models constructed in
 language, and the problem arises when we think we need to find the truth.
 And, of course, to reject what is false. So we start to think that models
 are true or false. Actually, they are just models.

 The use of language, in spite of this problem, is very powerful, it
 obviously confers survival value. So far, anyway. If language takes us
 into global extinction, well, I suppose that idea would have been
 falsified

 An old metaphor for the ego is the camel. Very, very useful creature.
 However, they may step on your face if they get the chance. Be careful with
 camels. Be careful with your self.

Re: [Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science movement

2013-01-13 Thread Daniel Rocha

He might have given back the original, but he made a copy. The JSTOR
archive was finally uploaded to piratebay today.


2013/1/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

  Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled any
 civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011.


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

Re: [Vo]:Tragic death of Aaron Swartz and the open source science movement

2013-01-13 Thread Daniel Rocha

I'm sorry. These files, uploaded, were already there. They were just re
uploaded.


2013/1/13 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com

 He might have given back the original, but he made a copy. The JSTOR
 archive was finally uploaded to piratebay today.


 2013/1/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

  Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled any
 civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011.


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




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

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.


At 07:43 PM 1/13/2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Martin Fleischmann expressed a view that you might say is the 
opposite of this. He said when you find an anomaly, it is the 
easiest thing in the world to convince yourself it isn't real. Your 
first instinct is to dismiss it. I think he meant that was the first 
instinct of a trained scientist such as himself. Other people may go 
too far the other direction.


This isn't opposite. It's the *same*, i.e. filtering out 
information that contradicts held belief about how reality works. 
That's what an anomaly is.


Martin was right. There is *another problem* which is when we come up 
with an *explanation* for the anomaly. At that point, our psyche can 
flip. We now become a defender of the new paradigm. *This* is when we 
need to try as hard as possible to falsify it.


Bill wrote about the first stage, noticing anomalies:


Fifth: Keep a journal. If you notice something strange, WRITE IT DOWN.
If you don't, you'll invariably forget it.


Anomalies are anomalies. They only appear normal if we don't look at 
them closely. Anomalies demonstrate that we don't know something. It 
might be something trivial or something important.


We can't possible notice every single anomaly, but they are where the 
juice is, the progress of science. Otherwise it's all machinery.


The insane tragedy of cold fusion in 1989-1990 was the failure of 
imagination, of curiosity. Okay, so maybe this is all artifact, but, 
damn! what artifact could be fooling so many people? Naw, not 
interested. Someone else will figure it out. They aren't physicists 
anyway, what do they know about fusion?


Not much, in fact. That's why it was such a tragedy. The field 
needed, and probably still needs, the best minds in physics to figure 
out what is going on. Chemists, those who persisted, were stuck with 
experimental results that their knowledge of chemistry told them 
wasn't chemistry.


So what was it?

Miles showed, in fact, and it's been confirmed, beyond a reasonable 
doubt, that it was *some kind* of deuterium fusion, but that doesn't 
establish the mechanism, it only narrows the mystery.


It would be truly funny, if it weren't tragic, physicist reviewers 
demanding that chemists supply an explanatory theory before 
allowing their experimental results to be published. (That's why much 
or most of the experimental work was published in chemistry journals, 
since these were mostly chemistry experiments.) The pseudoskeptic 
physicists demand publications be in physics journals. Great! Write 
the damn papers!

Re: [Vo]:Rules for Unconventional Research, and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.


At 07:55 PM 1/13/2013, James Bowery wrote:
In behavioral psych, the term is variable ratio reinforcement for 
the kind of reinforcement schedule, your refer to, that produces 
long-persisting behaviors/models/beliefs.  Pseudoskeptics would, 
undoubtedly, like to point to that as an explanation for why cold 
fusion researchers are irrational.


No doubt. However, the premise hasn't been established, which is why 
they are called pseudoskeptics. They believe in this imagined 
state, other irrational people.


  If we view cold fusion researchers as mice in a Skinner Box 
pressing a lever for food pellets, where food pellets are cases of 
observed nuclear products such as excess heat, then clearly they 
would be correct, except for two things:  the mouse isn't 
irrational and the implied payoff of a cold fusion event is far 
greater than a food pellet is to a mouse.


I have some mice, my kids really wanted them, and they do like their 
food. So I don't know.


As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original 
review of cold fusion: However, even a single short but valid cold 
fusion period would be revolutionary.


Right. But sometimes the revolution is in our grave, as we watch 
the world continue to ignore the obvious.


The payoff for cold fusion, if true, is so huge that it would be a 
mistake of monstrous proportions to invest anything less than an 
enormous amount of resources in determining that it could not be 
reproduced, once there was evidence for it.


Well, that argument would bankrupt us if applied to every 
possibility. Fortunately, the basic research needed as a first step 
isn't that expensive. Truly a drop in the bucket compared to what is 
being spent on hot fusion research, when the latter may *never* pay 
off. That program developed a life of its own, beyond all reason.


Cold fusion remains speculative as a practical power source. However, 
I'd say the odds are better than hot fusion, and the only reason I 
propose waiting for the basic research results is because we need to 
know what the mechanism is before planning a true assault on the 
problem. Otherwise we could waste billions, just like the hot fusion 
people (though for a different reason; they do have theory, they only 
have an enormous engineering problem.)


PS:  After a brief web search, there are competing theories out 
there for the evolution of confirmation bias.  One is the payoff 
bias, that demands taking into account the risk adjusted value of a 
behavior.  I tend to go along with that.  There is another theory 
that it originates in social interactions of advocacy.   The idea 
that reasoning is primarily social seems unwarranted and 
tendentious.  If confirmation bias is adaptive for the individual 
interacting with nature, one needn't explain its persistence in the 
social setting.


Mmmm socially, looking good is a powerful motivator, so I 
wouldn't be so sure about dismissing that. It can become 
internalized, so the same behavior can occur even when nobody else is looking.


  The converse, as was presented in the podcast, is not 
true.  Individuals interact with nature all the time, even though 
they are within a social setting.  It seems therefore that not only 
William of Ockham, but reality demands some explanation of 
individual confirmation bias.


Well, quibble: reality never demands explanations, we do. Reality 
just is. It needs no explanation at all, to do the most amazing, 
wondrously complex, beautiful things.

[Vo]:Abd Lowmax no longer welcome on vortex

2013-01-13 Thread William Beaty




All subscriptions blocked until further notice.





(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

[Vo]:Suppression trends in late 2000's

2013-01-13 Thread Hamdi Ucar


Hello everybody remembering me,

I had difficulty to join Vortex List by a possible reason of 
http://www.mail-archive.com is possibly being filtered here. Terry 
helped me.


I would like to ask your opinions about suppression (trends) after 2000
where global CO2 emissions is widely considered a serious issue. It
appears that self-suppression is effective enough, so direct
interventions are no longer needed :) I dont want also blame mainstream
science for lack of interest as long as the they haven't the phenomenon
in their hands.

For example if you (inventor) have a commercial grade fuel-less energy 
producing

device (requiring new physics), would you going to contact
a large US company who having some relations with govt and also making 
lot of

future investments (including on green energy) like Google?

Actually a device working based on totally unknown phenomenon should not 
be consumer product at the first hand, all step for commercializing such 
a product will have serious difficulties.


I think the acceptance problem can be reduced to predictability of the
future. Breakthroughs in physics and technologies change the World.
Sometimes it could be possible to introduce these innovations without 
loosing

capability to predict the future. So a large organization could be
advantageous to determine the way of realization of the breakthrough for
this reason...

Hamdi

Re: [Vo]:Abd Lowmax no longer welcome on vortex

At 10:21 PM 1/13/2013, William Beaty wrote:
Very weird. Bcc'ing this to newvor...@yahoogroups.com, just in case.

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:21:47 -0800 (PST)
From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com

Subject: [Vo]:Abd Lowmax no longer welcome on vortex

All subscriptions blocked until further notice.

I only had one subscription, at this email address. I was apparently 
never removed or blocked. What is he talking about? All 
subscriptions as in he's not allowing any new subscribers?

When Bill announced I was banned, I assumed mail was blocked. During 
the shutdown, before the ban announcement, I had sent one or two test 
messages. They were not returned, and they did not appear, I think. I 
have no clue what happened to them.

I accidentally posted to Vortex-l yesterday and it went through. When 
I found that out today, I wrote a number of fairly routine posts.

I was surprised to see Bill's laconic message.

In any case, I'd appreciate information about the Vortex-l list 
processor. If anyone is able to subscribe a new address, I'd like to 
know. I cannot access that listserv for any purpose, something is 
blocking it at my domain host (for weeks) and I haven't figured it out.

If this mail does not appear on Vortex, but only as the bcc on 
newvortex, be aware that replying to it will create a message to 
Vortex. I don't mind that at all, in fact, it would be great. Or 
anyone can reply here, just edit the To header to newvor...@yahoogroups.com

RE: [Vo]:I feel really good about what I have done



From: Frank Z 

It predicts that if you can induce a wave motion in the
dissolved hydrogen or deuterium with a velocity of  one mega meter per
second cold fusion will progress.  Normal sound velocity in a solid is 2
kilo meters per second.  Now we reduced the cold fusion process down to a
material condition.  We must apply external stimulation at 1 million meters
per second.  We must transfer that velocity to the dissolved protons.

The problem now become how can we increase the external
stimulation.  Laser, radio wave, or thermal. How can we get the dissolved
deuterium to resonate with and effectively couple with a velocity of one
mega-meter per second.  The applied transverse vibrations must induce a wave
motion of 1,094,000 meters per second in the dissolve protons.  I don't know
the answer of how to do this yet.  



One possible suggestion for analyzing hydrogen gain to
accommodate megahertz-meter, since we have the luxury of working backwards
from some known values which are thought to work - would be based on having
uniform pore size of Casimir dimensions for containing hydrogen - say 8-10
nm in diameter. There is evidence of relativistic hydrogen in such pores so
they could easily couple to photons which were in semi-coherence with
phonons at the peak blackbody frequency.

You would want the cavities and the encompassing nickel
alloy to vibrate at roughly a frequency equivalent to the trigger
temperature of the reaction (its peak blackbody frequency of ~40 THz). The
needed wavelength would therefore be much longer than the cavity diameter,
but photons would couple to the protons in the cavity in a known way which
would be related to the fine structure constant.

Around 40 THz and 600+ K is within the range of mid-IR
frequencies/temperature which is applicable to trigger a Celani type
experiment using a nickel alloy. The peak blackbody wavelength would be
around 7 microns. This wavelength times the frequency is about 300 times too
long for megahertz-meter of course -- but we would never expect heat alone
to suffice. Assuming that the frequency times the cavity diameter were to
equal about 3200 meters per second - that is 300 times too low, but a
combination of both is about right - one megahertz meter. How you verbalize
that so that it makes sense is not clear. I suspect that this is where the
fine structure constant comes into play.

Bottom line - I could envision a reactor working gainfully
with 8 nm cavities and 40 THz thermal semi-coherency based on positive
feedback of semi-coherent photons at that frequency - with very high net
gain. 

If the energy gain is found to be especially robust at
roughly those parameters, Frank should be congratulated. 

Jones



attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:I feel really good about what I have done

Thank you Jones.  I believe you understand.  Take the sea for an example.  The 
speed sound is fixed at 2 kilo meters per second or so.  Waves on the surface 
can go slower or faster.  Tidal waves can exceed the speed of sound in water.


That the concept that I want to apply.  Instead of using air to generate the 
waves I want to use electric vibrations.  I am looking for loose (did I use the 
right word Jed?) non coupled hydrogen atoms.  The ones that vibrate at high 
frequency   Their vibrations are called optical  phonons on a dispersion chart. 
 I want couple them with the electronic lattice.




I am done writing books for a wile and its time to get out my equipment once 
again.  Everyday I learn more, but I will not make another revision for at 
least 6 months.



(its peak blackbody frequency of ~40 THz)
Jones without giving to much away, I do not want thermal vibrations.
The peak blackbody wavelength would be
around 7 microns.
Yes you understand.  Black body is a collection of frequencies.  I am trying to 
tune with a coherent source.  No saying more about this either.



I suspect that this is where the
fine structure constant comes into play.


Yes indeed.  Maxwell's use of eo and uo of Coulomb's equation gave the speed of 
light.
My factoring gave 1/2 the speed of the ground state electron in hydrogen.  The 
ratio of these to numbers is the fine structure constant.  The velocity is the 
speed of sound in the nucleus.  When the cluster speed equals the nuclear speed 
we have coupling.
Velocity needed = 2/alpha


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 14, 2013 12:02 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I feel really good about what I have done




From: Frank Z 

It predicts that if you can induce a wave motion in the
dissolved hydrogen or deuterium with a velocity of  one mega meter per
second cold fusion will progress.  Normal sound velocity in a solid is 2
kilo meters per second.  Now we reduced the cold fusion process down to a
material condition.  We must apply external stimulation at 1 million meters
per second.  We must transfer that velocity to the dissolved protons.

The problem now become how can we increase the external
stimulation.  Laser, radio wave, or thermal. How can we get the dissolved
deuterium to resonate with and effectively couple with a velocity of one
mega-meter per second.  The applied transverse vibrations must induce a wave
motion of 1,094,000 meters per second in the dissolve protons.  I don't know
the answer of how to do this yet.  



One possible suggestion for analyzing hydrogen gain to
accommodate megahertz-meter, since we have the luxury of working backwards
from some known values which are thought to work - would be based on having
uniform pore size of Casimir dimensions for containing hydrogen - say 8-10
nm in diameter. There is evidence of relativistic hydrogen in such pores so
they could easily couple to photons which were in semi-coherence with
phonons at the peak blackbody frequency.

You would want the cavities and the encompassing nickel
alloy to vibrate at roughly a frequency equivalent to the trigger
temperature of the reaction (its peak blackbody frequency of ~40 THz). The
needed wavelength would therefore be much longer than the cavity diameter,
but photons would couple to the protons in the cavity in a known way which
would be related to the fine structure constant.

Around 40 THz and 600+ K is within the range of mid-IR
frequencies/temperature which is applicable to trigger a Celani type
experiment using a nickel alloy. The peak blackbody wavelength would be
around 7 microns. This wavelength times the frequency is about 300 times too
long for megahertz-meter of course -- but we would never expect heat alone
to suffice. Assuming that the frequency times the cavity diameter were to
equal about 3200 meters per second - that is 300 times too low, but a
combination of both is about right - one megahertz meter. How you verbalize
that so that it makes sense is not clear. I suspect that this is where the
fine structure constant comes into play.

Bottom line - I could envision a reactor working gainfully
with 8 nm cavities and 40 THz thermal semi-coherency based on positive
feedback of semi-coherent photons at that frequency - with very high net
gain. 

If the energy gain is found to be especially robust at
roughly those parameters, Frank should be congratulated. 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:I feel really good about what I have done