Re: [Vo]:Nanotubes generate huge electric currents from osmotic flow
Interesting. In some ways this is similar to cold fusion research. What FUD could one hurl at it ? - It has not been replicated. - I will only believe this when there are economically viable energy generator. - They have no theory to explain the observation. (somebody kindly check the nature paper if this is true) - It therefore must be a measurement error. - They should stop this research, it is a waste of money. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/nanotubes-generate-huge-electric-currents-osmotic-flow
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.
On 03/04/2013 02:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See also: Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/ This is the root of the problem. - Jed The Left keeps passing taxes which only apply to the poor. Obama's health care law was recently passed. It will tax the low and middle class about $2000 per family when it goes into effect. This tax won't affect the rich. Then there's medicare and social security. These add up to a 15% tax on the low and middle class. They don't apply on income over $100K. These taxes don't affect the rich. We have a regressive tax system in this country, and it just keeps getting worse with every new tax passed. I've worked my way up through this whole spectrum. Until I started making more than $100K, it felt like every time I was given a raise, it was taken away from me. It is quite discouraging, and is depressing society. The solution is to stop taking money from people against their will, using threats of violence. The idea that we can improve society if only we can threaten enough people, and take enough money from them, is preposterous. Craig
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
The key give away is that the Pioneer Anomaly has been solved (to most everyone's satisfaction): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: The solution is to stop taking money from people against their will, using threats of violence. The idea that we can improve society if only we can threaten enough people, and take enough money from them, is preposterous. With the purchase of 2700 light tanks and millions of rounds of ammunition, it looks to me like the HSA is planning just the opposite of your recommendation: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/homeland-security-has-purchased-2700.html I guess that, instead of assault weapons, we need to be stocking up on RPGs.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.
More of the same: http://www.silverdoctors.com/obama-begins-push-to-confiscate-iras-401ks/ If they do this, they will need the 2700 light tanks.
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Anyway that is interesting to look back in the mirror. I've found such test balloon articles from mainstream sources, after 2009 SPAWAR revival, 2005 (something happened in that period... Seen Tsinghua replication of NASA GRC, a few other papers... Dunno what raised such hope). I understand why old apes are so careful an afraid the devil gets back in its box, again. youg apes, or de-cryogenizated apes like me, should be careful. 2013/3/5 Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Bugger. Missed that. I assumed that they'd link from a current article [1] to a current article, not to history and now I find that that original article, which was linked to a current article wasn't any such thing ... it was also from 2005! I am now very suspicious of New Scientist but welcome to the new world of publishing where everything old is new again ...
Re: [Vo]:Feeding Stewart
http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/03/05/follow-the-magnetic-lines-and-there-you-will-find-matter-of-another-kind/ Last picture is the best On Monday, March 4, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: Should be interesting, I think the place is crawling with dark matter and we have just been misinterpreting what we are seeing. I think it is the thermodynamic piece of entropic gravity that was missed. It is messy though, just look at the severe weather upsets, it is not just warming, it is warming followed by extreme condensing/cooling that creates the severe storms. I think dark matter/energy is the great cosmic condenser, mostly micro black holes of entropy containing varying levels of vacuum energy. Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Monday, March 4, 2013, Jouni Valkonen wrote: That was a good article! What bothers me most is that physicists often argues against MOND, because it is not comprehensive enough and must thus be discarded. I think that this is wrong approach, because what if physics is inherently dirty? That there are no elegant and universal theories? MOND explains well rotational curves of galaxies and is now shown that it is also predictive theory. But what if MOND fails in explaining the origins of Galaxies and we need different theories to explain those events? After all these events happened yet again at different cosmic scale that requires different theories. I have put my money on that there will be no dark matter that explains the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies. —Jouni On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: We don't need no steenkin' dark matter: http://science.time.com/2013/02/26/cosmic-fuggedaboudit-dark-matter-may-not-exist-at-all/
[Vo]:OT :13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Hi, On 5-3-2013 14:21, Alain Sepeda wrote: I understand why old apes are so careful an afraid the devil gets back in its box, again. youg apes, or de-cryogenizated apes like me, should be careful. This brings back memories about the water hose in the tale of why the caged young apes in the Zoo didn't take a banana from the bunch hanging in the cage. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Nanotubes generate huge electric currents from osmotic flow
I think this is plausible, I have read about nano filters being able to filter water faster than normal friction would allow - something about the tube geometry interacting with the hydrogen bond angle such that the water molecules are able to transport faster..and by tube geometry I am referring to vacuum suppression like we see in Casimir effect not the physical confinement which would only be trading of friction types. Again this brings us right back to COE and HUP where I am convinced that, under the right circumstances, these geometries can negate the macro rule that these random forces imparted by virtual particles always cancel out and instead can allow for a vector segregation similar to the thermal segregation of the hypothetical Maxwellian demon. In this case it lowers the friction of transport along the tube axis, In other cases it can lower the disassociation threshold of H2. IMHO Fran From: Moab Moab [mailto:moab2...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Nanotubes generate huge electric currents from osmotic flow Interesting. In some ways this is similar to cold fusion research. What FUD could one hurl at it ? - It has not been replicated. - I will only believe this when there are economically viable energy generator. - They have no theory to explain the observation. (somebody kindly check the nature paper if this is true) - It therefore must be a measurement error. - They should stop this research, it is a waste of money. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.commailto:mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/nanotubes-generate-huge-electric-currents-osmotic-flow
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. I'm interested in anything that would tend to disconfirm -- say evidence that atmospheric entry events of this magnitude are a _lot_ more frequent than currently available data suggest. A smaller meteroid passing at a distance that is 10 times the distance of2012 DA14 is in the noise either way. On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Jim, Have you tried to plug this additional Russian sized asteroid into your probability model that they just found a couple of days ago passing between us and the moon? http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/03/17171923-another-asteroid-similar-to-russian-meteor-zooming-past-us-harmlessly?lite 1860 was the Year of Meteors following the largest solar flare event known. PannSTARRS is soon to zoom past Earth (100 Million miles away) approaching the Sun, I hope everyone behaves. Stewart On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I'm overwhelmed by just the 16 hour span of 2 rare-event coincidence and am loathe to incorporate more as both a lot of work to validate and as well as unnecessary to already put me in a state of mind that I'd rather not deal with given the need to pay rent. On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: James, I think that you should also consider that 2014 Mars comet flyby that is once in hundred million years event especially if it is going to hit the planet. Odd coincidence or is it just about pushing the Earth's space program ahead! If you have not yet read this Landis paper, I would recommend to read it because we must become a multiplanetary species. *Colonization of Venus* (by Geoffrey A. Landis) ABSTRACT: *Although the surface of Venus is an extremely hostile environment, at about 50 kilometers above the surface the atmosphere of Venus is the most earthlike environment (other than Earth itself) in the solar system. It is proposed here that in the near term, human exploration of Venus could take place from aerostat vehicles in the atmosphere, and that in the long term, permanent settlements could be made in the form of cities designed to float at about fifty kilometer altitude in the atmosphere of Venus.* http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668_2003025525.pdf —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
I agree. Also hard for me to understand how Tunguska, a 1000 times larger
atmospheric explosion than recent could be made from a rock they can't
find. That is 30,000 Hiroshima bombs
Danger Will Robinson, Danger
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote:
At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the
confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation
with just the two events. I'm interested in anything that would tend to
disconfirm -- say evidence that atmospheric entry events of this magnitude
are a _lot_ more frequent than currently available data suggest. A
smaller meteroid passing at a distance that is 10 times the distance
of2012 DA14 is in the noise either way.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, ChemE Stewart
cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'cheme...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Jim,
Have you tried to plug this additional Russian sized asteroid into your
probability model that they just found a couple of days ago passing between
us and the moon?
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/03/17171923-another-asteroid-similar-to-russian-meteor-zooming-past-us-harmlessly?lite
1860 was the Year of Meteors following the largest solar flare event
known. PannSTARRS is soon to zoom past Earth (100 Million miles away)
approaching the Sun, I hope everyone behaves.
Stewart
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, James Bowery
jabow...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jabow...@gmail.com');
wrote:
I'm overwhelmed by just the 16 hour span of 2 rare-event coincidence and
am loathe to incorporate more as both a lot of work to validate and as well
as unnecessary to already put me in a state of mind that I'd rather not
deal with given the need to pay rent.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Jouni Valkonen
jounivalko...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jounivalko...@gmail.com');
wrote:
James,
I think that you should also consider that 2014 Mars comet flyby that
is once in hundred million years event especially if it is going to hit the
planet. Odd coincidence or is it just about pushing the Earth's space
program ahead!
If you have not yet read this Landis paper, I would recommend to read
it because we must become a multiplanetary species.
*Colonization of Venus* (by Geoffrey A. Landis)
ABSTRACT: *Although the surface of Venus is an extremely hostile
environment, at about 50 kilometers above the surface the atmosphere of
Venus is the most earthlike environment (other than Earth itself) in the
solar system. It is proposed here that in the near term, human exploration
of Venus could take place from aerostat vehicles in the atmosphere, and
that in the long term, permanent settlements could be made in the form of
cities designed to float at about fifty kilometer altitude in the
atmosphere of Venus.*
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668_2003025525.pdf
—Jouni
Re: [Vo]:13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist
Mark Gibbs wrote: Bugger. Missed that. Good article though. Worth revisiting. So is this one: Daviss, B., /Reasonable Doubt/, in /New Scientist/. 2003. p. 36. This is about Szpak, Pam Boss, and Mel Miles. Among other things it describes how they demoted Mel from being a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute to stock room clerk because he had the temerity to publish a paper on cold fusion. He got the message and retired. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html The least plausible aspect of this explanation is that a government could actually keep deep cover on the expenditure of a few tens of billions of dollars. All the technologies required are Apollo era, preliminary studies are published in peer reviewed journals decades old and the motive presented by the Reagan Administration's SDI leading up to the START treaty is clear. Means motive and opportunity galore.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html The least plausible aspect of this explanation is that a government could actually keep deep cover on the expenditure of a few tens of billions of dollars. All the technologies required are Apollo era, preliminary studies are published in peer reviewed journals decades old and the motive presented by the Reagan Administration's SDI leading up to the START treaty is clear. Means motive and opportunity galore.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html The least plausible aspect of this explanation is that a government could actually keep deep cover on the expenditure of a few tens of billions of dollars. All the technologies required are Apollo era, preliminary studies are published in peer reviewed journals decades old and the motive presented by the Reagan Administration's SDI leading up to the START treaty is clear. Means motive and opportunity galore.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't believe a sonic boom can do that On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
ChemE, I can't recommend arithmetic highly enough to you: 1ton*.5*(3mph)^2?ton_explosive ([1 * tonm] * 0.5) * ([3 * mph]^2) ? ton_explosive = 194988.5 ton_explosive http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't believe a sonic boom can do that On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
I understand kinetic energy, but a kinetic energy weapon is designed to slam into something, the meteor did not hit anything As far as I can tell the largest piece made a round hole in the lake. The damage was done from a shockwave from a blast. This was not a kinetic energy weapon, it exploded. Some kinetic weapons for targeting objects in spaceflighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight are anti-satellite weaponshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon and anti-ballistic missileshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile. Since in order to reach an object in orbit it is necessary to attain an extremely high velocity, their released kinetic energy alone is enough to destroy their target; explosives are not necessary. For example: the energy of TNT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene is 4.6 MJ/kg, and the energy of a kinetic kill vehicle with a closing speed of 10 km/s is of 50 MJ/kg. This saves costly weight and there is no detonationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation to be precisely timed. This method, however, requires direct contact with the target, which requires a more accurate trajectoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory. Some hit-to-kill warheads are additionally equipped with an explosive directional warhead to enhance the kill probability (e.g. Israeli Arrowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile) missile or U.S.Patriot PAC-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#MIM-104F_.28PAC-3.29 ). On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE, I can't recommend arithmetic highly enough to you: 1ton*.5*(3mph)^2?ton_explosive ([1 * tonm] * 0.5) * ([3 * mph]^2) ? ton_explosive = 194988.5 ton_explosive http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't believe a sonic boom can do that On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it:
RE: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence
The Russian meteor was larger previously thought but how much larger? NASA has revised its estimates on the size and power of the meteor at least 3 times. The size is thought to have been about 55 feet (17 m) diameter- with the power of the blast estimate of about 500 kilotons, 30-60 kilotons higher than before (but the first estimate was less than one kiloton). That was the last from NASA. This is about 30x the Hiroshima blast. Does anyone have an official Russian estimate? In this case, their estimate is probably more accurate.
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
Sandia Labs has done extensive modeling of the dynamics of meteor explosions and even has some pretty numeric visualizations for your viewing joy: https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/asteroid.html On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I understand kinetic energy, but a kinetic energy weapon is designed to slam into something, the meteor did not hit anything As far as I can tell the largest piece made a round hole in the lake. The damage was done from a shockwave from a blast. This was not a kinetic energy weapon, it exploded. Some kinetic weapons for targeting objects in spaceflighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight are anti-satellite weaponshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon and anti-ballistic missileshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile. Since in order to reach an object in orbit it is necessary to attain an extremely high velocity, their released kinetic energy alone is enough to destroy their target; explosives are not necessary. For example: the energy of TNT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene is 4.6 MJ/kg, and the energy of a kinetic kill vehicle with a closing speed of 10 km/s is of 50 MJ/kg. This saves costly weight and there is no detonationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation to be precisely timed. This method, however, requires direct contact with the target, which requires a more accurate trajectoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory. Some hit-to-kill warheads are additionally equipped with an explosive directional warhead to enhance the kill probability (e.g. Israeli Arrowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile) missile or U.S.Patriot PAC-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#MIM-104F_.28PAC-3.29 ). On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE, I can't recommend arithmetic highly enough to you: 1ton*.5*(3mph)^2?ton_explosive ([1 * tonm] * 0.5) * ([3 * mph]^2) ? ton_explosive = 194988.5 ton_explosive http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't believe a sonic boom can do that On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural,
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
Jim, Thanks for the AIRBURST reference. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Sandia Labs has done extensive modeling of the dynamics of meteor explosions and even has some pretty numeric visualizations for your viewing joy: https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/asteroid.html On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I understand kinetic energy, but a kinetic energy weapon is designed to slam into something, the meteor did not hit anything As far as I can tell the largest piece made a round hole in the lake. The damage was done from a shockwave from a blast. This was not a kinetic energy weapon, it exploded. Some kinetic weapons for targeting objects in spaceflighthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight are anti-satellite weaponshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon and anti-ballistic missileshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile. Since in order to reach an object in orbit it is necessary to attain an extremely high velocity, their released kinetic energy alone is enough to destroy their target; explosives are not necessary. For example: the energy of TNT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene is 4.6 MJ/kg, and the energy of a kinetic kill vehicle with a closing speed of 10 km/s is of 50 MJ/kg. This saves costly weight and there is no detonationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation to be precisely timed. This method, however, requires direct contact with the target, which requires a more accurate trajectoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory. Some hit-to-kill warheads are additionally equipped with an explosive directional warhead to enhance the kill probability (e.g. Israeli Arrowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile) missile or U.S.Patriot PAC-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#MIM-104F_.28PAC-3.29 ). On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE, I can't recommend arithmetic highly enough to you: 1ton*.5*(3mph)^2?ton_explosive ([1 * tonm] * 0.5) * ([3 * mph]^2) ? ton_explosive = 194988.5 ton_explosive http://www.testardi.com/rich/calchemy2/ On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: But something exploded with the force of 30 Hiroshima bombs, I don't believe a sonic boom can do that On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A *kinetic energy penetrator* (also known as a *KE weapon*) is a type of ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition which, like a bullet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet, does not contain explosives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive and uses kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Why? I have highly competent, multigenerational engineering contacts at the University of Illinois at C/U. Can they get a demonstration without being drawn into a waste of time? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
Re: [Vo]:
YES! YES! YES! A rose by any other name regardless if you get there via Casimir geometry or plasmonics but enough energy to disassociate H2 at a discount less than you reap when it immediately reassociates. That is the common thread for MAHG, Mills , Rossi and many of the others all the way back to Langmuir.. I still think the plasmonics are feeding off the geometry but no matter we are definetly on the same page! I think the reproduction issue with these anomalies is only because they are self destructive and have to be throttled way back AND sink the energy away because even a little runaway will burn up in hotspots if not sunk from the moment of activation. [snip] These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, [/snip] Fran From: Teslaalset [mailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 3:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Axil, Interesting finding. Can youreward the associated source Nano letter, please? Thanks! Rob Woudenberg Op donderdag 28 februari 2013 schreef Axil Axil (janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com) het volgende: Hydrogen(H2) molecule dissociation to atomic hydrogen(H1) http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html Hot electrons do the impossible in catalytic chemistry Professors Peter Nordlander and Naomi J. Halas of Rice University in Houston, Texas are at the cutting edge of the nanoplasmonic revolution. This field of study is where LENR properly belongs. These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, The researchers found that, as soon as they turned the laser on, the rate of HD formation on the nanoparticle surface increased by a factor of 6. They also measured that the rate was strongly dependent on the concentration and size of the gold nanoparticles. The researchers explained that, in a sense, the electrons do the impossible because there would be no dissociation without them. Nordlander said. It is an impossible chemical reaction. The energy for dissociation is simply too large. On other metals, like transition metals, a hydrogen molecule can dissociate spontaneously, in particular near defects and at elevated temperatures. The primary reason why these energetic electrons can dissociate the hydrogen molecule into atomic hydrogen is that that they are stationary near the imperfection in the lattice. Remember what I said about Anderson localization? ...it all fits together. I have the associated source Nano letter if anyone is interested...just ask. Cheers: axil
Re: [Vo]:
To understand why polaritons cause LENR when they are confined within a nano-cavity, a look at some newly developed quantum mechanical models of dipole-photon interactions is helpful. Basically, when a photon and the electron part of a dipole are confined in a small cavity, they couple strongly together and affect each other as waves when they resonate and overlap. In a nutshell, the nano-cavity keeps these photon/dipole pairs confined in a small space for a long enough timeframe for these two types of waves to reach a resonate condition. That is, these two types of waves rattle around inside the cavity until they eventually overlap into a resonance condition. The smaller the cavity may be, the faster and more powerfully they resonate. The result of this resonance is a new wave call a Polarition. The Rabi model (RM) describes the simplest interaction between quantum light and matter. The model considers a two-level atom coupled to a quantized, single-mode harmonic oscillator (in the case of light, this could be a photon in a cavity). The model applies to a variety of physical systems, including cavity quantum electrodynamics, the interaction between heat and dipoles. RM describes the simplest interaction between light and matter. In its semiclassical form, this model describes the coupling of a two-level system and a classical monochromatic field. The fully quantum model considers the same situation, with the light field quantized. Although this model has had an impressive impact on many fields of physics —in its semiclassical form, it is the basis for understanding nuclear magnetic resonance—many physicists may be surprised to know that the quantum Rabi model has never been solved exactly. I have to mention something I though was really neat in the Nanoplasmonics experimental results. Not only do the photons and dipoles couple very strongly in the lattice, they also couple to the quantum vacuum as evidenced by the appearance of vacuum Rabi splitting in the spectroscopic analysis of the associated EMF photon radiation. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: YES! YES! YES! A rose by any other name regardless if you get there via Casimir geometry or plasmonics but enough energy to disassociate H2 at a discount less than you reap when it immediately reassociates. That is the common thread for MAHG, Mills , Rossi and many of the others all the way back to Langmuir.. I still think the plasmonics are feeding off the geometry but no matter we are definetly on the same page! I think the reproduction issue with these anomalies is only because they are self destructive and have to be throttled way back AND sink the energy away because even a little runaway will burn up in hotspots if not sunk from the moment of activation. [snip] These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, [/snip] Fran ** ** *From:* Teslaalset [mailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, March 02, 2013 3:27 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: ** ** Axil, ** ** Interesting finding. Can youreward the associated source Nano letter, please? ** ** Thanks! Rob Woudenberg Op donderdag 28 februari 2013 schreef Axil Axil (janap...@gmail.com) het volgende: Hydrogen(H2) molecule dissociation to atomic hydrogen(H1) http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html Hot electrons do the impossible in catalytic chemistry Professors Peter Nordlander and Naomi J. Halas of Rice University in Houston, Texas are at the cutting edge of the nanoplasmonic revolution. This field of study is where LENR properly belongs. These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, The researchers found that, as soon as they turned the laser on, the rate of HD formation on the nanoparticle surface increased by a factor of 6. They also measured that the rate was strongly dependent on the concentration and size of the gold nanoparticles. The researchers explained that, in a sense, the electrons do the impossible because there would be no dissociation without them. Nordlander said. It is an impossible chemical reaction. The energy for dissociation is simply too large. On other metals, like transition metals, a hydrogen molecule can dissociate spontaneously, in particular near defects and at elevated temperatures. The primary reason why these
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
If he does not have the technology, he can license it, the value added is the CHP configuration. The worst risk is that it works. 2013/3/5 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Why? I have highly competent, multigenerational engineering contacts at the University of Illinois at C/U. Can they get a demonstration without being drawn into a waste of time? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Forgive me, but this idea has no value. The design proposes to use a slug of powder to create a high temperature that is converted to electric power that drives a motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature, stimulation of the LENR reaction, or efficient transfer of heat energy. This is as valueless as a drawing on the back of a napkin for the design a nuclear reactor without even knowing how much U235 would be required as fuel. This is an engineering concept of a toy that has no meaning. Can the LENR field be actually this desperate for ideas? Ed On Mar 5, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: If he does not have the technology, he can license it, the value added is the CHP configuration. The worst risk is that it works. 2013/3/5 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com Why? I have highly competent, multigenerational engineering contacts at the University of Illinois at C/U. Can they get a demonstration without being drawn into a waste of time? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
From: Edmund Storms * [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature . Wait a minute. Why doesn't the airflow from the fan control the temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves heated by the TEG ? Are you complaining that he did not show heat sensors and computer circuitry used to control airflow? You do realize that only a fraction of the electricity generated from the TEG drives the fan ? Presumably airflow is metered by a temperature sensor (not shown) but engineers do not need to see every detail, as it is implied and obvious. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for 10 days.. hurry up
Actually this is not a bad idea if we accept that Arata's results of several years ago were accurate and scalable. Arata found nanopowder that gave modest heat from pressure alone. No external heat was used, only pressure. He used grams of specialty material. If the basic Arata powder was to be used in Miley's conception, BUT in kilograms quantities instead of grams, and only hydrogen pressure was applied, then no startup device or external heat source is required - to the extent it is scalable. From that perspective, this is not a bad idea - but one can reasonably doubt that Miley actually has good evidence of scalability to high levels of Arata type nanopowder. In spite of no proof-of-concept (at high power levels) - and in terms of the other ARPA-E entries, most of which are just as speculative, it makes no sense to be overly critical of this one. Jones From: Jones Beene From: Edmund Storms * [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature . Wait a minute. Why doesn't the airflow from the fan control the temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves heated by the TEG ? Are you complaining that he did not show heat sensors and computer circuitry used to control airflow? You do realize that only a fraction of the electricity generated from the TEG drives the fan ? Presumably airflow is metered by a temperature sensor (not shown) but engineers do not need to see every detail, as it is implied and obvious. Jones
Re: [Vo]:
Lot's of energy in that vacuum. Nature bottled it up for good reason. On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: To understand why polaritons cause LENR when they are confined within a nano-cavity, a look at some newly developed quantum mechanical models of dipole-photon interactions is helpful. Basically, when a photon and the electron part of a dipole are confined in a small cavity, they couple strongly together and affect each other as waves when they resonate and overlap. In a nutshell, the nano-cavity keeps these photon/dipole pairs confined in a small space for a long enough timeframe for these two types of waves to reach a resonate condition. That is, these two types of waves rattle around inside the cavity until they eventually overlap into a resonance condition. The smaller the cavity may be, the faster and more powerfully they resonate. The result of this resonance is a new wave call a Polarition. The Rabi model (RM) describes the simplest interaction between quantum light and matter. The model considers a two-level atom coupled to a quantized, single-mode harmonic oscillator (in the case of light, this could be a photon in a cavity). The model applies to a variety of physical systems, including cavity quantum electrodynamics, the interaction between heat and dipoles. RM describes the simplest interaction between light and matter. In its semiclassical form, this model describes the coupling of a two-level system and a classical monochromatic field. The fully quantum model considers the same situation, with the light field quantized. Although this model has had an impressive impact on many fields of physics —in its semiclassical form, it is the basis for understanding nuclear magnetic resonance—many physicists may be surprised to know that the quantum Rabi model has never been solved exactly. I have to mention something I though was really neat in the Nanoplasmonics experimental results. Not only do the photons and dipoles couple very strongly in the lattice, they also couple to the quantum vacuum as evidenced by the appearance of vacuum Rabi splitting in the spectroscopic analysis of the associated EMF photon radiation. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: YES! YES! YES! A rose by any other name regardless if you get there via Casimir geometry or plasmonics but enough energy to disassociate H2 at a discount less than you reap when it immediately reassociates. That is the common thread for MAHG, Mills , Rossi and many of the others all the way back to Langmuir.. I still think the plasmonics are feeding off the geometry but no matter we are definetly on the same page! I think the reproduction issue with these anomalies is only because they are self destructive and have to be throttled way back AND sink the energy away because even a little runaway will burn up in hotspots if not sunk from the moment of activation. [snip] These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, [/snip] Fran ** ** *From:* Teslaalset [mailto:robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, March 02, 2013 3:27 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: ** ** Axil, ** ** Interesting finding. Can youreward the associated source Nano letter, please? ** ** Thanks! Rob Woudenberg Op donderdag 28 februari 2013 schreef Axil Axil (janap...@gmail.com) het volgende: Hydrogen(H2) molecule dissociation to atomic hydrogen(H1) http://phys.org/news/2012-12-hot-electrons-impossible-catalytic-chemistry.html Hot electrons do the impossible in catalytic chemistry Professors Peter Nordlander and Naomi J. Halas of Rice University in Houston, Texas are at the cutting edge of the nanoplasmonic revolution. This field of study is where LENR properly belongs. These researchers found, as the main result of their study, that some of the hot electrons could transfer into the closed shells of the H2 molecules and cause the two hydrogen atoms to separate, or dissociate. This process, called plasmon-induced dissociation of H2 on Au, The researchers found that, as soon as they turned the laser on, the rate of HD formation on the nanoparticle surface increased by a factor of 6. They also measured that the rate was strongly dependent on the concentration and size of the gold nanoparticles. The researchers explained that, in a sense, the electrons do the impossible because there would be no dissociation without them. Nordlander said. It is an impossible chemical reaction. The energy for dissociation is simply too large. On other metals, like transition metals,
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger? The decision of whether to give money to study LENR will not depend on an engineering design, so why take this route? Why propose a toy concept using a phenomenon that is not understood, is not accepted, and for which no proof of concept exists. The other proposals do not have this handicap. I'm not suggesting that money not be requested. I'm only asking it be done in a serious way that does not look silly. Ed On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: From: Edmund Storms Ø [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control of temperature … Wait a minute. Why doesn’t the airflow from the fan control the temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves heated by the TEG ? Are you complaining that he did not show heat sensors and computer circuitry used to control airflow? You do realize that only a fraction of the electricity generated from the TEG drives the fan ? Presumably airflow is metered by a temperature sensor (not shown) but engineers do not need to see every detail, as it is implied and obvious. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger? I have to agree with Ed on this. I have criticized Dennis Cravens on similar grounds; i.e., the Model A does not make the demonstration easier to understand or more believable. If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Make the best calorimeter you can. I do not see any point to adding on a toy device. (The best calorimeter might not be the most precise or expensive, by the way.) If the toy was necessary to control the reaction then it would make sense. For example, if heat removal is the key to stabilizing the reaction. I do not think that is the case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop?
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop? Oh yeah. Sure, if you can pull that off on a reasonably large scale. But a small toy-like device would not be convincing because a battery can be hidden in it. Yes, you can run it for a long time to overcome that objection but there is induction or a fine wire or what-have-you. I remember as a kid making HO scale railroad gadgets with lights and moving parts that seemed stand-alone. I was assuming this would be a physically small device. Not sure of the details. The one that Dennis Cravens is talking about is ~10 W I think. That's too small for a convincing self-running machine. My gut feeling is that he should stick to a calorimeter. Somewhere around ~50 W, where the heat become undeniably tactile and you can produce significant electricity, maybe look at a toy. Arata made a toy at around 1 or 2 W with analog watch motor. It was unconvincing. Maybe I am confused about the scale or the use of the word toy, which may not imply a small device, but rather a simplified proof of principle device. Assuming Rossi's gadgets are real, just having one the size of a shoebox producing a kilowatt or so for week would be all the proof you need. Make it a hot water heater. The simplest method of HVAC calorimetry would be fine. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jed and I have an agreement to disagree. I personally don’t think that it all needs to be about proof or commercialization. After 24 years and many papers, I don’t think that “proof” is needed any longer. Proof is already there for those that wish to read the literature. Practical methods have been listed for those who what to do experiments. The problem is they don’t read and never visit a working lab. How many of them ever visited Case’s or Lett’s or Gimpel’s or my lab?? I will leave the “prove it to me” crowd to their own experiments and discussions. People talk and talk about experiments and never pick up a soldering iron or bottle of heavy water. They say do this and that but never do anything themselves. I have done most of the experiments that I wrote up on my own nickel- others are welcome to use their own ideas and do the same. I have just grown tired of doing experiments and want to have some fun and try some applications. It would be easy to just sit and type but I need a change of pace for my own motivation and peace of mind. You can only turn knobs for so long before you yearn for something else and I only have a few years of strength left to lift those Stainless steel vacuum chambers and such. Laugh if you will at my attempts but I am trying and doing what I can, with what I have, where I am (Roosevelt- paraphrase). Perhaps George just wants to try an application for his own pleasure. It is his path to choose. Be supportive and tolerant and let him travel it in peace. DennisDate: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:36:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger? I have to agree with Ed on this. I have criticized Dennis Cravens on similar grounds; i.e., the Model A does not make the demonstration easier to understand or more believable. If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Make the best calorimeter you can. I do not see any point to adding on a toy device. (The best calorimeter might not be the most precise or expensive, by the way.) If the toy was necessary to control the reaction then it would make sense. For example, if heat removal is the key to stabilizing the reaction. I do not think that is the case. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
so are you saying that small self running devices are not useful as proof? This seems at odds with what you told me. DennisDate: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:13:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I wrote: Assuming Rossi's gadgets are real, just having one the size of a shoebox producing a kilowatt or so for week would be all the proof you need. Make it a hot water heater. The simplest method of HVAC calorimetry would be fine. I guess what I am saying here is that a calorimeter is a self-running device, in a sense. It is the simplest version of a self-running machine. Especially with a gas loaded reaction. Arata's device supposedly ran for weeks with no input. As I said, it was driving a thermoelectric chip which drove a small analog watch motor, which made a piece of paper spin. Sometimes. When the heat was high. It was less impressive than you might think. When I saw it I thought, this would be a whole lot better with some real calorimetry instead of that watch motor. Arata's calorimetry is usually of very poor quality. This sure was. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I personally don’t think that it all needs to be about proof or commercialization. Well, it does if you want funding. Not if you are doing it for fun. After 24 years and many papers, I don’t think that “proof” is needed any longer. Proof is already there for those that wish to read the literature. I agree completely with that! In this case, we are not talking about proof that cold fusion exists but rather proof that: The implementation of cold fusion I am showing you here is well-controlled and it produces a reasonably high power density and temperature. Practical methods have been listed for those who what to do experiments. Not terribly practical. In my upcoming talk, I cite Fleischmann, Cravens and Storms. Fleischmann tells what kind of Pd to use; Cravens at ICCF4 tells how to prepare it; and Storms (How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect) tells more about how to prepare and also how to winnow out cathodes. Together these do constitute a recipe. But it takes a year to get a puny reaction that can only be measured with a good calorimeter. It will not impress a typical investor, alas. As for the Ni-H experiments, unless Rossi is real, I have no idea where you can find a reliable way to do the experiment. The problem is they don’t read and never visit a working lab. A lot of people who do read are unable to make a reliable reaction without a terrific amount of work. I will leave the “prove it to me” crowd to their own experiments and discussions. And they will leave you without a penny. If that does not bother you, fine, but I have heard you kvetch about it in the past. You can't expect support unless you meet them halfway. I have just grown tired of doing experiments and want to have some fun and try some applications. Frankly, I don't care for this dilettante approach. If I won the lottery and had money to burn, I would not give you much if your only goal is to have fun. Perhaps George just wants to try an application for his own pleasure. It is his path to choose. Be supportive and tolerant and let him travel it in peace. I am supportive in a sense I guess, but it is useless activity. I don't see why I should care about it. Science is only meaningful when the results are shared, and the results can only be shared when they are expressed in the idiom of science. Otherwise scientists will not understand you. I guess I have a low regard for fun. That is American puritanism winning out over my Caribbean hey mon, have some rum! piratical roots. I did love that move Pirates of the Caribbean. Commercialized nonsense but it spoke to me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: so are you saying that small self running devices are not useful as proof? It is a little complicated. The one that Arata made was too small. It did not impress me or the others who saw it. We could even imagine local temperature differences in the room producing that effect. Something on a larger scale would be useful proof. It is hard to quantify exactly what I mean, but that was the first actual self-running machine, and it was a disappointment. A calorimeter would have been better. If you can scale it up a tad above Arata, your are golden. I think perhaps to the point where the heat is palpable. That would make it very difficult to fake. Scale it up to a Rossi device and you can pitch out all science-experiment-scale instruments. Just use an ordinary thermometer and a graduated cylinder. Heck, just feel it and use your common sense. Rossi is right about that. His problem is that he chucks out the HVAC scale instruments too. Or he uses them ass-backwards without even plugging in the damn SD card, probably to make himself look bad. I suppose. Who knows? This is really a matter of taste. As I said, a calorimeter IS a self-running machine. The distinction is somewhat artificial. It is a matter of taste, but not just my taste. We are talking about the taste of people with gigabucks burning a hole in their pockets, so what they want to see should be important to anyone who wants this field to survive. If all you want to do is have fun and you don't really care whether humanity gets cold fusion or not, then you should do it any way your heart desires. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
OK, it's another chance to speak on April 4 - at MIT! On 3/5/13 3:28 PM, Ruby wrote: I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I agree 100% Terry..the best way -by far- to convince the majority of skeptics is a self-running machine. Maybe the only way. There are tons of calorimetry data already at the watt and subwatt level. We need some drama at this stage. A self-runner should be high on the list. Speaking of staged drama, there is always the message of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Reaction_%28film%29 But don't chuckle too loudly as it could very easily be the case that LENR does involve a certain kind of chain reaction to reach a reliable level of operation. Of course, it is NOT a neutron chain reaction, as in fission, but it could involve subatomic bosons of some kind instead, or even a QM probability field critical-mass level. If there is such a requirement, and who is to say that there isn't - then something akin to a critical-mass of nanopowder will provide the basis of a self-runner, and the material cost is too expensive for anyone without deep pockets to do on their own - even a University would balk at the up-front cost. For the sake of argument, let's say one of Miley's graduate assistants ran a computer simulation based on the nanopowder of Arata, Ahern and others - and Lenuco based its proposal on that simulation. it envisions the need for say 20 kilograms of 10 nm nickel alloy. The going price is around $17/gram, but in this volume QSI would do it for $200,000. This kind of circumstance may never get done without ARPA-E money. In fact, we should applaud any effort to jump-start LENR by using a much larger format. It simply hasn't been done and it is hard to rule out until it is done. From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop?
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
But this is not a demonstrated device. It is a drawing of what Miley would like to see work. I could provide a drawing also, but where would I get the fuel? The fuel is the problem. Once a fuel that makes a lot of heat for long periods is available, the engineering design will follow. This is getting the cart before the horse. In fact, it is a proposed design of a cart before the horse is even known to exist. Suppose the best design is a thin coating of active material on a heat pipe to which a source of ions is supplied, which is a likely configuration. The design Miley suggested would not be useful. The purpose of submitting this design is to get funding to explore LENR, not to show how it can be applied. Once the phenomenon is understood, the application designs will be endless. Ed On Mar 5, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that keeps saying the best proof is a self running machine? Closed loop? Oh yeah. Sure, if you can pull that off on a reasonably large scale. But a small toy-like device would not be convincing because a battery can be hidden in it. Yes, you can run it for a long time to overcome that objection but there is induction or a fine wire or what-have-you. I remember as a kid making HO scale railroad gadgets with lights and moving parts that seemed stand-alone. I was assuming this would be a physically small device. Not sure of the details. The one that Dennis Cravens is talking about is ~10 W I think. That's too small for a convincing self-running machine. My gut feeling is that he should stick to a calorimeter. Somewhere around ~50 W, where the heat become undeniably tactile and you can produce significant electricity, maybe look at a toy. Arata made a toy at around 1 or 2 W with analog watch motor. It was unconvincing. Maybe I am confused about the scale or the use of the word toy, which may not imply a small device, but rather a simplified proof of principle device. Assuming Rossi's gadgets are real, just having one the size of a shoebox producing a kilowatt or so for week would be all the proof you need. Make it a hot water heater. The simplest method of HVAC calorimetry would be fine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I agree 100% Terry….the best way -by far- to convince the majority of skeptics is a self-running machine. ** ** Maybe the only way. There are tons of calorimetry data already at the watt and subwatt level. We need some drama at this stage. A self-runner should be high on the list. But not when it is done in a piss-poor implementation the way Arata did it. That's my point. He proved you can make a self-running machine that does not even come close to convincing *me*, and I am an easy sell. A self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I just think that Dennis could get a lot of attention if the media caught on to a vehicle running around a track for a day, then a week, then a month . . . That little Bunny has been a great ad for batteries. It has survived for . . . how many years? It is now a icon. Go, Dennis!
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
I just posted on my Free Energy Truth Facebook page. We have over 19,000 members, so should get a vote or two ;-) Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up From: Ruby r...@hush.com Date: Wed, March 06, 2013 9:28 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I will post this up on Cold Fusion Now. But can anyone say what we are voting for? is it for a chance to speak? funding? The website does not explain much... I would like to give some more info than just please vote. Ruby On 3/5/13 11:04 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 10 days remaining! LENR Distributed Power Units By George Miley -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
JedA self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. OK, you are in the proof mode again..OK what are your specific requirements?What elements do you hope to see? Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds
Interestingly, this story is in the news today: Russia carries out its 'biggest nuclear army drill in two decades' as Pentagon plays down its concerns http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288579/Russia-carries-biggest-nuclear-test-decades-Pentagon-plays-concerns.html Russia apparently conducted the largest nuclear war drill in 2 decades last month. The drills started on February 17th, 2 days after the Russian meteor and asteroid DA14 flybys. Presumably the drills were planned well in advance and the date of the drills was selected in advance, but it's also plausible that the drills weren't planned and or that the date of Feb. 17th for starting the drills wasn't chosen in advance. The article also notes that there has been an increase in Russian strategic bomber activity in the US Pacific and that the Russians simulated bombing runs against Alaska and California this past summer. Does this new information suggest anything about the probabilities we have been considering? From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor coincidence odds Yes you missed something. You missed this part of my post: the motive of concocting such a coincidence would be to telegraph a message to intelligence agencies that You will notice we sent the asteroid's little brother in a controlled shallow-angle entry. Think what we could have done? Notice, also, how we've made your politicians who posit a US weapon system look like baffoons -- we still possess plausible deniability hiding behind an act of God propaganda. This has the Heinleinesque feature that it may be a bluff based on a very limited capacity to actually deliver such kinetic energy weapons from nonterrestrial resources -- a limit that would be very very difficult for adversaries to place reasonable error bars on. Foreign policy implications are still at issue here but, for crying out loud, aren't there enough potential reasons for conflict between Russia and the US? On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:54 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Are you saying the meteor itself was a kinetic energy weapon? Because it did not hit anything. It exploded. Am I missing something? A kinetic energy penetrator (also known as a KE weapon) is a type of ammunition which, like a bullet, does not contain explosives and uses kinetic energy to penetrate the target. Stewart On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, James Bowery wrote: On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery wrote: At this point I'm not really interested in confirmation. I have all the confirmation I need to summarily reject the sheer coincidence explanation with just the two events. It seems to me you have to have a plausible mechanism to confirm that something is not a coincidence. You have to show how these two rocks affected one-another, or came from the same place. Statistics alone cannot prove a connection. Certainly not in this case, since there are many undiscovered rocks in space. I agree proximately but disagree ultimately. By proximate agreement, I agree that if one does not have an explanation that is at least as plausible as sheer coincidence then one has to behave, in some sense, as though one was merely very unlucky to have witnessed such a low probability event with nearly eschatological ramifications. By ultimate disagreement, simple application of decision tree discipline demands that one invest some resources in discovering a common cause, whether artificial or natural, that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis -- which is, on its face, not very plausible. I already made that investment and have satisfied myself there is an artificial explanation that is at least as plausible as the sheer coincidence hypothesis. Apparently you missed it: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg77055.html The least plausible aspect of this explanation is that a government could actually keep deep cover on the expenditure of a few tens of billions of dollars. All the technologies required are Apollo era, preliminary studies are published in peer reviewed journals decades old and the motive presented by the Reagan Administration's SDI leading up to the START treaty is clear. Means motive and opportunity galore.
Re: [Vo]:the quantum computer and LENR are brothers
From: francis [mailto:froarty...@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:45 PM To: 'janap...@gmail.com' Subject: Re: [Vo]:the quantum computer and LENR are brothers Axil, energy has to be coming from the vacuum field fluctuations.. as you say the self stimulation is driven by and there really is no other source of energy to bootstrap this process. You also made reference to the randomness of the vacuum energy within the nano-cavity a geometry which Jones has described previously as approaching the 2d limit. a very novel situation where the randomness is confined to fewer axis and the cancellation of virtual particle interactions and therefore COE is called into question. Fran [snip] In the low excitation limit, the polariton parametric scattering is a spontaneous process driven by vacuum-field fluctuations whereas, already at moderate excitation intensity, it displays self-stimulation. In either of these two cases where the fusion energy goes is directed by the luck of the draw and the randomness of the vacuum energy within the nano-cavity.[/snip] Axil Axil http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Axil+Axi l%22 Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:41:47 -0800 http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130304 Quantum complementarity is the essential feature distinguishing quantum from classical physics. When two physical observables are complementary, the precise knowledge of one of them makes the other unpredictable. The most known manifestation of this principle is the property of quantum-mechanical entities to behave either as particles or as waves under different experimental conditions. The link between quantum correlations, quantum nonlocality and Bohr's complementarity principle was established in a series of which-way experiments, in which the underlying idea is the same as in Young's double-slit experiment. Due to its wave-like nature, a particle can be set up to travel along a quantum superposition of two different paths, resulting in an interference pattern. If however a which-way detector is employed to determine the particle's path, the particle like behavior takes over and an interference pattern is no longer observed. These experiments have brought evidence that the loss of interference is not necessarily a consequence of the back action of a measurement process. Quantum complementarity is rather an inherent property of a system, enforced by quantum correlations. This manifestation of quantum mechanics enables random fusion energy distribution for cavity polaritons. Polaritons in micro-cavities are hybrid quasiparticles consisting of a superposition of cavity photons and two-dimensional collective electronic excitations (excitons) in an embedded quantum well. Owing to their mutual Coulomb interaction, pump polaritons generated by a resonant optical excitation can scatter resonantly into pairs of polaritons (signal and idler). In the low excitation limit, the polariton parametric scattering is a spontaneous process driven by vacuum-field fluctuations whereas, already at moderate excitation intensity, it displays self-stimulation. In either of these two cases where the fusion energy goes is directed by the luck of the draw and the randomness of the vacuum energy within the nano-cavity. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/25 *Viewpoint: Catch and Release of Photons* Polaritons are a hot topic in quantum mechanics and Nanoplasmonics. The chase to build the first quantum computer requires control of entanglement ( the qubit) is intricate detail and the polariton is a great way to meet this requirement. . The referenced article states that the polariton exists in a state of QM superposition with the other members of its ensemble in a micro cavity. This is critical for the thermalization of fusion energy because the polariton will share its energy between all its entangled ensemble members when the fusion event occurs. This transfer of energy results in decoherence of the entangled states. The nano-cavity will rapidly reinitiate the BEC and the next fusion of a polariton can occur. The development of the quantum computer is a boon to the development of LENR. Be grateful for small favors. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
Proof: Use a machine with a mass, M, to raise the temperature of a body of water, L, from a starting temperature of C1 to C2, in time T, using P for input power (batteries or measured electric power.) Any values that surpass known chemical means will be satisfactory. Any LENR system that can't heat up a tub of water more efficiently than an electric coil is not ready for turbo fans and thermoelectric anything. Rossi was able to obfuscate his October results by the same tactic of using a heat exchanger in a similar way. - Brad On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM, DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: -- JedA self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. OK, you are in the proof mode again.. OK what are your *specific *requirements? What elements do you hope to see? Dennis
Re: [Vo]:
[snip] Not only do the photons and dipoles couple very strongly in the lattice, they also couple to the quantum vacuum as evidenced by the appearance of vacuum Rabi splitting in the spectroscopic analysis of the associated EMF photon radiation.[/snip] Axil, not sure what you reference as vacuum Rabi splitting but suspect you are citing unusual interaction with virtual particles similar to Casimir theory or the recent articles on creating real particles from virtual using an electronic mirror being moved around near the speed of light. My posit is these photonic properties are also derived from the same confinement of longer vacuum wavelengths responsible for Casimir effect and would even suggest the longer wavelengths are stretching space-time in the cavity to make room for themselves and in doing so are exchanging time for energy to power your polaritons. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
DJ Cravens djcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: JedA self running machine has to incorporate some design elements that make it obvious the thing is not fake. OK, you are in the proof mode again.. OK what are your *specific *requirements? I started a new thread to untangle the confusion: You need an electric generator with electrolysis but not gas loading. As a general rule, the simpler you can make it, the better. Assuming we are talking about gas loading where no electrolysis or electric power is needed, then: Below a certain power level and power density, you need some sort of conventional laboratory-scale calorimetry. I guess it is around 10 to 50 W, depending on the operating temperature. Above that you can use the Rossi approach with HVAC style instruments and sense of touch. I think I speak for a broader audience when I say the simpler the better. I have discussed this with a broad range of people. Do not add an electric generator unless you *must have one* to keep the reaction going. Do not add anything you do not need (such as a Model A Ford!). It will confuse the issue and distract from the point you are trying to prove. That which you *do not need* you *should not have*. You add more ways for the experiment to go wrong, and you make people wonder what you are up to. People are not stupid. They can see that a large chunk of your experiment serves no purpose. When I say fake what I really mean is both fake and/or badly designed. The two amount to the same thing. A fake is where the researcher tries to fool other people; a poor design is where the researcher fools himself. Arata's experiments are badly designed. I am sorry to say, I have pretty much concluded that Celani's recent experiments was badly designed -- as McKubre said in Korea. Rossi's experiments are actually pretty good in design, but atrocious in implementation!!! I, or anyone else, could fix his problems in a half-hour, and make his experiments completely believable. I, and many others, have suggested to him various ways to do this, which he has steadfastly ignored. That is what makes me think he is deliberately obfuscating. He isn't stupid! Experiments by FP, Miles, McKubre or Storms are the epitome of elegance, and transparent understand-ability. Every component is there for a purpose. The purpose is obvious. There is nothing you do not need that distracts from the goal of the experiment, or confuses the viewer. These experiments all use conventional calorimetry as opposed to a self-sustaining machine or HVAC large-scale calorimetry. They had no choice about that. They could not do it on a larger scale. If you can scale it up a little from the 1990s FP style experiments, you can simplify the calorimetry and make things easier to understand and therefore more believable, which enhances the presentation. As I said, the goal should be prove to the audience: The implementation of cold fusion I am showing you here is well-controlled and it produces a reasonably high power density and temperature. What elements do you hope to see? As I said, the specifics depend on whether it is electrolysis or gas loading, and what the power density, temperature and other operating characteristics are. A Rossi cell a couple of liters in size running at 1 kW would be ideal for any purpose. Better by far than his 1 MW reactor. If I had that, I could bring a billion dollars into this field in a few months. Rossi could too, if he could only put aside his ego and act in his own best interests. Without knowing the specific operating capabilities of a particular device it is difficult to spell out what would make the best demonstration. I can generalize, as I have done here. I could be a lot more specific if I knew the technical details: size, shape, temperature, power. Not only that, but I could ask the people who matter what they want to see, and I could present the experiment to them in a way they will appreciate. I am pretty good at explaining things. Better than most researchers, I daresay. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Because the scientific establishment is so certain LENR doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter what tests are run by anybody or academic group. It will always be instrument error or “claimed to be” or the error du jour. The scientific establishment is an abstraction. It is not a real body. There is no single group constituting that establishment that meets in a building somewhere, like a Congress, and reaches unanimous conclusions. Even if a majority of scientists remain unconvinced by a good demonstration, thousands of others will be convinced. I know this because I get ~10,000 visitors to LENR-CANR.org every week. A significant fraction of them are convinced. It is impossible to say how many, but I am sure it is in the tens of thousands. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthefuturem.pdf Rossi might have easily convinced a hundred thousand engineers and scientists. As he repeatedly said, I will do no tests. That meant he was not trying to convince anyone other than a few investors and customers. He is trying to keep it secret, just as Patterson did. I hope I’m wrong but having followed this since day one it looks like the only proof they will accept is commercial sale of working units. Let’s hope Rossi’s 1 MW Hot Cat plant really is being built and will surface soon. Let us hope so. But even if it exists I expect Rossi will do all that he can to prevent people from find out, or from believing it. Many other inventors throughout the ages have done this, stretching back to the 18th century. - Jed
[Vo]:Artificial Aurora
NRL Scientists Produce Densest Artificial Ionospheric Plasma Clouds Using HAARP http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2013/nrl-scientists-produce-densest-artificial-ionospheric-plasma-clouds-using-haarp Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: Wealth and Inequality in U.S.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: The solution is to stop taking money from people against their will, using threats of violence. The idea that we can improve society if only we can threaten enough people, and take enough money from them, is preposterous. I cannot think of a more effective way to widen the gap between haves and have-nots than to repeal existing taxes. I appreciate the differing opinions on this list -- it's one of the few places where there's a genuine dialog on these topics that goes beyond sound-bites. But it is hard for me to see how there would be an occasion for confusion on this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Responses to four questions from Ron Maimon
A further reply from Ron, below. Eric The stopping distance is around 600 atoms according to Spaandonk, and I don't dispute the theoretical value, but I don't know if this is accurate, it can be larger or smaller, because the calculations are theoretical, and this energy regime is comparable to the energy levels involved, so experiment is the best way. The reason that the deuterons have unnatural concentration near the nucleus is precisely because of the repulsion--- they turn around at a distance of 100 fermis from the nucleus. This is because their kinetic energy is equal to the potential energy of an electron-hole in a K-shell, so that you get stopping at exactly the K-shell radius, give or take a factor of 2. The turn-around region is where the wavefunction is most concentrated, because semi-classical wavefunctions go as 1 over the square root of the speed. This enhancement is like a beam-focusing device. Robin is right that there are two parts to test--- the fusion and the Auger transfer. The Auger transfer one knows how to test, but this is likely to work, but the details of the banding are still mysterious. The other part is the fusion rates. This is confounding to me. The beam experiments did not see excess heat, because the number of fusions is ridiculously miniscule, it's a beam with order 10^10 particles, not a macroscopic amount of stuff. They see fusion products only. The way I was hoping to investigate the 3-body fusion is through a theoretical model of the proton-neutron force, and the experimental data on the alpha-4 resonance. This should allow one to theoretically calculate the electrostatic matrix element between the high energy states and the ground state, although it's hard, because the resonance data is so crappy. Other than that, I'm stuck, because I can't think of any circumstance where you would see 3-body events other than in cold fusion. So the actual rate needs to be attacked theoretically, and it's annoyingly hard. I'll think about it again soon, I have been doing biology for the past months. Thanks to Robin for the considered comments. On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The stopping power of a material to 20 keV deuterons should be about the same as for 10 keV protons. There is a handy online calculator available for the latter at http://www.physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/PSTAR.html. Since Pd is not on their list of materials, I chose Silver which is next to it in the Periodic Chart, and hence has almost the same electron density as Pd. This results in a CSDA range of 0.182 microns, or about 630 atoms.
Re: [Vo]:Responses to four questions from Ron Maimon
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:43:21 -0800: Hi, [snip] A further reply from Ron, below. Eric The stopping distance is around 600 atoms according to Spaandonk, and I don't dispute the theoretical value, but I don't know if this is accurate, it can be larger or smaller, because the calculations are theoretical, and this energy regime is comparable to the energy levels involved, so experiment is the best way. True, note however that Deuterons can only penetrate to near the K shell while they still have most of their energy, so the useful range is likely to be less, perhaps much less. The reason that the deuterons have unnatural concentration near the nucleus is precisely because of the repulsion--- they turn around at a distance of 100 fermis from the nucleus. This is because their kinetic energy is equal to the potential energy of an electron-hole in a K-shell, so that you get stopping at exactly the K-shell radius, give or take a factor of 2. The turn-around region is where the wavefunction is most concentrated, because semi-classical wavefunctions go as 1 over the square root of the speed. This enhancement is like a beam-focusing device. Thanks, understood. Robin is right that there are two parts to test--- the fusion and the Auger transfer. The Auger transfer one knows how to test, but this is likely to work, but the details of the banding are still mysterious. The other part is the fusion rates. This is confounding to me. I have a Mathcad file that makes an estimate of fusion rates based on separation distance if Ron is interested. Note however that it assumes a constant distance, so will overestimate the rate. However he may be able to adapt it to suit his needs. [snip] Other than that, I'm stuck, because I can't think of any circumstance where you would see 3-body events other than in cold fusion. So the actual rate needs to be attacked theoretically, and it's annoyingly hard. I used muon catalyzed fusion as a base. That should at least provide a ballpark estimate, then he can guess whether the D+D-He4 rate would be higher or lower. My guess would be that because the limiting factor is essentially the tunneling time, the rate would be about the same (once the 2 D's are together, they are going to react, one way or another. Only the branching ratio is determined by other factors such as conservation of momentum), and when it comes to energy production, the actual resulting reaction is not really so important anyway. (There is plenty of D to last a very long time. :) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
